EWTN

Bergoglio goes for low-hanging theological fruit, and neo-Catholics largely let him get away with it - Sunday 29th of July to Saturday 4th of August

There is really only one place to start this week and that is with the news that Bergoglio has altered the John Paul II Catechism to read that the death penalty is now  "inadmissible" in all circumstances because it violates "human dignity" . That God Himself in the Bible did not realise this, or the various Church fathers, or Doctors of the Church, or all the popes up until Bergoglio ought to get us suspicious.

I cannot do justice to the arguments against this latest heresy by Bergoglio so I shall simply leave it to you to have a look at the links below, one of which is from OnePeter5 and is titled "Pope Francis Is Wrong about the Death Penalty. Here’s Why." Rorate Caeli ran one under the title "What was black is now white".

The one thing I shall note is that the argument that Bergoglio uses is one that is expressly condemned by the Catechism of Trent. Bergoglio argues that using the death penalty deprives the convict of the chance of conversion. The Catechism of Trent tells us, in rather common-sensical terms, that he who knows that his life will end and is granted the grace of knowing when will scarcely convert at a later time if he cannot do it while at the point of oncoming death. So Bergoglio's argument is not even original, and is one which has been put down before as nonsensical.

It is interesting to note that the only person Bergoglio can quote to rationalise his new posture is himself, continuing his now-growing list of novelties by self-quotation.

As usual, the neo-Catholics were mostly out in force proving that they are part of the problem. To watch EWTN reporting that "the pope has changed the Church's teaching on the death penalty" or the "pope has strengthened the Church's opposition to the death penalty" would have  been to come away with the conclusion that a pope can change the Church's teaching. The Papal Pose was misex, with Fr. Murray arguing that it was a break, and Robert Royal at his usual neo-Catholic best when responding that canonists will have to determine whether it is 'de fide', when asked that by Arroyo. It's striking that these people are there to respond as experts and they do not even know that catechisms are not in and of themselves infallible, not even the venerable Catechism of Trent. They ought, however, to contain infallible truths.

Some of the Novus Ordites argued that it is a case of the pope implanting his prudential judgement and that we should take it seriously, having been offered this opinion. Excuse me, but the Catechism is there to tell us what the Church teaches explicitly, not to argue for selective enforcement of prudential judgements, regardless of where they hail!

This is nothing short of heresy because the Church has taught definitively about this issue from her beginning, and God has made it clear that the death penalty can be justifiably imposed by legitimate authority. To argue otherwise is to do nothing short of lying, and to pass it off to others it to shirk responsibility.

What is clear is that Bergoglio has gone after low-hanging theological fruit. He knows that even among those who argue for the licitness of the death penalty, many are opposed to it in practice. The death penalty is only available in a few countries and even in these it is rarely used. He knows that people will not die on 'death penalty hill', so to speak, protesting "thus far but no farther!" We can, however, be sure that if Bergoglio gets away with this he will not stop there.

The arguments he puts forward for it, namely that people nowadays have a realisation that the death penalty is opposed to human dignity, can be used to rationalise pretty much every heresy and Church teaching which is not popular with the modernists. It is pretty much what he has attempted to do with divorce and remarriage and you can be sure that he is testing waters by formally changing the Catechism on the death penalty. Next up on the line might just be your favourite teaching.

Some have argued that Bergoglio only did this to divert attention from the McCarrick scandal - given that it involves one of his closest aides - while others have argued that even with Bergoglio being an idiot, using heresy as deflection is a move too dumb even for him. I am not sure there is anything so dumb that Bergoglio will not do it, so I'll not dismiss the theory entirely.  I too was initially drawn to the theory that he used it as a distraction from the McCarrick scandal. However, I do pride myself in thinking outside the box, and I have wondered: What if the reverse is true?

What if Bergoglio used the McCarrick scandal to introduce formal heresy into the teaching of the Church? What if the McCarrick scandal was itself the distraction? Most of the Catholic and secular media is pre-occupied with other stuff anyway, and there is no better time to poison  the Church's  already-sub-standard Catechism . If he pulls it back on account of major opposition (yeah, as if Bergoglio listens to anyone!) then it will hardly be headline news. If it sticks, then he can use it as reference for even further heresy, knowing that EWTN and the rest of  the neo-Catholic establishment has his back arguing as dishonestly as ever that we need to try and take onboard something which is obviously a heresy simply because the pope has put his weight behind it.

I have often maintained that neo-Catholics, or 'conservative Catholics', will reject every heresy unless it comes from the pope. This incident proves me right, yet again!

All I can say is that I am in total agreement with Christopher Ferrara that The Reversible Magisterium...

