Monday, June 17, 2019

Somewhere Under The Rainbow


 Traditionalists celebrate the month of June by dedicating it to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Secular society now "celebrates" sexual perversion and mental illness by making June "Gay Pride Month." Every time I see the rainbow flag, I'm reminded of how we are living in a time of oppression, in some ways similar to those in Europe who lived for a time under the Swastika. We must accept that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. So too is "transgenderism," bisexuality, and every other aberration deemed "normal." In fact, it is so "normal" that any suggestion to the contrary must be suppressed, ridiculed, attacked, and eventually made subject to civil fines and imprisonment as a "hate crime." This is the result of the forces of evil in society.

In the days before the Great Apostasy, the Roman Catholic Church stood as a bulwark against perversion. Then the infiltration began. Bella Dodd told of thousands of Communists that were placed in seminaries to subvert the Church beginning in the first half of the twentieth century. A friend of mine asked me, "Don't you think that exposure to the True Faith in the seminary would have converted at least some of them and they would have 'blown the whistle'"? Based on several reasons (which I will not elaborate upon in this post), I believe that the infiltrators were not rank and file ideological Communists. They sent in men who were known to be sodomites. They would get to associate with men and (at that time) have easy access to boys, all the while using the prestige of the priesthood to deflect any accusations of impropriety. In rebellion against both God and nature itself, sodomites are most hateful towards God, and least likely to be moved by grace.

The plot worked. With the last obstacle removed in 1958 (the papacy, by the "election" of Roncalli), the perverts came out in full force. The Vatican II sect is run by sexual deviants, and since 2002, the scandals keep growing. As a young teenager, prior to my conversion to the True Church at age 16, I attended a Vatican II sect high school on a scholarship. One of the brothers (Society of Mary), told jokes to 14 year old boys and girls that were so vile, I can't write them in this post. I was shocked and scandalized. I repeated one of his filthy "jokes" to my father (God rest his soul), a former World War II U.S. Army Sergeant. His jaw nearly hit the ground and he was visibly uncomfortable. He knew that such jokes were sinful, and when told to teenage girls and boys, their malice was incalculable. "Are you going to complain about this Dad?" I asked him. After a long pause, he said, "Well, no, he is a brother..." Using the heightened respect accorded to clerics and religious, these fiends were able to get away with things no layman ever could.

Later in my freshman year, it was announced that the renowned priest, Fr. Bruce Ritter (ordained 1956), who had started Covenant House (an organization dedicated to helping runaway and homeless youths in New York City), would be coming to give a talk to the Freshman Class. As we were waiting for him to arrive for the talk, I needed to go to the bathroom. On my way out of the door I (literally) bumped into Fr. Ritter, who was hailed as a "model Franciscan and priest." I looked up into his eyes, and a shiver ran up and down my spine. I can't explain it, but I knew I had just looked at someone who was pure evil. He must have seen my expression, because he grimaced at me, said nothing, and went to give his talk. After going to the bathroom, and trying to calm myself down, I returned to where he was speaking.

When I told some of my friends what I experienced, they laughed it off. My parents were incredulous; just "a meaningless reaction." In 1990, Ritter was forced to resign from Covenant House and the Franciscan Order after several young men had reported that he had engaged in sexual relations with them as young boys in the care of the charity, and that he had embezzled funds. He was never charged with a crime despite all the accusations, and got himself incardinated into a Diocese in India, continuing to function as a Vatican II sect priest in upstate New York until his death in 1999--- three years before the widespread abuse scandal began to be reporte. I had a glimpse into the sodomite/pervert infestation--and I believe that for some reason, God let me know this priest was bad news.

The Vatican II sect is now doing the exact opposite of the True Church; defending sodomites and denying the indisputable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. This is especially true in the wake of the study underwritten by the Vatican II sect "bishops" in the United States and performed by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. The report is entitled The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, commonly known as the John Jay Report. It was published in 2004, and is available online (See http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/the-nature-and-scope-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-and-deacons-in-the-united-states-1950-2002.pdf).

 Last October, the Jesuit-run heretical rag, America magazine, published an essay entitled No, Homosexuality is Not a Risk Factor for the Sexual Abuse of Children, authored by one Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychiatrist and residing scholar at Santa Clara University who is also an adjunct professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Plante and the Vatican II sect are trying even harder to normalize the sexual deviants and one of the Four Sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance. (See https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/10/22/no-homosexuality-not-risk-factor-sexual-abuse-children).


Plante vs. The Truth About Sodomites and Pedophilia

 In his error-laden tract, Plante makes several startling assertions:

  • banning homosexual men from the priesthood would not prevent victimization
  • it is a false belief that men with homosexual orientations cannot be trusted around male children and that their sexual impulse control is poor
  • that “sexual orientation is not a risk factor at all," for sexually abusing children
  • more boys are molested by V2 sect "priests" than girls because they are "more available"
What does the empirical evidence show? (Much of the section below is from research complied by Dr. Paul Cameron).

1. Sodomites have more overall serious problems than heterosexuals
According to a 2015 federal survey (See Medley G, Lipan RN, et al (2016) Sexual orientation and estimates of adult substance use and mental health: results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. SAMHSA Data Review, October), homosexuals have higher proportional rates of :

  • criminality, including sex offenses
  • illegal drug use
  • driving under the influence
Please note the higher incidence of sex offences, yet Plante would have us believe sexual orientation is "not at all" a risk factor for sex crimes.

2. Sodomite V2 Sect "Priests" are not predators due to a lack of females
 There are not only "altar boys" ("table servers" would be the more apt appellation in the Novus Bogus "mass") but just as many (and in some cases more) altar girls. Moreover, according to the John Jay Report, nearly 4% of U.S. Vatican II "priests" were documented to have molested at least one minor, and nearly 80% of the molestations by these so-called priests involved boys. Plante claims that "most of the clergy sex offenders during the last half of the 20th century… viewed themselves as more likely to be heterosexual than as homosexual."

I'm still shaking my head over the statement that these predators "viewed themselves" as more likely heterosexual than homosexual. Is this guy serious? I'm sure Stalin and Hitler didn't "view themselves" as mass murderers, but that's objectively what they were, and it is based on what they did.  A murderer is one who commits murder. Likewise, a homosexual is one who commits homosexual acts.

3. The disproportionate number of homosexual predator-"priests" is indicative that they cannot be trusted around male children, and banning them would drastically reduce the number of victims
Plante suggests between "22% to 45%" of U.S. "priests" are "gay." Let's take the low end of the range and assume 22%. Based on the John Jay Report 3.06% of the documented sex abusers engaged in homosexuality, that translates to an estimate of nearly 14% of homosexual priests being caught for sexual abuse of a minor. Given that less than one percent of priests were caught molesting girls (0.87%), barely 1% of the heterosexual priests (comprising 78% of the total) would have been caught. Unless heterosexual priest offenders are much better than homosexual priests at not getting caught, something that seems quite unlikely since it is known that boys are less apt than girls to report being molested (See Hall RC & Hall RCW (2007) A profile of pedophilia: definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82(4), 457–71), homosexuality is a very significant risk factor for child sexual abuse.

The Wisdom of the True Church
St. Bernadine of Sienna:
"No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God's law. ... "

St. Jerome
"And Sodom and Gomorrah might have appeased it [God’s wrath], had they been willing to repent, and through the aid of fasting gain for themselves tears of repentance." (See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30092.htm).

 St. Augustine
"Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust." (See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110103.htm).

Didache, A.D. 80 - 130 (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)
"Commit no murder, adultery, sodomy, fornication, or theft."

