Contending For The Faith---Part 50

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

The "God of the Gaps"

To My Readers: As a former science teacher, I had to explain to my students complex ideas in child-like (not childish) ways for them to understand. I have done that this week for those of you with children in grades 6-8. For those without children (or young children), you may know a youngster from the neighborhood or have a niece/ nephew in that age range. They may attend public school or have friends who do. They may be challenged that belief in God goes against science. My purpose in writing this post is to help them understand that God and science do not conflict at all, and science points to God. Most often some science texts (and some unscrupulous teachers) will mock belief in God as "the God of the gaps" that fills in to explain things science cannot yet elucidate. 

This writing is compiled from my many sources, both past and present, when trying to explain why God is a necessary postulate for the beginning of life.  Assuming everything modern science teaches is true, it proves (not disproves) the need for a Creator. I take no credit at all, except for condensing this into a terse post that you can hopefully use to help a child if he/she is challenged that life began on its own and belief in God is not compatible with science. Please comment if you find this post helpful; I have never written one like it before. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Have you ever wondered how life on Earth began? In the 1920s, two scientists came up with more or less the same answer to that question. One was the Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin, and the other was a British scientist called J.B.S. Haldane. They suggested that millions of years ago, there was a lot of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor, plus a few other ingredients, all bubbling away in a “primordial soup”. Nothing in this soup was alive. Then, all of a sudden (they theorized), some compounds called amino acids were formed—possibly because of a lightning strike which kick-started certain chemical reactions. Amino acids can combine together to make up proteins, and proteins are what you need for cells, and cells are what living things are made of. So, amino acids are often described as the basic building blocks of life. From a primordial soup to the beginnings of life! That’s how Oparin and Haldane thought it must have happened. And that’s how many people still assume it happened. Yet there are problems with this theory.

Most geochemists now think differently about which compounds were around at the relevant point in the earth’s history. It now seems to them that the atmosphere of the early earth would actually have prevented amino acids from forming. But there’s an even more serious difficulty than that. In one of the biggest discoveries of the 20th century, it was found that amino acids can’t become the building blocks of life until they are connected together in a particular order in very long chains. Why is this a problem for the “primordial soup” hypothesis? Because it’s extremely unlikely that this could happen by chance.

 I mean extremely unlikely. It’s been said that the likelihood of life starting from non-life, just like that, is about the same as the likelihood of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a Boeing 747 aircraft. (The mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle was the person who first made this comparison.). It might just be possible in theory, but it’s so improbable, it would never actually happen. Other theories have also been put forward. But the honest answer to the question, “How did life on Earth begin?” is that scientists aren’t sure.

Now you might expect me to say, “Therefore, God must have started life on Earth! It’s the only possible explanation. We must have a Creator!” However, making that kind of argument would be a mistake. As a matter of fact, I do believe that God is the one who got life started on our planet. Yet I don’t believe it just because scientists haven’t come up with a definite explanation.

I want you to imagine for a moment that you have grown up believing in Zeus—the Greek god of lightning. Every time there is a storm, you look out of your window and shudder at the rumbling thunder and flashes of light. You know that what you’re seeing is Zeus hurling a thunderbolt through the sky, and you fear for those who are feeling the full effects of his anger.

Now imagine that you go to school one day, and your physics teacher announces that the topic for today’s lesson is lightning. You listen in amazement as you discover how electrical charges build up inside clouds as ice crystals rub together. The lecturer explains that a flash of lightning is a huge spark that discharges this built-up electricity. In other words, lightning and thunder are just a giant version of the snap that happens when you’ve rubbed a balloon against your woolly sweater and then someone touches you.

You stare at your teacher as the penny finally drops: Zeus isn’t real. You believed in Zeus because you needed an explanation for thunder and lightning. But now you have a better explanation—one based on science. So you don’t need Zeus anymore. It makes no sense to believe in him, now that you know what you know. This is because Zeus is what we call a “god of the gaps.”