The Roman Rite gets in a good punch once in a while, vicious attacks on traditionalists not withstanding - Sunday 25th of February to Saturday 3rd of March

There are very many neo-Catholics who look down smugly on traditionalists. They want to claim that they still hold to the Catholic faith but do not soil their hands by mixing with those who question disastrous multiple (im)prudential decisions by the Holy See since Vatican II.

In "An attack on older Traditional Catholics in the Catholic Herald", Joseph Shaw chronicled a new type of Catholic - the "self-hating self-righteous not-really-trad Trad" as evidenced by Michael Davis, writing for the Catholic Herald. In his piece he managed to cobble up just about the most extreme caricatures of traditionalists, while claiming that he is a traditionalist, but of the friendly type. He trashed the older generation of traditionalists while praising the novus traditionalists of whom he obviously counts himself.

My regard for the Catholic Herald went down the drain with the Libyan war, which they cheered as enthusiastically as the war propaganda room of NATO. Things have not improved under Bergoglio but have only gotten worse. Occasionally we have a piece which is provocatively truthful, but for the most part whenever they cover anything remotely political you can count on it being anti-Russian propaganda, and when  it comes to Church news, their reporting is often less than stellar, and they often gloss over the most offensive utterances of Bergoglio for nobody-knows-why. I am therefore not surprised that their new American editor found time to write such a vitriolic piece attacking traditionalists.

Sticking to that newspaper, we had a piece by Francis Philips titled "How many of us would truly resist an evil regime?" Its focal point was a woman who died not long ago, but who is best known for serving as a secretary for Goebbels, Nazi Germany's propaganda general. I only bring this up to highlight the lack of self-reflection to which we can all fall victim. As I wrote previously, the Catholic Herald and I have fallen out, so it may well be that Miss/Mrs. Philips has been writing about the diabolical scheming of Bergoglio in the most resistant of ways. I suspect she hasn't. It could also be that she has been shouting from the rooftops and denouncing the British government as it has attacked the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the facts of nature, and armed Islamists who have killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East while driving out millions from their home. I suspect she has done none of that either.

In essentials, modern U.K. is every bit an evil regime as was the Nazis - most visibly with its callous disregard for human life and its incessant attack on the family -, but Francis Philips has done little to resist it. In essentials, the Bergoglio regime is even worse than the Nazis, since the Nazis - we are led to believe - wanted the death of our bodies, whereas Bergoglio seems hell-bent to see our souls damned for eternity. She has done even less to resist that, I suspect. So the question is open as to how many of us would resist an evil regime, but we can be relatively certain that Miss/Mrs. Philip wouldn't recognise one unless it popped up in her schoolbooks.

Without a hint of irony she asks us "How many of us would resist an evil regime?" That one can be so blind as to one's surroundings should concern us all.

I shall stick to the "evil regime" of the U.K. and illustate my point. We had yet another case of a child being pulled off child support by a judge against the wishes of his parents. This is a death sentence with a twist though, as the judge cited Bergoglio as justification for his decision to have the child die. This comes, of course, hot on the heels of the Charlie Gard story in which the judges denied a child the chance for experimental treatment because they wanted the child to die in a U.K. hospital. The diabolical Bergoglio effect on full display.

Moving onto the Church in the U.K., we are told that the number of Catholic weddings falls by two-thirds since 1990. So much for the sprintime of Vatican II. I doubt the quality of marriages is as high as it was before the Council either.

With yet another blasphemous Vatican stamp, this time with a homo-erotic presentation of some approximation of some Christ-like figure, Fr. Ray Blake asks "Where is the Vatican going?"

Finally, to finish of the theme of the United Kingdom, we have some good news, with Graeme Garvey mapping the English Catholic martyrs on a map that is now available online. The map is non-interactive, but I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this layman and hope to emulate his efforts in one way or another down the road, in paying homage, however unworthily, to our Catholic forebears and the sacrifice they paid.

There is normally enough bad news in BergoglioChurch to leave one depressed for a week, and hardly a week goes by without a paedophilia/pederasty/homosexual scandal from a higly-placed cleric. It's depressing, and it's oftentimes demoralising and I wish I could just ignore it but we have to face NOChurch as it is. This week was no exception, as a former diocesan vocations director priest in the U.S. was arresed for homosexual sex assault on a 17-year old boy/man. I'll spare you the details.

Cardinal Cupich was up to his old Bergoglio-approved sin-promoting ways, and Fr. Gerald Murray took him to task for it.