Conclusion
There is an incontrovertible connection between sodomites and pedophilia. The secular pseudo-science of researchers with an agenda, using small samplings to reach predetermined outcomes, fuels societal acceptance of homosexuality. They ignore both the body of reputable research, and the disproportionate numbers of homosexual child molesters, which show the danger sodomites pose to society in general and children in particular. The Vatican II sect, having been infiltrated and driven by sodomites, leads innumerable souls to Hell. They join the world in trying to normalize perversion. If you should dare oppose the sodomite agenda, be prepared for persecution.

The Rainbow Flag is slowly but surely becoming the modern day Sickle and Hammer of oppression. Maybe we need a counter-manifesto against them: "Decent people of the World Unite--You Have EVERYTHING to lose if the sodomites are not stopped now."

Monday, June 10, 2019

Akin To Heresy


Vatican II sect author and apologist Jimmy Akin of "Catholic Answers" (https://www.catholic.com/) will strain all credulity to defend the indefensible. Nothing false "Pope" Francis says or does will keep him from explaining how he's "really Catholic" and not heretical, just badly misunderstood and much maligned. Of course we fools need Mr. Akin, a former Protestant who joined the Vatican II sect, to explain it all to us. It would be unimaginable just 60 years ago to think we need a layman to explain the words and deeds of the pope. What kind of Magisterium (teaching authority) can't teach without constant explanations of what was really meant from self-styled lay "theologians"?

Recently, Akin defended Francis against a letter (signed by 19 members of the Vatican II sect) released April 30, 2019, which accuses Bergoglio with heresy and asks the "bishops" to take action. It was signed by academics, including a "priest," Aidan Nichols, an author and "theologian." The fifteen page letter reads in part, "We are addressing this letter to you for two reasons: first to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict [i.e., crime]of heresy, and second, to request that you take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation of a heretical pope." (See https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/theologians-accuse-pope-francis-of-heresy).

Discussing a "heretical pope" is a contradiction in terms, much like discussing a "square circle." There can be no such things by the very definition of the terms involved. Akin, on the other hand, wants people to jam square pegs into round holes and see how everything fits nice and neat in his own wacky version of "Catholicism." Akin does not attempt to defend Bergoglio by pointing out to the signatories that a heretic cannot, by Divine Law, be pope. To admit that would be both correct Catholic theology and accepting a premise that would put him in the position of maintaining the possibility of (horrors!) sedevacantism.

In his May 2nd article for the National Catholic Reporter online, entitled "On Charging a Pope with Heresy," Akin sets forth his case that Bergoglio is not guilty of heresy, and what would be necessary to make the charge stick. (See http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/on-charging-a-pope-with-heresy). Rather than get bogged down with his defense of false pope Francis, this post will concentrate on Akin's own explanation of what elements would be necessary for Bergoglio to be guilty of heresy. I will then demonstrate how two of his criteria are at odds with Church teaching, and when corrected, Bergoglio does indeed meet the requirements for being a heretic.

Akin's Elements for Heresy
Akin writes that the following criteria must be met to show the pope is guilty of heresy:
1. The Magisterium has infallibly defined some specific truth
2. It has infallibly defined that this specific truth is divinely revealed, creating a dogma
3. The pope has been baptized (that’s easy)
4. The pope’s words or actions indicate that he refuses to believe the dogma
5. His words or actions cannot be understood in a way consistent with the dogma
6. He does so obstinately

Let's apply them to Bergoglio. As to #1; the Magisterium has defined some specific truth. In his article, Akin states:

...for a truth to require divine and Catholic faith, the following conditions must be met:

1. It must be divinely revealed (i.e., be found in Scripture or Tradition)
2. The Magisterium must have proposed it to be divinely revealed
3. The Magisterium must have done so, either by (a) the solemn magisterium or (b) the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Jorge Bergoglio denies many dogmas, but I will focus on two: (a) There is only One True Church, and (b) that One True Church is absolutely necessary for salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus--Outside The Church There Is No Salvation). Pope Eugene IV, in the Apostolic Constitution Cantate Domino, teaches ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms-deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (See Denzinger #714; Emphasis mine)

Pope Innocent III in 1215: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423; Emphasis mine)

Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum (1302), infallibly declared, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The Nicene Creed: "...I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." (Emphasis mine).

That pretty much makes the case that the Magisterium has defined there is only ONE True Church, and outside of Her, no one is saved. Lest anyone have reservations as to Akin's second criterion being met, i.e., "It has infallibly defined that this specific truth is divinely revealed, creating a dogma," theologian Salaverri teaches: "From the documents of the Church it is clear that the necessity of belonging to the true Church is a dogma of faith." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB [1955], pg. 446; Emphasis in original). Also, "Therefore it is an Article of divine and Catholic Faith to be professed by all that the Church necessarily and indefectibly is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." (Ibid, pg. 472; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). Akin's fist two criteria are met. The third criterion is admitted by Akin, and acknowledged by all, that Bergoglio was validly baptized in the True Church.

The fourth criterion in Akin's article is "The pope’s words or actions indicate that he refuses to believe the dogma." What has Bergoglio said? "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." Is it taken out of context? Not if you believe his good friend and co-author, Rabbi Abraham Skorka. The leftist rabbi has said, "When he [Francis] speaks about evangelization, the idea is to evangelize Christians or Catholics," to reach "higher dimensions of faith" and a deepened commitment to social justice, Skorka said. "This is the idea of evangelization that Bergoglio is stressing — not to evangelize Jews. This he told me, on several opportunities." (See https://news.yahoo.com/rabbi-whose-good-friend-became-pope-060646630.html).
It is impossible to believe there is no salvation outside the Church and not try to convert everyone--including Jews--just as Our Lord commanded us to do in The Great Commission, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded thee. And surely I am with thee always, to the consummation of the world." (St. Matthew 28:19-20).

How about "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being." (See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Francis). The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As Pope Pius XII taught: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (See Mystici Corporis Christi, [1943], para. #13 and 14). God and His Church are inextricably united. God is indeed Catholic because that is His One True Church; His Mystical Body on Earth.

Furthermore, Bergoglio adheres to the teaching of Vatican II, which says, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..." (See Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3; Emphasis mine). He believes in the false ecclesiology of Vatican II, wherein there is a "Church of Christ" distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, yet resides there in its "fullness" because it contains all of the "elements" of the Church of Christ. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation. The New Ecclesiology is mutually exclusive of the True Ecclesiology pre-Vatican II.

Akin's fifth criterion is "His [Bergoglio's] words or actions cannot be understood in a way consistent with the dogma." This allows Akin to give a false veneer of orthodoxy to Bergoglio's statements and actions by employing "semantic gymnastics." For example, he might say something along the lines that when Bergoglio said, "There is no Catholic God," what he really meant was that God created all people and not just Catholics, so in that sense "there is no Catholic God" because he is Creator of all regardless of religion. Of course, he would have to ignore the context as well as the testimony of men like Skorka, to whom Bergoglio explained himself. Nevertheless, we need not bother delving into that difficulty. The actual problem is that Akin's fifth criterion is contrary to Church teaching. It is a false principle.

As was written in my post "The Case Against Roncalli:" The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed "heretical by defect." This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:

"After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith...insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question."

