NOChurch

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 shortest comeback in sporting history and a month-full of NOChurch news, if you can stomach it - Sunday 24th of June to Saturday 21st of July

On day 3 of what was supposed to be an almost 2-week vacation, I managed to injure myself in what must be the shortest sporting comeback in history, after a very long sports 'retirement'. It meant that my holiday wasn't what it was supposed to be, but it also meant that I managed to do a lot more reading than I had intended

This entry covers the week prior to my vacation as well as the week afterwards, since I did try to stay as much away from the computer as I could. As usual, I shall try to keep it short. I shall probably fail in that aim, as usual.

As June 30th marked the 30th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations conducted by Archbishop Marce Lefebvre in 1988, Rorate Caeli saw it fit to commemmorate this with a 3-part series 3-part series documenting the events which led up to it. It becomes clear that Lefebvre was not looking for a fight and that Cardinal Ratzinger did his best to try and stop the consecrations proceeding without Vatican approval. Take place they did, however, and one is left with an incomplete picture of exactly why it was that the Vatican held off its approval. Given how much else the Vatican had allowed to get out of control, it is striking that the one thing they managed to crack down on in the harshest of ways in the 1980s was the consecration of bishops whose purpose it was to continue doing what the Church had always done.

One cannot help but feel that there were agents in the Vatican who either wanted Marcel Lefebvre to die, and with him any organised clerical resistance to the Novus Ordo, or wanted to provoke a consecration without  Vatican's approval, so that they could ostracise those who held tradition dear and who opposed all the disastrous changes that were introduced following Vatican II. Scheming against tradition is one of few things NOChurch has managed to do efficiently, after all.

As if to highlight the scheming against Catholic tradition, we had news that Fr. Frank Phillips of the Order of St. John Cantius in Chicago had his his faculties for public ministry withdrawn despite beingexonerated of the charges of sexual misconduct brought against him. That the man in charge of the archdiocese of Chicago is arch-homosexualist and arch-modernist Cupich, one of Bergoglio's favourites, should surprise nobody.

A few weeks previously, I had written that we should expect Bergoglio to come up with a major heresy after he had attacked eugenics and abortion (and according to some gmarriage) in a speech to a pro-family organisation in Italy. Bergoglio did not take long to prove me right and on a flight back from Geneva to celebrate and promote ecumenism (nothing more than NOChurch speak for religious indifferentism), he informed us that  local bishops should decide on intercommunion. This, of course, came just several weeks after the Vatican had stopped the Germans from issuing intercommunion guidelines.

Not content with promoting heresy, Bergoglio once again proved himself to be a liar when he claimed that he only found out about the Amoris Laetitia dubia through the media  neo-Catholics took realised was an outright lie , an assertion which even neo-Catholics took realised was an outright lie and traditionalists found it as  more proof (if any were needed)  that Bergoglio is a petty idiot. Even if we somehow manage to convince ourselves that he was telling the truth, we are left with the fact that he is a heretic and a disgrace because it has been almost 2 years now since the dubia was issued, so he has no excuse for defending Church teaching. Instead, the has clarified time and time again that he wanted to teach heresy.

With Bergoglio, one can almost always expect bad to dovetail into sheer absurdity, and so it was when he declared not too long afterwards that consecrated virgins no longer have to be virgins, among other craziness, in yet more Bergoglio legislation designed to destroy religious life. He is relentless on attacking consecrated religious life.

It should therefore not surprise us that over in Germany, NOChurch central, Bergoglio's fellow ingrates are doing the same thiung. We were informed that Cdl. Marx is making himself the enemy of monasteries and Nuns. In the most recent example, he closed a convent and appropriated to himself all of its property. You see, it's not enough for NOChurch officials to destroy religious life, they must also destroy materially all religious institutions. That might actually be why they continue to allow the largely homosexual abuse of minors to continue in the Church, while turning many seminaries into little more than sodomital orgies conventions. The resulting lawsuits ensure that the Church loses her material wealth, on top of the moral capital that is flushed down the drain when these revelations come to light.

Speaking of which, the McCarrick scandal continues, and wouldn't you know, that particular pervert had received a well-deserved “Spirit Of Francis Award” from his fellow sodomy-pusher Bergoglian Cardinal Cupich of Chicago, previously of destroying St. John Cantius' founder fame, mentioned above.