Throughout history, many people have believed in various gods because they wanted explanations for things they had no other way of understanding. The gods filled the gaps in people’s knowledge. But as science has developed, many of those gaps have gone away. We don’t need to believe in a god of lightning anymore because lightning isn’t a gap anymore: we know how it works. So if your only reason to believe in God is “We don’t know how life on Earth began; therefore there must be a God who miraculously made it happen,” you’re making the same error as the ancient Greeks. You’re believing in yet another god of the gaps—it’s just a different gap. If scientists discover more about what was going on in the very earliest stages of the earth, the gap might go away, and so will your belief in God. By contrast, the reason why I think God is the person who started off life on Earth is that I have lots of other reasons to believe that he exists and that he created the world. My belief in God doesn’t depend on a particular gap, or even on a combination of gaps. 

Let’s say you’ve decided to make a roast dinner, and you’re looking at a recipe. Perhaps it begins like this: "Preheat oven to 350F. Roughly chop 1 onion and 2 carrots. Scatter onion and carrots across the base of a roasting tin. Sit 1 whole chicken on top of the vegetables." The question is, how did those words come about?

Your answer is probably that a chef wrote them. That’s very reasonable. Language comes from people. (Even if the words come via AI, that AI still needs to have been given information by a human.) Faced with words, it’s reasonable to assume that a human mind is behind them. This is not a “mind of the gaps” argument. You’re not saying, “There is no explanation; therefore it must have been a person.” Instead, you are thinking through the evidence—which includes all the experience of writing and language you’ve had in your life—and you’re putting forward the explanation that fits best with that evidence: a human being designed this recipe and wrote these words. In the same way, plenty of people have looked at the world and decided that the best explanation for the way it works is that it has a Creator or designer. In other words, they put forward the hypothesis of a personal Creator we call GOD. (A hypothesis just means a scientist’s best guess. It means, “I’m not completely sure, but taking all the evidence into account, I think it probably happened this way.”).

One such person was the philosophy professor Antony Flew, a former atheist who died in 2010. 

Convinced by DNA

It was quite big news when, in 2004, Professor Flew decided that he believed in an intelligent Creator. He had been a well-known atheist for most of his life. He had even written books arguing for atheism and had persuaded lots of other people to be atheists too. Now he decided that there must be some sort of God. He explained:

My whole life has been guided by the principle … “Follow the evidence wherever it leads.” 

(See There is a God, [2007], pg. 123). 

What changed Flew’s mind was some new evidence that biologists had discovered about DNA. DNA is a bit like the words in your roast chicken recipe. It’s a set of instructions—a code that tells the cells in your body what to do. The thing is, your recipe wouldn’t be at all useful if it read like this:

"un3btdeo83 ^4 bs)@ bgs."

Instructions are only instructions if they have actual words in them, and words are only words if the letters are in the right order. In just the same way, DNA only works if the “letters” inside it come in the right order. (The “letters” are molecules called nucleotides, which have to be connected in specific ways in order to work.) When Flew understood this, he decided that the best explanation for the existence of DNA was some sort of intelligent designer. Just as you see a recipe and realise that a mind must be behind it, so Flew saw the way DNA works and decided that a mind must be behind that too.

This is different from believing in Zeus, because it involves actually looking at evidence. Flew saw the observations that scientists had made and formed the conclusion, based on evidence, that an intelligent mind was responsible for life on our planet.

More Evidence of a Designed Universe

There is other evidence that has persuaded scientists that God exists. We are gradually discovering that the fundamental forces in the universe are amazingly delicately balanced, or “fine-tuned”, to support life. Many different aspects of the universe—from the energy levels in carbon atoms to the rate at which the universe is expanding—turn out to be exactly what they need to be for life to be possible. Change any of them just a little, and we would not exist. For example, life wouldn’t exist without stars. To be more precise, we need both large stars, which are like huge machines that produce crucial elements like oxygen and carbon, and small stars, like our sun which burn long enough to provide the long-term warmth that is required for life. 

The theoretical physicist Paul Davies tells us that, happily, the forces of gravity and electromagnetism are delicately balanced in such a way that the universe includes both large stars and small stars. But if you changed the strength of one of those forces just slightly, you’d have big problems. What do I mean by “just slightly”? Davies explains that the accuracy that is needed is the same level of accuracy that you would need to shoot a gun and hit a coin at the far side of the universe—that’s 20 billion light years away. It’s very unlikely that anyone would make that shot successfully. But that is how accurately balanced the forces of gravity and electromagnetism have to be in order for life to exist. Davies concludes: The impression of design is overwhelming. (See The Cosmic Blueprint,[1988], pg. 203).