Hence, Bergoglio's statements, even if ambiguous, must be interpreted as heretical, or more precisely, "heretical by defect." Finally, Akin's sixth criterion tells us Bergoglio must be "obstinate" in his heresy; i.e., the alleged need for "canonical warnings," proof that he knows he is being heretical, and other R&R claptrap. Once again, he is wrong:

According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, CUA Press, [1932], pg. 35) Again, MacKenzie, "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

Summation
As to the six criteria of Jimmy Akin for showing the pope to be guilty of heresy, the first four are met. Bergoglio denies(at least!) two truths of Divine and Catholic Faith. He's baptized. His words and actions, even from before he was "elected pope" indicate he refuses to believe these dogmas. The last two criteria are false principles; the Church cannot teach ambiguously as Akin believes, and "obstinacy" is not a requirement, as theologian MacKenzie explains. Conclusion: Bergoglio is a heretic, and from before his election, as he accepted the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology. Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot have fallen from office because he could never attain to it in the first place:

 According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion
Is Jimmy Akin of good will, or is he so invested in "saving" the false papacy of Bergoglio that he will go against the manifest weight of the credible evidence and refuse to recognize that there has been no pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958? I have demonstrated that false pope Francis does reject two dogmas of the Faith, and he refuses to believe them, as evidenced in both his words and actions. Akin goes against Church teaching in his last two criteria for showing a pope is a heretic because the Church cannot teach ambiguously, and "obstinacy" ("warnings, " alleged "trials" by clerics, etc.) are neither possible or necessary for a pope who falls into heresy to lose his authority. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

 Lastly, Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his "election" which means he was precluded from obtaining the papal office by Divine Law. Let's pray for Jimmy Akin to give people real "Catholic Answers" regarding heresy and "Pope" Francis. 

Monday, June 3, 2019

Singing For Satan---Part 23


This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

The "Clean-Cut" Boys of the 80s
 While parents of children and teenagers in the 1980s didn't like most of the pop and rock music, there were some artists who appeared "wholesome" and didn't sport the long hair and spandex pants of the heavy metal groups, or have the "drugged out" look of some other artists. Their songs seemed upbeat and not particularly offensive, so they got a "pass" from many parents. These are the musicians I've dubbed "the clean-cut boys." Looking relatively normal (or even handsome), and with seemingly innocuous lyrics, parents looked the other way when their children listened to them. That was a big mistake. 

Just as marijuana is a "gateway drug" to harder substances, so too are these bands/artists a "gateway" to more evil. Rather than looking rebellious, mostly singing about drugs and alcohol, and making frequent occult references, the vast majority of the "clean-cut boys" music revolves around promiscuity. They also throw in some sappy love songs, which really are harmless, to mask their true designs. Compared to the other bands in this series of posts, it probably seems harmless enough. Herein lies the problem. First, God does not "compare" sinners. In other words, if you are in mortal sin, you are at enmity with God. If you die unrepentant, you will go to Hell. Yes, there are varying degrees of suffering in Hell, but eternal torture away from God is the end result whether it's one mortal sin or one thousand. One mortal sin against the Second Commandment makes you worthy of Hell, just as one mortal sin against the Seventh Commandment. 

Second, there is no more insidious way to get someone to lose their Faith (and subsequently their morals) than by sins of impurity. Our Blessed Mother is claimed to have said at Fatima, "More souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh (i.e., mortal sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments) than for any other reason." I believe it. No one has a natural desire for drugs or violence, but there is a natural desire for sexual gratification. Since the Fall, humanity's nature is wounded and is inclined to evil. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) has this to say about concupiscence:

 In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense.(See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm). 

By passing off songs of lust as "love songs," these "clean-cut boys" arouse the base passions. They also take some subtle jabs at religion in general and Christianity in particular, trying to make it look foolish---as just some "nonsense" that gets in the way of "fun." True fun is no sin, and real sin is no fun. The only thing sin and fun have in common is that they are both three letter words. People listening to these artists will think sexual sins are "no big deal." Once you start down that road, you're on the wide road that leads to Hell. Below are four of the "clean-cut boys" who hit the peak of popularity in the 1980s.

1. Huey Lewis and the News

Hugh Anthony Cregg III (b. 1950) is better known by his stage name, Huey Lewis. Lewis was baptized and raised in the One True Church. He and six others formed the band Huey Lewis and the News in 1979They had a run of hit singles during the 1980s and early 1990s, with nineteen top ten singles cutting across the Billboard Hot 100, Adult Contemporary, and Mainstream Rock charts.

Their most successful album, entitled Sports, was released in 1983. The album shot the group to worldwide fame, which expanded when the song The Power of Love was featured in the hit film Back to the Future, and was nominated for an Academy Award. Making use of catchy hook lines and an updated 1970s horn section, the ruggedly handsome and generally well-dressed Mr. Lewis is quite the deceiver. In an interview about his beliefs, Lewis had the following to say:

I believe god (sic) is alive today, forever and tomorrow. I feel that a lot of the folklore attached to rock and roll is drug orientated. In retrospect I thank god (sic) that I was blessed with a clean and sober attitude towards myself and others around me. When we shot "I Need a New Drug," I think I was confronting that reality. The bible helped me in larger than life ways. It clarified things for me and helped me to avoid romantic notions concerning drug abuse. (See http://yearofthe.tripod.com/weirdmagazinebidweirdlyso/id44.html)

The Bible clearly didn't help him clarify many other important things.  His song I Need a New Drug, replaces narcotics with sex. His videos are very suggestive. He says, "I've always been a big lover of women. I think that MTV gave me a chance to portray myself as a lover.I can't think of a thing that could be more romantic than being on stage." (Ibid).

I want a new drug, one that won't go away
One that won't keep me up all night
One that won't make me sleep all day
One that won't make me nervous
Wonderin' what to do
One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you
I'm alone with you
I'm alone with you, baby (Emphasis mine)

Lewis frequently uses God's Name in vain. He also takes a jab at Christianity in the song Jacob's Ladder:

I met a fan dancer
Down in South Side Birmingham
She was running from a fat man 
Selling salvation in his hand
Now he's trying to save me
We'll I'm doing alright, the best that I can
Just another fallen angel
Trying to get through the night
Step by step, one by one, higher and higher
Step by step, rung by rung 
Climbing Jacob's ladder
Coming over the airwaves
The man says I'm overdue
Sing along, send some money
Join the chosen few
Well, Mister I'm not in a hurry
And I don't want to be like you
All I want from tomorrow
Is to get it better than today (Emphasis mine)

Lewis equates Christianity with TV Protestant preachers out for money. Despite his claim that the Bible clarifies things for him, "Jacob's Ladder" is spoken about in Genesis 28:12. During his dream, Jacob saw "the angels of God" ascending and descending on it. Yet, Lewis has himself going up on it as "another fallen angel" (demon). In the song Whole Lotta Lovin' a man is looking at pornographic magazines. He's tired of masturbating and wants to get back to the "real thing."

I'm tired of these girly magazines
I want to stop dreamin', and get back home to the real thing
Late last night I read the letter you sent
Woke up this morning, under a tent
We've got a whole lotta lovin' to do (Emphasis mine)

2. John Cougar Mellencamp 

John Mellencamp (b. 1951), went by the stage name John Cougar, then John Cougar-Mellencamp, and finally back to his birthname. He has amassed twenty-two Top 40 hits in the United States. In addition, he holds the record for the most tracks by a solo artist to hit number one on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart, with seven. In 2008, Mellencamp was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Possessing youthful good looks, Mellencamp attempts to portray himself as a "good old Midwestern country boy."

He's been married three times, starting when he got his seventeen year old girlfriend pregnant and eloped. His daughter, Michelle, emulating the excellent example set by her father, had a daughter at age 18, making Mellencamp a grandfather at 37. His musical message is clear; if you only follow the lyrics.

His song Hurt So Good is about sado-masochism:
You don't have to be so exciting
Just trying to give myself a little bit of fun, yeah
You always look so inviting
You ain't as green as you are young
Hey baby it's you
Come on girl now it's you
Sink your teeth right through my bones, baby
Let's see what we can do
Come on and make it a
Hurt so good
Come on baby make it hurt so good
Sometimes love don't feel like it should
You make it hurt so good

His song I Need A Lover tells the story of a man who just wants to use women for sex and tell them to "hit the highway" when it's over:

Some girl who'll thrill me and then go away
(I need a lover that won't drive me crazy)
Some girl that knows the meaning of ah-
Hey hit the highway!