NOChurch has been nothing short of a disaster, if we assume that it was brought about to safeguard Catholicism - a dubious assertion at best. Formerly fertile Catholic lands have turned to wastelands, and nowhere is this better illustrated than in Ireland, which has hopped from one public apostasy to another. The Catholic World Report ran a piece titled May 25th was the burial, not the death, of “Catholic Ireland” and it is difficult to argue. For the more argumentative types, however, we had news which can only be categorised in the "just when you thought things can't get any worse" category. You see, at a  Mass in Ireland, with the priest not showing up - a priest shortage is another of NOChurch's most...

From Russia with love - the coolest award in the whole wide world - Sunday 17th to Saturday 23rd of June

With so much bad news going around it is rarely that I get a chance to lead with a positive story, so when one comes along I sometimes feel duty-bound to start with it. That is certainly the case this week. It deals with family, and introduces what turned out to be a rather family-centric entry.

Given the general malaise in the Western world in general and in what can loosely be termed as Latin Rite countries, it should surprise few that the good news come from outside the Western world, from good old Mother Russia. You see, they have what must be the coolest award in the world in Russia titled "The Order of Parental Glory" and it is given to the father and mother who have raised large families well. If my understanding of the award is correct, we have different winners from different regions of Russia, which presumably is why some families will be much smaller than others. Most of the families will have 8 or more children.

This year's award presentation is embedded below:

whereas last year's, the first I watched, is to be found below:

The event took place some while back but what occasioned me writing about it is an article on The Remnant titled "Putin Less Than Impressed with Culture of Death" .

Before I proceed I would like you to pause for a bit, and realise just how far ahead Russia is compared to all Western countries when it comes to social cohesion and the promotion of decent societal values.

In the West, and especially since the Second Vatican Council, there has been a well-funded drive to destroy any vestiges of  commonality, of common values, of ancestral heritage, of natural existence, of natural law and of course of Christianity in favour of individualism, multiculturalism, mutli-religiosity, atheism and the idea that each and every one ought to decide what is good for himself, and that the state cannot get involved in promoting what is good, unless one can put monetary value on it - and not even that, if what is good monetarily gets in the way of the sexual revolution or zionism, or seems to evoke Christian values.

Can you imagine such an award in Sweden, with the king presenting large families with awards based on the fact that the parents have managed to stay together, conceive , bring to term and raise a large number of children? I certainly can't. For one, the awards hall would probably be full of Somali families (more on that later), with the odd Laestadians, and perhaps one traditional Catholic family once every few years (although I doubt Catholics would ever qualify). Secondly, it wouldn't be long before the king bowed to pressure from feminists and homosexualists to include single women with multiple children from multiple sperm donors (which is what men have been reduced to in Sweden), and of course, sodomites with their artificially-conceived children. Soon afterwards, it would probably devolve to parents with 1-2 children, and perhaps even none, as there would also be pressure to show that marriage has nothing to do with children. It would probably not be long before zoo animals would qualify, and they would probably be more deserving that most of the other recipients.

Swedish society is simply messed up and there is no way in which the king, however inclined he may be, would get away with promoting families, unless it was pseudo-families with the award quickly turning into one big depravity fest, more depraved for every year.

Could you imagine Donald Trump doing it in the U.S.? I can't, for he would probably be accused of one phobia or another, of wanting to destroy the planet with humans, of wanting to chain women to kitchen sinks, of taking his cue directly from Putin with the 'logic' that since Putin encourages large families in Russia, an encouragement of large families in the U.S. is somehow doing Putin's bidding. In fact, the only reason I could see this possibly ever happening is because Donald Trump seems to enjoy nothing more than annoying and agitating leftists, so the jury is out on whether Trump would do this given that it aligns with one of his few passions. That, of course, assumes that Donald Trump would even want to promote family life, a contentious point at best.

In any case, where we can imagine him doing  it or not, we ought to be able to count on the condemnation of much of academia and the mass media, given how decadent these institutions have become. By this time, it ought to be certain that a number of Catholic bishops would probably get in the act of condemning it, and maybe even the pope - or whatever Bergoglio is.

Neither can one realistically expect the queen of England or the president of France to do such things, for the very same reasons I have outlined above. The less said about the president of Germany the better. Both Poland and Italy seem to have governments which are willing and even working towards raising the birth rate, but I cannot envision either of their political rulers doing such a thing.

So now we can see just what a wonderful - in the true sense of the word - thing it is when the political ruler of a country gets in front of everyone and declares "We are going to promote the family, and we are going to promote large families!" None of that breeding-like-rabbits and great irresponsibilities talk that Bergoglio has thrown about at the mention of large families.

For all of Russia's ills - and the highest abortion rate in the world has to count as the very worst - it is still a nation of old, with  a ruler who is expected to look out for the best interests of the country, not only for the short-term so as to ensure his re-election,...