Conclusion

I hope you’re getting the point that believing in God can be rational—it’s a reasonable way of understanding the evidence that science shows us. However, it doesn’t make sense to believe in any old god. It doesn’t make sense to believe in a god who exists within the universe, like Zeus or Thor, and serves as an explanation for particular things we observe in the world. No, we have to be talking about a Creator God: someone who designed the universe and set the whole thing in motion. Someone who exists beyond the world we know. This is the only kind of God science can point us towards:

This is the One True God worshipped by the One True Church.

"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20).

The Lie That's Dismantling Marriages

 

To My Readers: This week's post comes from a new guest poster who has been a long time reader of my blog. He sent me this submission regarding Traditionalist Catholic marriages and a false notion of separating in a time of sedevacante. He said it has been affecting some marriages. It is well-researched, well-written, and charitable in tone. I've never touched on this subject before and I think you'll find it as interesting as I did. The guest poster is remainng anonymous and goes by the moniker Ozson. Please feel free to leave comments as always. If anyone has a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as usual, but it make take me a bit longer to do so this week.  

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

No Bishop, No Rules? The Quiet Lie That's Dismantling Traditional Catholic Marriages

By Ozson

Meet "Private Judgment Patricia."

(The name says everything. As you'll see.)

Patricia is a regular at her local traditional chapel.

Ten years of marriage. Several children. A domestic life that has grown heavy.

And lately... she's been doing a lot of reading.

Blog posts mostly.

The kind with titles like "5 Signs Your Husband Is Controlling"...

And "How To Recognize Emotional Abuse Before It's Too Late"...

She's also been seeing a counselor.

A modern one.

The kind who hands her a checklist on the third session.

And suddenly...

Everything her husband does gets a label.

He expects order in the home? Controlling.

He requires obedience from the children? Authoritarian.

He demands respect as head of the household? Emotionally abusive.

He leads with a firm hand according to the laws God Himself established? Toxic masculinity.

Never mind that the Church has always taught that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.

(Ephesians 5:23)

Never mind that order, obedience, and respect within the family are not abuses...

They are obligations.

Sacred ones.

But Patricia has a new vocabulary now.

And a new community to validate it.

In chapel community groups.

In private conversations after Mass and at brunch.

In the quiet, incense-heavy circles where bad ideas are not immune.

And somewhere in those conversations, a conclusion forms.

"There's no bishop here. No tribunal. No Ordinary to answer to."

"So I will judge this myself."

On a Tuesday morning, Patricia moves into her own residence.

She sits her husband down.

Looks him in the eye.

And tells him she is not asking for a divorce.

"I would never do that," she says.

"We're still married. I just cannot live under your roof anymore."

"I cannot continue to submit to your will."

Then she opens her Bible.

Ephesians 5:25.

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church."

She slides it across the table.

"You don't love me the way Christ loved the Church," she says.

"Because I don't FEEL loved anymore."

And there it is.

The feeling.

The blog post.

The counselor's checklist.

All of it weaponized to justify walking out the door...

While technically keeping her hands clean of the word "divorce."

And she begins her new life as an independent woman.

Patricia's story is not an isolated incident.

It is a mirror reflecting a widespread and growing error.

Many spouses in traditional circles have come to believe that the current state of the Church grants them a "private right" to separate on their own accord.

Especially when the modern world has handed them a ready-made excuse wrapped in therapeutic language.

So long as nobody files paperwork... it isn't really a sin.

This is a grave theological and canonical mistake.

Catholic teaching is unequivocal:

Marriage is a public sacrament.

Its bond is indissoluble by any human power.

And the right to separate is never a matter of private whim — never a matter of hurt feelings — and never a matter of therapeutic checklists...

Even, and perhaps especially, in a time of complete modernism.