The song Golden Gates mocks Christianity:

Ain't no golden gates gonna swing open
Ain't no streets paved in natural pearl
Ain't no angel with a harp come singin'
Leastways not that I know of in this world...

I don't need to see the whole thing go down
I don't need to see another lonely man
I don't need to see a woman crying for the savior
Holding on to some moneyman's hand (Emphasis mine)

In Serious Business, Mellencamp sings:
So have some dinner, baby
Play some records
Just remember one thing, son
This is serious business
Sex and violence and rock and roll
This is serious business
Sex and violence and rock and roll (Emphasis mine)

Mellencamp nicely summed up his philosophy of life in a 1982 interview with People magazine, "...I hate schools, governments and churches." (October, 1982). He is an ardent supporter of sodomites and other sexual perverts. (See, e.g.,  https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-mellencamp-indiana-religious-freedom-law/)

3. Bryan Adams 

Bryan Adams (b. 1959) rose to fame in Canada and the United States with his 1983 album Cuts Like a Knife and turned into a global star with his 1984 album Reckless. He was nominated for 15 Grammy Awards, and was inducted into the Hollywood Walk of Fame in March 2011. He has sold over 17 million albums worldwide.

Adams is a handsome Canadian, and looked like "the boy next door" when he rose to fame at age 24. His songs are all about the libido. The hit song Run to You details Adams' need for self-gratification with multiple sex partners, as he cheats on one woman with another.

She says her love for me could never die
But that'd change if she ever found out about you and I
Oh but her love is cold
Wouldn't hurt her if she didn't know, 'cause
When it gets too much
I need to feel your touch...

She's got a heart of gold, she'd never let me down
But you're the one that always turns me on
You keep me comin' 'round
I know her love is true
But it's so damn easy makin' love to you (Emphasis mine)

In the February 1985 edition of Rock magazine, Adams says promiscuity is an acceptable way to deal with loneliness (pg. 62). His song One Night Love Affair confirms this idea:

You're the silent type
And you caught my eye
But I never thought that I'd be touchin' you
How was I to know
I'd let my feelings go
And that I'd be yours before the night was through
Yeah, one night love affair
Tryin' to make like we don't care
We were both reachin' out for somethin'
Oh, one night love affair
Pretendin' it ain't there
Oh, and now we're left with nothin'
When the mornin' breaks
We go our separate ways
If the night was made for love it ain't for keeps (Emphasis mine)

Also, the song Summer of '69 tells of having sex "now or never."

Ain't no use in complainin'
When you've got a job to do
Spent my evenings down at the drive-in
And that's when I met you, yeah
Standin' on your mama's porch
You told me that you'd wait forever
Oh, and when you held my hand
I knew that it was now or never
Those were the best days of my life
Oh, yeah (Emphasis mine)

4. Genesis and Phil Collins/Peter Gabriel

Genesis was formed in England in 1967. Thought to be Christian because of the name (and their debut album entitled From Genesis to Revelation), they are quite evil. The two most well known members were their first lead singer and songwriter Peter Gabriel (b. 1950), and the drummer who took Gabriel's place after he left, Philip (Phil) Collins (b. 1951). Both Gabriel and Collins had solo careers that surpassed Genesis by far.

Genesis has sold approximately 150 million albums worldwide. They were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2010. All of the musicians in the band looked respectable in contrast to their contemporaries in rock and pop. On their first album, Nursery Cryme, there is a song entitled The Musical Box. The lyrics are based on a story written by Gabriel, about two children in a country house. The girl, Cynthia, kills the boy, Henry, by lopping his head off with a croquet mallet. She later discovers Henry's musical box. When she opens it, Old King Cole plays, and Henry's spirit returns. The spirit begins aging fast. This causes him to experience a lifetime of sexual arousal in a couple of minutes, and he tries to convince the girl to have sexual intercourse with him. However, the noise causes his nurse to arrive, and Cynthia throws the musical box at the spirit, destroying them both. The album cover shows Cynthia holding a croquet mallet, with a few heads lying on the ground.

The songs were so long (The Musical Box was approximately 10 minutes), most listened for the beat and didn't pick up on just how sick some of the lyrics were on the album. They went more commercial (especially under the leadership of Collins) and changed to more subtle messages.Those messages were veiled references to drugs and taking jabs at religion. They would leave the sex to Gabriel and Collins as solo acts.  Invisible Touch (1986), was not about a woman but cocaine:

Well I've been waiting, waiting here so long
But thinking nothing, nothing could go wrong, but now I know
She has a built in ability
To take everything she sees
And now it seems I'm falling, falling for her.
She seems to have an invisible touch yeah
She reaches in, grabs right hold of your heart
She seems to have an invisible touch yeah
It takes control and slowly tears you apart

The song Jesus He Knows Me mocks Christianity by equating it with phony Protestant preachers--a favorite ploy of these artists:

You see the face on the TV screen
Coming at you every Sunday
See that face on the billboard
That man is me
On the cover of the magazine
There's no question why I'm smiling
You buy a piece of paradise
You buy a piece of me
I'll get you everything you wanted
I'll get you everything you need
Don't need to believe in hereafter
Just believe in me
'Cause Jesus he (sic--throughout the song) knows me
And he knows I'm right
I've been talking to Jesus all my life
Oh yes he knows me
And he knows I'm right
And he's been telling me
Everything is alright
I believe in the family
With my ever loving wife beside me
But she don't know about my girlfriend
Or the man I met last night
Do you believe in god (sic)
'Cause that's what I'm selling
And if you want to get to heaven
I'll see you right
You can see the mocking video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-rfCnW5VlE

Peter Gabriel was raised an Anglican, but considers himself a "Buddhist-Christian." He said, "When I’m thinking of God I’m a Buddhist, when I’m in pain and despair I’m a Christian." (See https://www.theawayteam.com/RANT/quotes.html). He also understands the power of music:
"There has always been a strong relationship between music and religion. It is because they both plug directly into the heart and can have real power for good or evil." (See https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0300272/bio; Emphasis mine)

He has been using his music for evil. He wrote the music for one of the most blasphemous movies, The Last Temptation of Christ, which denies the Divinity of Our Lord and depicts Christ being tempted by imagining Himself engaged in sexual activities. Gabriel was "proud" to have helped produce that trash:

"If people’s faith is so weak that it can be destroyed by a film, then it really isn’t much to begin with. I think people may find themselves reviewing their own lives and their own points of view on religion as a result of the film. I’m very proud to have been a part of it."

His most popular song, Sledgehammer, is about his penis. The term "sledgehammer" is a metaphor (one of many in the song) for his phallus, and wanting to engage in sex with the woman to whom he sings:

You could have a steam train
If you'd just lay down your tracks
You could have an aeroplane flying
If you bring your blue sky back
All you do is call me
I'll be anything you need
You could have a big dipper
Going up and down, all around the bends
You could have a bumper car, bumping
This amusement never ends
I want to be your sledgehammer
Why don't you call my name
Oh let me be your sledgehammer

Phil Collins is a Freemason, and as a general rule, will not discuss religion. (See https://hollowverse.com/phil-collins/). His song Thru These Walls is about a voyeur and pedophile pleasuring himself to what he sees and hears:

 I can hear through these walls
I can hear it when they're foolin' around
I can hear through these walls
And I hear every sign, every sound
I can hear through these walls
In the dark with the shades pulled down
Every word that they say
Every move they make feels it's coming my way
My favorite moment
Putting the glass up next to the wall
Imagination
Tho' I see nothing, I hear it all
Putting my sign up
Do not disturb me, speak or shout, inside out
Oh and my clothes, they're all laid out
I can see through my windows
I can see the girls and the boys
I can see through my windows
And I can imagine the noise
I can see through my windows
I can see them playing with toys
Oh, I hope it won't end
Ooh, if I promise not to touch, just be a friend...