Bergoglio outdoes himself in Bergoglian mercy, this time back in his old stomping ground - Sunday 3rd to Saturday 9th of June

This will have to be one of my shorter entries, as I have fallen hopelessly behind schedule in my commentaries. I shall attempt to limit myself to this week's Bergoglian attack on the Church - every week has one - as well as the most important news otherwise.

As we are all well aware by now, Ireland is no longer a Catholic country, and in fact has not been for a while. In Ireland: A Chronology of De-Christianization, ChurchMilitant.tv attempted to chronicle various low-points which led to where we now find ourselves.

Some have not given up on saving the lives of unborn in Ireland, however, and Another big rig in Ireland mentions that there were many irregularities with the referendum, to the extent that some are calling it rigged. As proof of this, the author cites the large discrepancy between the polling data and the outcome. I have no doubt that the elitists would have rigged it had they felt it necessary, I just doubt that it would have been necessary to do so. This is, after all, the same country which voted for sodomitical unions just some 2 or so years ago. It is the same country which has a sodomite as its political ruler, an elected one at that to boot. Having voted for one of the 4 sins which cry out to Heaven, it is rather fanciful to think that the Irish would not want to complete the set and vote in another one.

As if to emphasise my point, Eamon Martin, an archbishop, came out after the referendum and said that abortion should be "safe and rare" - not necessarily a direct quote. He had to walk back those words but it is nonetheless instructive that a Catholic - and I use that word extremely loosely - prelate uses the language of abortionists in response to the referendum. The very fact that protection of the unborn was removed from the constitution does not in itself mean that the battle is over. His duty should have been to make it known that Catholics are obliged to oppose legalising abortion. Alas, we have one of our effeminates mouthing off support for the culture of death.

At this point I am forced to ask: Would anyone follow this guy? Part of the problem with NOChurch is that it has given us such spineless leaders that one is ashamed to say as a Catholic that these people represent any form of hierarchy. Can anyone actually see himself lining up behind Martin in a sort of campaign for the common good? Why is it that NOChurch popes think that being an effeminate non-believer is some sort of qualification for being a bishop? It's no wonder a lot of people think that priestesses  can be acceptable clerics.

It is not all doom and gloom though, and I was happy to see that the Portuguese parliament rejected euthanasia. It is a sad state of affairs though when it is the communists who come to the aid of  Catholic values in what was a Catholic country just 2 generations ago.

After much consternation, the Vatican released a document saying that the Church in Germany ought not to proceed with issuing heretical guidelines which would allow protestants to receive Holy Communion. The term "heretical", is of course, one I added myself, since this term seems to have been forbidden in the 1960s even for the most obvious of heresies. The Germans were, true to form, most displeased at having to hold off on their sacrilege jumboree. The point to take home in all of this, however, is that Bergoglio only informed the Germans that it was inopportune to do it, not that it was wrong. In other words, it is a bit too early to celebrate! Wait for this one to come back to the forefront when Bergoglio finds his moment!

Whether the prohibition of sacrilege at the hands ordained ministers is cause for celebration, is obviously another matter entirely, but these are desperate times, and there is so little good news to go around.

In the Diocese of Buffalo in the U.S., a couple which attends SSPX services was barred from acting as Godparents . So much for reaching out to the peripheries.

Staying on the theme of the U.S., but this time in the secular realm, we were informed by the 9-man junta which runs the country - the supreme court - that a  baker does not have to bake a cake for a sodomite pair  which enters his bakery. Most of us would call this common sense, but the decision is not the victory of common sense that some have made it out to be. From what I have been able to understand, the supreme court found that a lower court had been openly prejudicial against religious arguments in siding with the sodomites. My reading is that if the civil rights court had not been as openly hostile to the baker's religious motivations, the decision would have stood. At the very least, it is unlikely to think that 7 of the judges would have come to the baker's aid in those circumstances, although we can still hope it would have been a 5-4 decision on the side of sanity (or what's left of it in the Western world anyway).

Finally, I would like to conclude with another act of Bergoglian mercy. It turns out that there is a bishop in Argentina who did not see eye-to-eye with Bergoglio in his time there. This was the bishop of La Plata - apparently an important see in Argentina - Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer. This bishop reached the arbitrary age of 75, which NOChurch has set as the age of sending in one's resignation letter to the pope. To the surprise of nobody, the resignation was accepted immediately. This is where things really get interesting...

His hypocrisy  Bergoglio then had the bishop...

Pages

Subscribe to NOChurch