The Public Nature of the Sacramental Bond

The foundational error in the "self-separation" of some ill-informed Sede’s is the belief that marriage is a private contract that can be rescinded when the parties feel it has "failed." On the contrary, the Church teaches that marriage is an intensely public act with profound social and sacramental consequences. The contract of marriage between two baptized persons was raised by Christ Himself to the dignity of a Sacrament (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1012; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 64). Because it is a Sacrament, the marriage bond falls under the exclusive and independent jurisdiction of the Church, not the state, and certainly not the private judgment of the spouses (The Sources of Dogma, Heinrich Denzinger, n. 1500a; Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2785).

When a couple stands before a priest and witnesses, they do not merely make a promise to each other; they enter into a "lasting conjugal union... raised to the dignity of a Sacrament" (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p. 4). This union is modeled on the relationship between Christ and His Church, which is perpetual and unbreakable (Moral Theology, Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap., n. 744; Ephesians 5:22-32).

The Grave Obligation of the Common Life and the Conjugal Debt

The Church’s law regarding the "common life" is a rigorous obligation. Spouses are bound sub gravi (under pain of grave sin) to live together and maintain the community of life (Moral Theology, Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap., n. 128; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 147).

This "common life" or cohabitatio is demanded by the very nature of the marriage promises (Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2626).

Furthermore, we must recognize the gravity of the marital obligations themselves. To separate means to refuse the marriage debt, which is a mortal sin (A Catechism for Adults, Rev. William Cogan, 1958, p. 143).

The rendering of marital dues is an obligation of justice; to refuse marital relations for a whim or minor inconveniences is to violate a grave contract and expose the partner to sin (Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 202). Leaving the domestic roof without a legitimate and certain cause is defined as the "delict of desertion" (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Divorce," Vol. 5).

The 1917 Code of Canon Law is explicit: "Married people are bound to preserve a community of conjugal life unless a just cause excuses them" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1128; Cohabitation and Separation of Married Persons, Rev. Culvar Bernard Alford, p. 1).

The Strict Standard for Permanent Separation (Adultery)

The Church allows for permanent separation only in the case of adultery, and this is hedged with strict evidentiary requirements. The adultery must be "morally certain" and not "condoned" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1129; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 149).

In this context, "certainty" refers specifically to the carnal act itself. It is not sufficient to point to "kissing" or even "fellatio" as grounds for permanent separation. While these are grave sins of impurity, the legal ground for separation requires the consummated act of infidelity (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p. 225). "Moral certainty" requires objective proof, such as:

1. Direct Evidence: Witnessing the act itself.
2. Confession: A voluntary and definitive admission.
3. Biological Proof: The birth of a child that cannot biologically be the husband’s (Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2831; Moral Theology, Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap., n. 763).

Unbearable Cruelty vs. Modern "Incompatibility"

A frequent excuse for temporary separation in traditional circles is "mental cruelty" or "misunderstandings." However, the Church’s standard for saevitia (cruelty) is absolute. As William J. Doheny notes:

“Unbearable Cruelty Which Renders Conjugal Life Insupportable [is a ground for temporary separation …] The Latin term saevitia means excessive or unbearable cruelty, harshness, extreme severity, fierceness, and barbarity. What is called cruelty, by way of travesty, in modern divorce courts could not be viewed as saevitia, in the sense of canon 1131 §1.

Hence, the so-called incompatibility of temperament, divergence of views, and the like would not be considered sufficient to invoke separation” (Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases, Volume II, Informal Procedure, William J. Doheny, 1944, p. 634).

Frequent quarrels are likewise insufficient. Marion Gibbons clarifies that the Holy See does not regard them as a "just cause":

“Frequent quarrels, in themselves, are not regarded by the Holy See as a ‘just cause’ even for a temporary separation, as is clearly seen from a decision of the Rota in the year 1928… In this case the alleged cause in modern parlance would have been termed ‘incompatibility of temperament’… The Sacred Rota declared that the frequent quarrels were due to avarice rather than ‘implacable hatred,’ and refused to grant a temporary separation inasmuch as a ‘just cause’ was not present” (Domicile of the Wife Unlawfully Separated from her Husband, Marion Gibbons, 1947, p. 62-63, citing Roman Rota, coram Florczak, June 30, 1928).