Ah yeah
Ah yeah
Ah yeah
Ah yeah (Emphasis mine)

The song Like China is about him trying to seduce a virgin:

Your skin is smooth as silk and your eyes like stars
You're just like a picture book standing there
But I can't go on
No, I can't go on thinking you don't feel the same way as I do
I'll be so careful I'll hold you like china
I'll promise not to hurt you I'll hold you like china
You won't feel nothing, I'll hold you like china
'Cause I know it's your first time (Emphasis mine).

Conclusion
The "Clean-Cut Boys" are not what they appear to be, and what they want you to think of them. They are perverts and evil men trying to ensnare people into a general acceptance of sin. They look nice, but mostly (or exclusively) undermine God's Law on purity and entice people to sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. These sins will lead, in many cases, to loss of faith and morals. Our Lord warned us of such people: "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness." (St. Matthew 23:27). 

Monday, May 27, 2019

The Morality Of Modern Medicine


 It seems like an eternity ago, yet I remember it like it was yesterday. My mother had been diagnosed with stage four cancer and was given about three months to live. My father had died from cancer nearly fifteen years earlier, and all those horrible memories came back vividly. I knew this would be rough because my mother had been sickly most of her life. Those illnesses, compounded by her advanced age, didn't leave her much strength to fight that most evil and dreadful cancer. She began declining rapidly. Soon, she was in the hospital unable to eat by mouth, and needed a peg placed in her stomach, and an IV in her arm so that nutrition and hydration could continue. The end couldn't be that far off, and I made sure before she lost her mental faculties, a Traditionalist priest gave her the Last Rites of Holy Mother Church.

 I had just come from seeing my mom, when her attending physician (whom I'll call "Dr. B"), saw me in the hallway of the hospital and asked if he could have a word with me in his office. "Your mother will not live much longer," he said. "I can see that, " I replied. "Many things she needs are not covered by Medicare. It's costing you lots of cash." "So what? She's my mother," was my firm response. He looked at me, quite matter-of-fact, and said, "Her quality of life is non-existent. Why don't you just sign a release as her Health Care Proxy, allowing us to remove her feeding and hydration tubes." I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I could feel the rage building inside me. "I wouldn't starve a dog or a cat, and you're asking me to starve and dehydrate my mother?" "Don't be upset," he continued. "It will only take a few days, and it doesn't cause any pain. It's less expensive than hospice." My blood pressure must have been so high at that point, it would be off the scale. I had to suppress the urge to reach across the desk, grab him by the lapels, drag him across the room, and send him head first out the window.

"Human beings are made in the image of God. You don't simply discard them, and you certainly don't starve them to death," I said with my voice trembling in anger. Dr. B didn't know when to stop. "Look, it doesn't hurt. I don't know how they know this, but the medical researchers know this to be true." I had enough. "You don't know how they know. Yeah, that makes sense. I'll make a deal with you. Since you claim it doesn't hurt, I'll lock you up in a room with nothing to eat or drink for a week. If you come out and tell me it didn't hurt, I'll let you do the same to my mother." "You don't understand," protested Dr. B. "No, you don't understand, " my raised voice cutting him off. "As far as I'm concerned, the only place you're qualified to practice medicine is Nazi Germany. You are no longer my mother's doctor. You are not allowed to see her or attend to her in any way, effective immediately. If you even think of going near her, I'm going to sue both the hospital and you. I'll make it my life's work to see to it that you never practice medicine again. Am I clear?" I was now shouting. He shook his head "yes" and I abruptly left.

I immediately went to hospital administration, to let my decisions be known. On the way there, I saw a doctor I had helped with a legal issue a couple of years back. He recognized me, and saw how upset I looked. "Tell them to put your mother under my care," he said. "I promise to treat her as my own mother." I knew "Mike" (not his real name) to be an ethical and kind physician, so I immediately felt better. I also decided to get my mother out of the hospital as soon as possible. Even with Mike taking care of her, just the thought of Dr. B being in the same building made me uneasy. I was going to ask for about a month off work to let my mother die at my home where I could personally care for her. With all the paperwork signed the following Friday, I was all set to have her transported to my house on Monday. I would request the time off Saturday morning. When I awoke, I received a phone call making it all moot. My mom had just passed away from a massive coronary.

All of us will (unfortunately) have to deal--to one degree or another-- with such life and death issues involving medical care for both the people we love, as well as ourselves. What's scary is not having a pope to decide certain issues. While Catholic principles don't change, the circumstances surrounding them do. Without someone to make authoritatively binding decisions, how can we be sure those principles were correctly applied? In 2005 we had the unfortunate situation of having some Traditionalist clergy defend the murder of Terri Schiavo by her adulterous husband. The Schiavo case demonstrates the need to examine the issue of modern medicine in the light of timelessly true principles of the Faith, so that we are prepared to make well-formed moral choices when needed. This post will examine the general principles and guidelines of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians, and some practical guidelines to which I adhere. I'm not a theologian or a canonist, and I have no Magisterial authority. It is not my intent to "bind" anyone (I can't), but at least you can be better informed and seek the counsel of a Traditionalist clergyman you trust.


Where The Problem Lies

 There are two fundamental principles upon which we have the unanimous consent of the theologians: (1) The refusal of everyday means of sustaining life, such as nutrition, hydration, and rest may never be denied to a sick or terminally ill person because it is a self-destruction which clearly violates the Divine dominion over human life; (2) Humans are not expected to sustain life at all costs, which would be extraordinary. The fate of death since the Fall is also part of nature. These two points are clear. Their application is much less so. The "ordinary vs. extraordinary" dichotomy (or "natural vs. unnatural") will yield different results with  the chronological development of medicine. What was considered "ordinary means" in 1600 AD will be much different from 1955 AD, and 1955 will differ significantly from 2019. 

Having several blood transfusions was impossible in 1600, extraordinary in 1955, but looked upon by physicians in 2019 as not being "extraordinary" any longer. Much of what the great theologians wrote before the Great Apostasy never envisioned the world in which we live, both in terms of not having a pope for an extended period of time to settle specific questions, and the enormity of medical advancement in a relatively short span of time. Medical practice has advanced more in the last 70 years (1949-2019) than in the prior 700 years (literally).

Certain terms have become abused because they are understood less on an intellectual level than on an emotional level. This is in no small measure because of the Modernist heresy that the world has been infected with for over fifty years now. The term "extraordinary means" is subject to no small amount of abuse. Keeping my mother alive with food and water was considered by her (immoral, unethical) doctor to be "extraordinary" because of her age, her other medical conditions, the expense of her treatments, and "quality of life." The crux of the argument seems to be that the surrounding circumstances can justify starvation and dehydration. Imagine if a State were to propose starving and dehydrating a convicted first-degree murderer as a means of execution. The ACLU and every left-wing organization would file a lawsuit claiming that it contravenes the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Yet these same godless humanists see nothing wrong doing it as "an act of mercy" on an innocent elderly woman like my mother.

There are some acts that are always wrong no matter what the surrounding circumstances. In the aftermath of Vatican II, there was a movement by apostate theologians which attempted to discredit any idea of an intrinsically evil moral object and sought to determine the morality of an action only by a simultaneous consideration of the motive of the act and the other circumstances. The Jesuit theologian Fr. Joseph Fuchs was one of the leaders of this movement. Once an approved theologian, he became a raging Modernist, especially after the publication of Montini's Humanae Vitae in 1968. Fuchs erroneously taught that no act could be considered intrinsically evil (malum per se---"evil in itself"). As a result of this teaching, all moral actions that are branded evil, such as theft, adultery, and even murder, may admit of exceptions, given some special set of circumstance and intention.