Since the U.S. does not have the same simoniacal church tax system  that the Germans have, and that Sweden has - although to a less nefarious degree - one has the option of refusing to support a bishop who one knows is causing harm to the faith. In " Excellent Idea For Annual Bishop/Cardinal Appeal" , the author argues for withholding money from one's diocese if one has...

Some good news out of Europe for a change - Sunday 26th of November to Saturday 2nd of December

Given the general somewhat-negative emphasis of this blog, I feel duty-bound to begin with some rare good news - Catholic or secular - coming out of Europe. These news come from Poland, perhaps not entirely surprisingly.

I have my misgivings about the apparent re-Catholicisation of Poland, being generally wary of the nationalistic bend it seems to have. Anyone who knows me will know that I support nationalists in all their stripes, so long as they don't bring with them baggage of ethnic or racial ideologies. I can't claim that I have seen much of that in Poland, but I am still suspicious that the modest but noteworthy increase in Catholic social life in Poland has more to do with the Poles trying to craft out a national identity. In this  context, turning to Catholicism works very well since it unites a large chunk of Poles - presumably even German Poles - given that it is not on purely ethnic lines, and they can be unified in Catholic grandeur, which built all that is good about Europe. It also manages to differentiate Poland from its secularist/atheist enemies to the West and North - primarily Germany and the Nordic countries -  and it's long-time Orthodox adversaries - in the form of Russia - to the East. It also allows them to keep out Muslims on the culture card, without getting into issues of Islam itself.

Credit where credit is due though, and the news that Poland was going to phase out Sunday trade by the year 2020 was some of the best news that I have heard or read in a very long time. It is something which wreaks of a true religious revival - which whatever the intentions from the political class - might actually end up being long-lasting, regardless of who comes to or stays in power in the country. Naturally the leftists, or so I have been informed, were opposed to it, but it would seem as though the cultural marxist's general treachery to the Polish people will not be soon forgotten and it would seem as though the Law and Justice party or some similar nationalistic entity in Poland will be there for a while.

Furthermore, it is politically difficult to get rid of Sunday as a day of rest given that I am pretty sure that the Sunday rest was abolished by the communists, and one does not make many friends in Poland by making oneself a defender of Soviet policies. It's a very shrewd political move, and I applaud it unhesitatingly.

Sticking to Europe, we have more proof of its downfall in a handful of stories. In Germany and other places they have started decorating their 'diversity barriers', wrapping them up as Christmas presents. That's the most appropriate term for the barriers that they have put up on pedestrian walkways and roads leading to Christmas markets. Since we all know why they have to be put up in the first place, it would be much more honest to just paint a picture of Mohammed on them rather than pretend that they are part of the Christmas attire. I should point out that the town centre close to where I live has also put up diversity barriers - presumably to protect its Christmas market -, but alas has not gone to the trouble of wrapping up.

We were also informed that the Muslim population in Europe is set to grow, up to 25% of the population in some places, by the year 2050, and that is with zero immigration.

The Muslims do the right thing in having children, and that is to be applauded. It is the West which is to be chided for deriding the miracle of procreation. That snobbery may well prove to be its downfall, and it will be just reward for its open-armed embrace of the culture of death.

In the U.K. there was a feminist march, and feminists did what they do best which is to display their stupidity and entitlement. One of them even took the trouble to inform people that the Bible is more violent than the Koran. She should know, she told us, being a former Catholic herself. It has featured as one of my day's comments, but I'll reproduce 2 very poignant parts of the analysis from Tantumblogo. The first one clearly lays the blame for the woman's ignorance for the Novus Ordo, and I naturally agree:

“I’ve read passages [of the Koran] and the Bible is a lot more violent.  I should know, I’m a former Catholic.”  Another triumph for the post-conciliar Church!

The second one was his take on feminism itself, and feminists in general:

Which brings me to my final point – I will probably offend some in saying this, or how I say this, but I have long had a sense that many feminists are really little more than out of control teenage daughters who keep acting more and more outrageously in the increasingly forlorn hope that “dad” – society, males at large, whatever – will rein them in.  And the longer they are allowed to continue acting out, the more hurt and upset and, subsequently radicalized, they become.  It’s like they are a toddler constantly trying to find some boundary that daddy will set for them.  In their rage in finding none in the collectively weak Western men of the past 60 years, they will even turn to the cruel, draconian authoritarianism of islam to find some entity that seems to care about them enough to tell them no, to set firm limits, and make them turn over the dang car keys.

It is difficult to disagree with that either. As I wrote in my comment to the bizarreness of the whole spectacle:

I am also at a loss to understand what these women are marching for, given that the laws in most formerly Christian countries can hardly favour women more. The

...

Pages

Subscribe to EWTN