The Roman Rota explicitly states that “[L]ight injustices from abusive words or the incompatibility of the personalities of the spouses which make cohabitation troublesome cannot be considered as sufficient causes to separate the spouses” (Roman Rota, coram Florczak, June 30, 1928, par. no. 2).

Physical and Spiritual Peril

Temporary separation is permitted for "grave bodily or spiritual danger" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1131, §1). Physical peril includes severe beatings or threats to life, not merely a "stern" husband. Spiritual peril involves being forced into mortal sin, such as "onanistic" practices (contraception) or being forced to provide children with a non-Catholic education (Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 147; The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Rev. Denis Fahey, p. 110).

Non-Catholic education refers to formal acts like enrolling children in secular schools where "immoral doctrines" like radical feminism are mandatory, or taking them to heretical services (The Casuist, Vol. 5, p. 1; A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p. 363). In these cases, the spouse may separate only while the danger persists and must resume life as soon as it ceases (Canon 1131, §2).

The Duty of Reinstatement and the Restoring of Cohabitation

The modern "self-separation" movement ignores the right of the deserted spouse to demand the restoration of the union. When one partner leaves on their own authority, they commit a "spoliation" (spolium) of the other’s rights.

“Either of the pair leaves the other of his or her own authority; for the one who is thus left is unjustly deprived by the other of his conjugal rights… the rule is, that the ecclesiastical judge, upon due application by the injured party, should, speaking in general, forthwith decree reinstatement—that is, restore him or her to his or her conjugal rights by obliging the party that left of his or her own accord to return” (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law: Vol. II, Fifth Edition, Rev. Sebastian Bach Smith, 1887).

This is not a matter of personal "space," but of legal and moral restitution. The deserting consort should be "entreated to return" and the judge may use judicial actions to force that return if the reason for departure was unjust (Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases, Doheny, 1944, p. 659; The Canonical Procedure in Separation Cases, James P. King, 1952, p. 90).

The Jurisdiction Trap: The Role of the Ordinary and Civil Filing

The central error of "self-separation" is the belief that a lack of an Ordinary grants a wife jurisdiction over her own case. This is false. Even if a marriage were truly invalid, "no priest, however certain he may be of the status of such a case, can pass judgment on it" (The Casuist, Vol. 5, p. 15).

Furthermore, to file for civil divorce without the Bishop’s permission is a grave sin. In the United States, Article 126 from the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore stated it was a "grave sin to file for civil separation (or divorce) without first having the Bishop’s permission". This requirement is maintained in Canon 1692 §2, which specifies the Bishop "can grant permission to approach the civil forum" only after weighing special circumstances. Without this, the party is practicing "ecclesiastical anarchy."

Consequences: Custody, Support, and the Harm to Children

When a separation occurs, the Church’s laws on the effects are clear and prioritize the innocent party.

• Custody: "After the separation, the children are to be placed in charge of the innocent party" (The New Canon Law, Stanislaus Woywod, 1918, p. 231; Canon 1132).
• Support: If a husband causes the separation, "he is bound to support her [the wife] for the rest of her life... in the same manner he was supporting her before the separation took place" (The Canonical Separation of Consorts, Rev. Eugene Forbes, 1948, p. 239). The "guilty" party does not get to walk away from their financial obligations.  […] If the mother were the cause, they [the children] were to be raised by the father at the mother’s expense, especially in a case where she was wealthy” [pages 239, 241]).

The harm to children is the most catastrophic consequence. Separation deprives them of the "stable environment" necessary for moral development, often turning them into "orphans of living parents".

Conclusion: Fidelity as a Counter-Revolutionary Act

In an age of "no-fault divorce" and "fickle whim," the traditional Catholic family must be a sign of contradiction (Encyclical Letter Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII). The "story of Patricia" must end not in an apartment of her own, but in a humble return to the domestic roof. Fidelity in the desert requires a traditional obedience to the husband as head of the family and to the unbreakable laws of the Sacrament. To leave a husband on one's own accord is to follow the path of the world; to stay and carry the Cross of Matrimony is the only path to the Kingdom (Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 2, n. 2787).

