Novus Ordo anti-Catholicism

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...

Chessehead Doland does what he does best, making a fool out of himself and mocking the Church yet again - Sunday 6th of May to Saturday 12th of May

This week's entry will be quite brief, as I have fallen far behind my blogging schedule.

It would be tempting to begin with political matters given that there were some momentous ones this week, but I'll choose to highlight the Met Gala disgrace officiated by Cheesehead Doland with a lot of help from the Vatican.

For anyone who may have missed it, there was a charity gala in New York. This year it was termed "Heavenly Bodies", with a sub-title too long for me to remember and too ridiculous for me to look up. In any case, the Vatican lent some garments and items to the exhibition. The museum itself had some scandalous garments on display, some portraying priestesses' clothes inspired by real priests' attire. The biggest scandal, however, was reserved for the red carpet, when the celebrities paraded in scandalous Catholic-related garments, each more ridiculous than the last, each more blasphemous than the last.

Many were outraged and righly so. Cheesehead Dolan, however, informed us that he saw nothing offensive and nobody out to mock the Church. His sodomitical Jesuit priest buddy Martin followed suit, ecstatic about the blasphemies which the world had witnessed. Cardinal Ravasi represented the Vatican in this horror show. He's head of some pontifical something in charge or culture or some stuff.

Some were keen to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt, insisting that it was not certain that the Vatican was informed of the scandal that the world was about to see, proving yet again that those who defend the NOChurch hierarchy are even more cruel towards the hierarchy than those who attack them. We think they are simply weak, populist, vain and possibly evil, whereas these folks think they are simply mind-numbingly stupid. When the best excuse someone can come up with is that you're a total moron, chances are that they are fooling themselves into that defence.

In any case, Cheesehead Cardinal Dolan soon put paid to that notion with his insistence that he saw nothing blasphemous or mocking. In other words, what he was saying, and the Vatican with him, was that they would have done the very same thing had they had the opportunity. After all, why not, if they saw nothing offensive? They even got to rub shoulders and cleavage with some of the most glamorous women in the entertainment industry, an offer too good for them to refuse for sure.

Many were quick to say: "Imagine if this had been Islam!", "Would they ever do that with Islam?" To that I must once again reply that if the ayatollah of Iran, or indeed any ayatollah, granted me the permission to mock Islam as freely as Cheesehead Dolan and the Vatican did, I would do it to no end. However, they don't, nor should they. They at least pretend to respect the religion they claim to follow at the very least, which is more than we can say about our evidently mainly apostate hierarchy.

The blame cannot and must not fall on the atheist Christianity-hating entertainment industry, which we all know detests Christianity anyway; it has to fall firmly on the shoulders of the Vatican and cheesehead himself for allowing this to happen and allowing themselves to be seen promoting it. If they are invited to a large and prominent mock-fest of Holy Mother Church, you can be sure they will join in, either out of stupidity or out of malice. I cannot, however, accept the notion that the bishops do these kinds of things out of sheer stupidity, unless you can convince me that they are so stupid that somebody dresses them in their robes because they are incapable (the few who still wear robes, let's not forget).

Let us at least give them the benefit of having chosen to betray Christ, instead of assuming that they were suckered into it by liposuctioned over-proportioned barely-clad heavily-cleavaged women!...Although at least in that scenario, these effeminate types would at least be drawn to women, so perhaps there is some charity there after all. I don't buy it in any case.

On the political front, Donald Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. It's hard to see who benefits from this, apart from the warmongers, of whom he is now very prominently a part, it has to be said. Tearing out agreements simply because your predecessor signed them, however incompetent, sodomitical and evil he may have been, is simply no way to behave if you want to make your country 'great again'. The Europeans have insisted that they will resist Trump, although I very much doubt it. After about 70 years of not having a spine, it is difficult to see the Europeans suddenly growing one, especially when they are led by pretty-much the most bought-and-sold unqualified political class to ever see the light of day.

I very much hope to be proved wrong on that.

Donald Trump then has the gall to say that he wants another deal. Who would sign another deal with him? Even if Trump was to keep it, his successor would probably come and rip it up anyway, judging from recent American precedent. Furthermore, which self-respecting country would want to join an agreement whose sole purpose seems to be its humiliation?

In the meantime, Donald Trump continues his warmongering against Iran, to the wild applause of the zionists in Palestine and Islamists in Saudi Arabia. The zionlist-Islamist alliance is strong indeed and Trump seems to be its figurehead.

One of many sad things about this is that as soon as Trump is no longer useful to whomever-he-has-sold-himself-out-to-serve, he will be discarded like a wet rag, given that there is no shortage of material to pin on him. That day may be coming sooner than anyone of us realise, because as useful as Trump has been to the congressional-military-industrial complex, they will never trust him because he is simply too unpredictable. At the first sign of...

Pages

Subscribe to Novus Ordo anti-Catholicism