In 1977, a group of Modernist theologians put out a book published by Paulist Press called Human Sexuality. In the pages of this tome you will find a defense of fornication, adultery, contraception, and homosexuality as morally acceptable if done for the "proper" motives and under "sufficiently fulfilling" circumstances. The Episcopalian "priest" and philosopher, Joseph Fletcher, became the "Father of Situation Ethics" around the same time. Fletcher would allow the direct killing (i.e., murder) of a terminal patient for such reasons as saving money, alleviating family anxiety, and to "put [the patient] out of his misery." Fletcher and the Modernists make murder, one of the Four Sins that Scream to Heaven for Vengeance, a pretty excusable act.

As a result of such a Modernist onslaught, it is now commonplace to hear such emotional appeals for killing someone in the form of such statements as, "How would you feel if you had tubes hooked up to you and couldn't move?" Such statements carry with them two poisonous presuppositions: (1) life, as such, has no intrinsic value, and (2) there is no good purpose in suffering. If you don't think the second presupposition is purely pagan, repeat it while looking at the Crucifix.

The Teaching of the Church
According to theologian Jone, "For the preservation of life and health, one must employ at least ordinary means. Ordinary means are: proper food, clothing, housing, and physical recreation; likewise medicinal remedies which are not beyond the means of the sick person...Employing extraordinary means of preserving one's life is generally not obligatory." (See Moral Theology, The Newman Press, [1962], pgs. 135-136). 

According to theologian Connell, "A person is obliged to to use ordinary means to preserve his life, but not extraordinary means, such as a very expensive operation, the procuring of an 'iron lung' for permanent need, or the continued and frequent use of blood transfusions." (See Outlines of Moral Theology, [1958], pg. 124; Emphasis mine)

Notice that the terms are not very concrete. What, exactly, constitutes "very expensive"? Is it an absolute dollar amount, or relative to the person's wealth? If the latter, what percentage of money is considered "very expensive"--15% of their money, etc.? What does "continued and frequent" mean? Once a year for life? Four times a year for the foreseeable future? When Jone and Connell wrote (1962 and 1958, respectively), blood transfusions were much more risky and the need for them has abated in many cases due to developments in medicine.

The theologians had developed their principles as time progressed. For example, compare these passages from theologian Noldin in 1922, and then his work as revised by theologian Schmitt nineteen years later in 1941:

Noldin, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 14th Ed. 1922, vol. 2, no. 326: "There is no obligation to undergo a serious surgical operation, or a notable amputation: even though today the pains of many operations are not acute, due to anesthetics, nevertheless, the obligation is not to be imposed, both because many have a great horror of it, and because the success, especially the lasting success, ordinarily is uncertain, and finally, because it is a grave inconvenience to live with a mutilated body."

Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 27th Ed. 1941, vol. II, no. 328: "Today the suffering is vastly decreased through narcotics, the danger of infection is very remote, and moreover success is more frequent and assured, and even for amputated members, there are artificial limbs--and therefore, at least where certain danger of death would very probably be avoided through an operation, it does not seem that it can be called an extraordinary means, unless there is a great horror of it."

There was a major re-evaluation due to the progress of medicine. The 1941 edition still had its problems: what constitutes a "great horror"? Also, I think had the Great Apostasy not happened, even that would have changed as we now understand that mental imbalance can frequently accompany serious illness, therefore "great horror" (in my opinion) would have been dropped from the text. 

What are the certain principles? 
1. Ordinary means to preserve life must always be used. It seems best defined as those things associated with the basics of life (food, water, rest, clothing, etc.) and what modern medicine can provide. There is never a good reason to starve someone to death. Even in "brain death" or a PVS ("persistent vegetative state"), we cannot know if the person is capable of suffering--suffering we wouldn't want an animal to endure, let alone a human being. 

2. Most of the now commonly available techniques of modern surgery, medicines, and other medicinal practices/devices should be classified as ordinary means of preserving life. 

3. Extraordinary means of preserving life need not be used. Those would seem to include experimental surgery, untested or unproven medicines and the like which cannot be used without prolonged suffering, devastating financial consequences, and offer no substantial chance of recovery.

We must be very careful in what we consider "extraordinary means" of preserving life. In the medical profession, there is the ideal which demands fighting off pain and death until the last possible moment. There is much to be said for that attitude. Many of the great advances in modern medicine, as well as perfection in surgical skill and technique, have been due to what might have frequently been called a "useless prolongation of life/suffering." Modern surgery is only considered an ordinary means of preserving life because of its extensive use in those stages of its development when it was considered an extraordinary means. We must not be too ready to lower that medical ideal, and slow medical progress in the immediate interest of a present case. The future betterment of humanity is also served by attempting "extraordinary means."

Conclusion
I submit all I write to the decisions of Holy Mother Church if and when the papacy is restored. Until such time, I believe that what I've written is a good guideline for end of life decisions. Please make sure you have a Health Care Proxy. This post is not meant to be morbid. It's just a realistic look at the bridge we must someday cross--be it for ourselves, or someone else. Most importantly, keep yourself spiritually healthy.

 "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." (Sirach 7:40). 




Monday, May 20, 2019

The Case Against Roncalli


 I learn quite a lot thanks to my readers. Each week in the comments section, there are many good discussions. Most are on the same topic as the post, but not always, and that's fine by me. When I'm challenged on a topic I often re-think my position, to get a better understanding both for my own edification and that I may be of more informative value to my readers. I believe in the axiom,"He who does not understand his opponents' point of view, doesn't fully understand his own." Last week, a comment was made by someone who objected to my designating Roncalli (John XXIII) as a false pope. He had challenged me on this point about a year ago, and I was going to research my position more thoroughly, but alas, life so often gets in the way of our plans.

This time, I started to research the topic and my findings were most fruitful--resulting in this post you're now reading. Anyone who wishes to read the whole thread between my interlocutor and myself may do so by referring to the comments section of last week's post. In sum, he said, "Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you're not applying this standard to Roncalli...Again, I don't know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine. " (Emphasis in the original).

In this post, I will put forth the reasons, proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that Roncalli must be objectively dismissed as a false pope. There's so much that could be written, but I will confine myself as best as possible to make it terse and get the point across without delving into all aspects of his life. Hence, you will not see, for example, accusations that he was a Freemason addressed. I might touch on such issues in another post. This one will suffice for the stated purpose.


Angelo Roncalli: A Brief Background
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the man who would convoke the Robber Council Vatican II, was born the fourth of thirteen children in 1881. He was born to a family of sharecroppers who lived in an Italian village. Roncalli studied for the priesthood, and completed his doctorate in Canon Law the same year as his ordination, 1904.  He became Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University in 1924, only to be relieved of his post within months "on suspicion of Modernism."

In February 1925, the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri summoned him to the Vatican and informed him of Pope Pius XI's decision to appoint him as the Apostolic Visitor to Bulgaria (1925–1935). He was subsequently consecrated a bishop in 1925 by Cardinal Porchelli. On 12 January 1953, he was appointed Patriarch of Venice and raised to the rank of Cardinal-Priest of Santa Prisca by Pope Pius XII. After the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, Roncalli was allegedly elected pope on the eleventh ballot occurring on October 28th. He took the regnal name of John XXIII. Interestingly, this was the first time in over 500 years that this name had been chosen; previous popes had avoided its use since the time of Antipope John XXIII during the Great Western Schism several centuries before. Both his name and his "reign" would be an appropriate foreshadowing of the Vatican II sect which he helped to create. 

Preliminary Considerations
1. A pope who falls into heresy--- as a private individual--- automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law.

 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

According to Wernz-Vidal, "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2:453). 

2. A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy. 

 According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)

3. If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order. 

According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine). 

Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on "specific and articulable facts," "taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances." Hence, if someone were elected pope, and coerced into resigning, he would remain pope. Any subsequent Cardinal "elected" could not attain to the papacy even if not a heretic. Moreover, with the death or true resignation of the man elected pope (at a time subsequent to the invalid election), it would not thereby automatically make the invalidly elected cardinal the Vicar of Christ. 