MAID To Die

 

On December 30, 2025, 26 year-old Kiano Vafaeian of Canada ended his life through the country's "Medical Aid In Dying" (MAID)law, enacted in 2016. Vafaeian was diagnosed with type one diabetes as a toddler. Years later, he was diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy, losing all of his vision in one eye and 70% of his vision in the other eye. Vafaeian's mother claimed that because of his conditions and a difficult childhood, her son struggled with his mental health for years. By the time he reached his early 20s, she knew he wasn’t doing okay. (See people.com/mom-outraged-son-approved-for-medical-aid-in-dying-mental-illness-11894589). A "doctor" (I use that term loosely in this context) allowed a mentally ill man who was not terminally ill to be murdered. His parents were outraged that their mentally ill son had his life taken, even as they saw nothing wrong with the law for the terminally ill. 

The MAID law allows patients with terminal illnesses to end their lives with lethal medication either taken themselves or administered by a physician or nurse. The current MAID law in Canada does not apply to people with mental illnesses. An expansion to the law, which would include those with mental illness, is currently set to go into effect in March 2027. 

Many years ago (1990 to be precise), I began a public awareness campaign to let people know that the so-called "right-to-die" being advocated by the likes of Jack Kervorkian would eventually become a "duty-to-die." Jack Kervorkian (1928-2011) was a physician who helped 130 people kill themselves. 

After four failed prosecutions, Michigan authorities sent Kevorkian to prison for 10 to 25 years in 1999 on second-degree murder charges after he videotaped himself giving Thomas Youk, who had the debilitating ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), a lethal cocktail of chemicals. The tape was aired on national television. Kevorkian served eight years in prison before being released in 2007.

Fast forward to 2020, and look what has happened since the time of "Dr. Death" (as the media dubbed Kervorkian). The highest court in Germany declared that committing suicide is a fundamental right — for everybody and for any reason — and that being assisted or assisting others in the act are ancillary rights associated with that "liberty." In other words, death on demand. Now, in 2025 the Supreme Court of Estonia followed the same course as Germany. As of last year, euthanasia is the fifth-leading cause of death in Canada, with more than 15,000 patients murdered ("MAIDed") annually.

According to one source, here's how low Canada (and society at large) has fallen:

The details of the assisted-death experience have become a preoccupation of Canadian life. Patients meticulously orchestrate their final moments, planning celebrations around them: weekend house parties before a Sunday-night euthanasia in the garden; a Catholic priest to deliver last rites; extended-family renditions of “Auld Lang Syne” at the bedside.

For $10.99, you can design your MAID experience with the help of the Be Ceremonial app; suggested rituals include a story altar, a forgiveness ceremony, and the collecting of tears from witnesses. On the Disrupting Death podcast, hosted by an educator and a social worker in Ontario, guests share ideas on subjects such as normalizing the MAID process for children facing the death of an adult in their life — a pajama party at a funeral home; painting a coffin in a schoolyard. 

(See theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/09/canada-euthanasia-demand-maid-policy/683562; Emphasis mine).

A Vatican II sect minister giving "last rites" before someone takes their life and children having pajama parties at funeral homes; am I the only one who is seriously disturbed by the very thought of such things?  In the Canadian Journal of Bioethics, philosopher Wayne Sumner wrote the following:

If we regard an increasing number of joint replacements or abortions as success, with supply having risen to meet demand, why should we think that an increasing number of MAiD provisions is a failure, or somehow a problem? If more awareness, more providers, and more support are good things for these other services, why are they a bad thing for MAiD? Why should we think differently about MAiD than we do about other medical procedures? What's so special about MAiD? 

(See erudit.org/en/journals/bioethics/2025-v8-n4-bioethics010388/1121331ar). So MAID is "successful" like abortion and hip replacements? Euthanasia is suicide for the person who consents to be killed, and an act of murder for the one's who carry it out, or enable the victim to carry it out. Abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn baby. These are analogized to a hip replacement? 