Was Roncalli a Heretic Prior to His Election?
  • In the biography by Lawrence Elliot entitled I Will Be Called John:A Biography of Pope John XXIII,[Reader's Digest Press, 1973] it is recorded that as early as 1914, Roncalli was accused of Modernism while a teacher at the seminary at Bergamo. Cardinal De Lai, Secretary for the Congregation of Seminaries, formally reprimanded Roncalli, saying: "According to the information that came my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [an author of a three volume work placed on the Index of Forbidden Books  for teaching Modernist tenets---Introibo] and other unbridled authors, and that on certain occasions you had shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty out the value of tradition and the authority of the past, a dangerous current which leads to fatal consequences." (pg. 59)
  • For ten years (1905-1915), Roncalli was secretary for Bishop Radini Tedeschi, a Modernist sympathizer. Roncalli describes him thus: "His burning eloquence, his innumerable projects, and his extraordinary personal activity could have given the impression to many, at the beginning, that he had in view the most radical changes and that he was moved by the sole desire to innovate...[Tedeshi] concerned himself less with carrying out reforms than with maintaining the glorious traditions of his diocese and with interpreting them in harmony with new conditions and the new needs of the times."(See Leroux, John XXIII: Initiator of the Changes, pg. 10) Bp. Tedeschi wanted to "update" traditions by re-interpreting them with the "needs of the times." Sound familiar? 
  • He received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli's own insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an "honest socialist." Pope Pius XI had stated, "No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist."(See Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno [1931], para #120)
  • While working in Bulgaria, Roncalli became well acquainted with Eastern Schismatics. His heretical ecumenism shone through "Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ." (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, [1998], pp. 18-19; Emphasis mine.) Do the schismatics share the same faith with the One True Church? Obviously not. 
  • According to Renzo Allegri (translated from the original Italian Il Papa che ha cambiato il mondo, Testimonianze sulla vita private di Giovanni XXIII, pg. 66) a Bulgarian journalist named Stefano Karadgiov stated, "I knew Catholic priests who refused to go into an Orthodox Church even as tourists. Bishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity in some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies which were celebrated in the principle Orthodox church in Sofia. He put himself in a corner and devoutly followed the rites. The Orthodox chants especially pleased him. (Emphasis mine) 
  • The import of Roncalli actively participating in false worship cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine)
  • Nor is this an isolated report of Roncalli participating in prayer with those outside the Church. According to John Hughes in Pontiffs:Popes Who Shaped History [Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1994], "He [Roncalli] became good friends of the Reverend Austin Oakley, chaplain at the British Embassy and the Archbishop of Canterbury's personal representative to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch. Even more unusual were Roncalli's visits to Oakley's chapel, where the two men prayed together." (Emphasis mine). Furthermore, according to Kerry Walters in John XXIII (A Short Biography) Franciscan Media,[2013], Roncalli once proclaimed from the pulpit that Jesus Christ "died to proclaim universal brotherhood." (pg. 14)

Did Something Strange Happen at the 1958 Conclave?
 1.  There were several top contenders for the papacy after the death of Pope Pius XII. Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, made it known to me that his personal friend, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, was so certain he would be elected, that he had already picked out his regnal name as Pope Pius XIII. Other strong contenders included Cardinals Agagianian (Modernist sympathizer), Lercaro (Modernist sympathizer), and Siri (anti-Communist and anti-Modernist like Ottaviani). The U.S. government was very interested in the election, as the Cold War was in high gear, and they wanted another staunch anti-Communist like Pope Pius XII. 

In October of 1958, there were only 55 Cardinals in the world, the lowest number in decades because Pope Pius knew so many bishops were suspect of Modernism. It was the "second wave" of resurgent Modernism. Pope St. Pius X had driven the Modernists underground, but had not extirpated them. So why did Pope Pius XII give the red hat of a Cardinal to Roncalli? Contrary to what many think, the Church doesn't simply excommunicate clerics on a whim. The fact that they were censured or held suspect of heresy is the Church doing Her job. The hope is to reform those who go astray and bring them back into the fold. Even the great St. Pius X gave the worst Modernists time to reform before excommunication. To be clear, the Church is in no way infallible when it comes to ecclesiastical appointments. Choosing someone as a Cardinal does not relieve their censure or suspicion of heresy automatically. 

Pope Pius XII had a back-stabbing Judas as his confessor; Fr. Augustin Bea. Bea was thought to be anti-Modernist, but at Vatican II he worked for the passage of Nostra Aetate, the heretical document on non-Christian religions. He was an ecumenist to the extreme and wanted the Jews "absolved" for their crime of Deicide. Could he have protected Roncalli, having the ear of Pope Pius and convincing him he was "reformed" and/or not electable as pope? This is one of many possibilities, but the crux of the matter is it does nothing to absolve Roncalli of his false teachings and even without ecclesiastical excommunication, he would have been removed from the Church by Divine Law for profession of heresy. 

2. Confusing white smoke signals appeared and American intelligence had allegedly found out that Cardinal Siri had been elected pope. Then the smoke was black. White smoke signals mean that a Cardinal had been elected and accepted his election as the new pope. This has lead some to speculate that Siri was elected pope ("Gregory XVII") and was forced to resign. Therefore Roncalli's election was null and void. I don't accept the "Siri Theory" for good reason.

 See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html for my thoughts on the "Siri Theory." Is it possible some other Cardinal was elected, forced to resign (which made Roncalli's election null and void), and then lost office by going along with the Modernists? It's a possibility. Lest anyone say there is no evidence of seriously confusing smoke, according to Kirk Clinger, "The partly white, partly dark smoke confused even the Vatican radio announcers. They had to apologize frequently for their error. The column of smoke which rose from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel was first whitish, then definitely white, and only later definitely black." (See A Pope Laughs: Stories of John XXIII,Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, [1964], pg. 43) 

3. The most convincing report I heard was that both Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri were unable to muster the two-thirds plus one vote to be elected. As a result, a group of "moderates" convinced most Cardinals to give their votes to Roncalli as a "transitional" pope. He was 77 years old, and (so the reasoning went) wouldn't do much. Could there have been threats to a Cardinal that got elected and he was forced to resign? At least two Cardinals present made disparaging statements about what transpired at that conclave, which is highly suggestive that there was something seriously wrong. They were Cardinals Ottaviani and Spellman. 

4. Does this give us a reasonable suspicion, such that we may doubt Roncalli's election? Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of evidence, so I'd say definitely so. However, there is more than ample proof Roncalli was a heretic prior to his election and therefore could not attain to the papacy. Finally, let's not forget that a cause can be discerned by examining the effects. For example, the intelligent design of the universe points to a Creator. Likewise, if the man who came out of the conclave did what a true pope would not (indeed could not) do, we can safely say he wasn't elected pope.  

5. Roncalli, as "pope" rehabilitated every major heretic that had been censured under Pope Pius XII and had them as approved periti (theological experts) at Vatican II. These heretics included the likes of Congar, de Lubac, and Hans Kung, among many others, none of whom were required to abjure any errors. Roncalli promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism." He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase "perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews." He modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar. He was friends with Socialists, Communists, and Freemasons, none of whom he sought to convert. Are these the actions of a true Vicar of Christ? 

Pacem In Terris: Heresy On Earth
The death-knell for those who wish to consider Roncalli pope lies in the fact that he professed heresy in his encyclical Pacem In Terris, published April 11, 1963. This section of my post is taken from the work of Mr. John Daly called John XXIII and Pacem in Terris. I give full credit to Mr. Daly for his incredible research  and incisive analysis. I have condensed the pertinent parts of his article in this section and included some of my comments and research, which I mixed in.---Introibo

The encyclical Pacem in Terris, was about "establishing universal peace in truth, justice, charity, and liberty," and in addition to the Church, it was addressed "to all men of good will." The heretical proposition is the opening sentence of paragraph #14. The official Latin version, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis ("AAS" --Acts of the Apostolic See), No. 55, 257-304 is as follows:

In hominis juribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectum conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim et publice profiteri. 

In English it means, "We must include among the rights of man that he should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience and to profess his religion privately and publicly."
Those who defend Roncalli will point out (correctly) that the Church teaches humans have the right to profess and practice only the Catholic religion which is the One True Church, outside of which no one is saved. Error has no rights. There is nothing wrong with this statement in Pacem (they contend) because the word rightful modifies the "prompting of his conscience" such that it implies that one is not simply entitled to follow his conscience in the worship of God unless his conscience is rightful (i.e., in accordance with the One True Church). What no Catholic can declare is that each person should be able "to profess his religion privately and publicly." This implies (as we shall see) that one can profess any religion, be it the True Religion or any of the myriad false religions, both privately and in public; which idea is heretical and condemned by the Church.

Here's where it gets interesting. The possessive adjective "his" does not appear in the official Latin text published in the AAS. However, its interpolation by translators (including the official English text available on the Modernist Vatican's website) is by no means unjustified for two reasons:

(a) Latin very rarely includes such adjectives, frequently showing them to be  understood from the context.
(b) Abundant evidence shows that John XXIII's true meaning is represented by the inclusion of "his"--which evidence will be examined.

If you read the sentence without the word "his" it admits of an orthodox interpretation: i.e., people have the right to profess religion publicly and privately provided it's the Catholic religion. Nevertheless, we cannot omit that word without altering the intended sense of the encyclical; a sense that is unabashedly heretical. Let no one protest that this is an exercise in mere semantics. The semi-Arian heretics, under pressure from the Emperor, were prepared to submit to every syllable of the Nicene Creed except they rejected the statement that Our Lord was consubstantial (homo-ousion) with the Father, but He was merely (homoi-ousion) of like substance, not the same substance. One letter marked the all important line between Catholic doctrine and heresy.

It is beyond dispute that the meaning Roncalli wished to convey, and to which he consciously lent his (alleged) "authority," was that each person has the right to profess his religion---whatever that religion may be--both privately and publicly. Here is the evidence:

1. The encyclical was not, as traditionally done, addressed only to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, but to "all men of good will." If it was only addressed to Catholics, one could argue that they would know that "his" religion is the Catholic religion, because only the Truth may be openly professed and preached. After all, he would then only have Catholics as his intended audience. It is completely unreasonable to expect Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, and Eastern Schismatics (among other non-Catholics) to obtain that understanding from the context. The only reasonable conclusion at which they would arrive is that the encyclical guarantees every single one of them the objective moral right to practice and profess his particular false religion in public.

2. The 32nd edition of Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum [The Enchiridion is a compendium of all the basic texts on Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostolic Age. Commissioned by Pope Pius IX, it has been in use since 1854, and has been regularly updated since] was edited by Fr. Schonmetzer and has the offending sentence tagged with a footnote referencing the Masonic United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This passage is irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, yet it is linked to the very sentence that would make a reader believe that everyone is free to express his religion in public, no matter if it is the true religion or not. It would suggest that Roncalli was conscious of that portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as he penned Pacem in Terris. If this does not contradict Catholic teaching, nothing does.

As Pope Gregory XVI taught: "Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care...This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it." (See Mirari Vos [1832], para. #13 and 14).

The defenders of Roncalli will protest that there is a "lack of evidence" that Roncalli authorized the footnote; but such objection fails miserably. The authors of the Enchiridion are selected precisely to ensure that their references and explanations will meet with official approval of the Holy See, and any remark misrepresenting the mind of same would meet with a public rebuke and a retraction demanded by Rome, which was far from the case. Moreover, the involvement of the editors of the 32nd edition is more demonstrable than in any prior edition. It was the first time that the passage of Pope Pius IX's condemnation of religious liberty was omitted.  The startling omission is explicable only on the basis that it was intended to conceal the explicit contradiction between Pacem in Terris and Quanta Cura. 

This passage was omitted: From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity" viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (See Quanta Cura [1864], para. #3).

Clearly, it cannot be reasonably maintained that those who took such great care to arrange the suppression of the "offending" part of Quanta Cura were not also responsible for the footnote to Pacem in Terris which concerned the same subject.

3. That fact that the sentence from Pacem in Terris must be understood in connection with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is confirmed by the fact that in Pacem itself, the Masonic United Nations and its Declaration are commended and praised in paragraphs #142, 143, and 144. Roncalli said of the Declaration "It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone's right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these." (para. #144; Emphasis mine). An encyclical is carefully read over by the Pontiff before signing and promulgating it. Moreover, high ranking theologians craft it at the direction of the pope. Each word is carefully chosen. If these "other rights" written in the Declaration did not include the infamous "right" to religious liberty, is it not obvious this would have been made clear?

4. The encyclical was roundly praised by the Masonic lodges and the secular media both of which promote religious Indifferentism and religious liberty through supporting separation of Church and State.

5. The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed "heretical by defect." This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:
"After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith...insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question."

Summation: It is impossible to excuse Roncalli (John XXIII) from the charge of heresy by arguing that this sentence can admit of an orthodox interpretation, because it does not. Even if, ad arguendo, it could so admit of an orthodox interpretation, Roncalli would still be guilty of heresy by defect because it has been shown that the obvious sense of the sentence, taken in both text and context, is incontrovertibly heretical.

Conclusion
What, then, are the practical and objective conclusions we can deduce from the so-called pontificate of "Good Pope John"? 

  • He was influenced and kept friends with Modernists, Masons, Socialists and other sworn enemies of the Church from his earliest days in the priesthood
  • He was removed from his teaching post on suspicion of heresy (Modernism)
  • He worshiped and prayed with heretics and schismatics 
  • He made an overtly heretical statement regarding Catholics and Eastern Schismatics having the "same faith"
  • The conclave of 1958 was surrounded by suspicious activity and lead many to believe that someone else had been elected pope prior to Roncalli
  • After his "election" Roncalli rehabilitated all the living censured theologians under Pope Pius XII and had them actively serve as theological experts during Vatican II
  • Roncalli taught the heresy of religious liberty in Pacem in Terris; he paved the way for its adoption at Vatican II in the heretical document Dignitatis Humanae
Therefore,
1. It is morally certain that Roncalli was not pope since at least the promulgation of the heretical encyclical Pacem in Terris of April 11, 1963. A true pope cannot teach heresy.

2. Was Roncalli "pope" from October of 1958 until April 11, 1963? In a word: No. We know a cause by the effect it produces. If you see someone who's sick, you know it's caused by an illness, even if you can't diagnose exactly what illness it is. Pope's do not rehabilitate heretics, promote ecumenism and teach heresy. It is highly more probable than not that Roncalli was a heretic at the time he entered the conclave and never attained to the papacy in the first place. It is also possible (but not likely) that someone else was elected pope and resigned under duress, making Roncalli's subsequent "election" invalid. There's more than sufficient evidence prior to the promulgation of Pacem in Terris that we can suspect the validity of his election (due to heresy, election of another, or both) to treat him as a dubious pope --which is no pope in the practical order.

I could write dozens of posts on "Evil Pseudo-Pope John." However, I hope this one will be sufficient to put to rest the arguments of those who are "agnostic" about his "papacy" and think he might have been pope. Finally, for those who have even the slightest qualm of conscience or scintilla of doubt remaining, let me add that Bergoglio "canonized" him a "saint." The same Argentinian apostate who gave us "St." John Paul the Great Apostate and "St" Paul VI, gave us "St" John XXIII. If that's not enough to make you realize the destruction he caused, and for which the Vatican II sect praises him, no amount of information can wake you from your denial.