The differences should be apparent:

• Euthanasia and abortion are the taking of a human life and are therefore not medical treatments at all, unlike a hip transplant
• Legalizing abortion paved the way for euthanasia. Life is cheap. If you doubt that, a recent poll of Canadians found 28% were in favor of euthanizing the homeless (See/researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD_CAN_05May2023.pdf). 
• Soon, it will be a matter of saving money. It won't be long before the only thing covered by medical insurance will be the lethal injection and embalming fluid

Let me be clear: euthanasia was never about a "merciful death," a "way to alleviate suffering," or "helping those with terminal illness," anymore than abortion was about "a woman's right to do what she wants with her body." It's about the exaltation of materialism and hedonism in a worldview that excludes God and His One True Church. 

The Teaching of the Church

 N.B. The following text is from Dr. Albert Niedermeyer, M.D., Ph.D. in his book Compendium of Pastoral Medicine. Published in 1961, this text was used by the Church in the Archdiocese of New York to train priests in the seminary. It contains a Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and carries an Imprimatur from Cardinal Spellman. It's hard to believe it was written 65 years ago, as it predicted with uncanny accuracy the dilemma we are in today. How wise Holy Mother Church!---Introibo

Euthanasia is the extreme consequence of a series of postulates which represent an ideological unity and which are directed against the sacred character of life: birth prevention, abortion, sterilization, suppressive selection. The rational principle common to all of these postulates is an absolutely temporal intention; a materialism not always well disseminated; the idea of an unlimited autonomy of man, with the elimination of a supernatural moral law and of responsibility before God as Creator, Legislator, and Supreme Judge.

Passing over the apparently harmless postulates--such as the licit alleviation of pain in incurables---there is the attempt little by little to attain more ample consequences; the concession of stronger doses of narcotics to "shorten the suffering" of incurables and dying persons, going as far as exterminating the insane and idiots who are designated as "useless human remains," as having "useless existences," etc., and finally eliminating the old and defective. [N.B. The good doctor's use of the word "idiot" is not the pejorative term applied to people who are unintelligent or foolish, as we use it today. It was a medical term for retarded persons who had and IQ below a 25 on the Binet scale.---Introibo].

The initial postulate to "help the dying" is transformed finally into an open destruction of life. The apparent humanity of the motive reveals itself a crass materialism...

The sacred character of life is the basis of medical morality. The doctor is not the lord of life and death. A conscientious doctor will always refuse to assume the role of an executioner, even if there is the attempt to glorify him with rhetorical exaltation and if there is attributed to the "selectionist doctor" the greatest dignity, and if, in his hands, the greatest power is placed.

Finally, even in the mental life of the apparently mentally dead, there are many unsolved enigmas. In many cases surprising facts have become known by discovering before immanent death a richness of mental life--buried under the surface---that was hidden in completely demented persons. We also do not know what takes place in the dying. We merely perceive that the last moments are of decisive importance. These last moments can bring to many dying persons a great amount of grace and can still save an apparently lost soul. 

When a man believes himself authorized to shorten, even by a few seconds, the life of his fellow creature, he deprives him of these decisive moments of grace---and in so doing, possibly still thinks he is benefitting him. From the higher supernatural viewpoint there is no useless life...

There is no defense of the rights of man if, from the beginning to the end, there is no respect for the right to life, and, in consequence, respect for the Creator and Preserver of Life. The right to life is of iuris divini, and hence absolute, universally obliging and inalienable. (pgs. 202-204; Emphasis mine). 

Conclusion

In the days of Pope Pius XII, Canada's program would have been met with swift, vigorous, and unrelenting condemnation; excommunications upon all involved. What encyclicals, excommunications, and denunciations have come out of Prevost's Modernist Vatican? When Portugal enacted euthanasia in 2023, the AP news recorded this response from Bergoglio:

 “Today when we celebrate the memory of the apparitions of the Virgin Mary to the little shepherds of Fatima, I am very sad, because in the country where Our Lady appeared, a law to kill has been enacted,” the pope said Saturday morning at the Vatican.

That's what I call a strong condemnation and taking action! The devaluing of human life continues unabated. We must do all we can to stop it. Vote, petition, pray--everything possible. Euthanasia is legal in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In Europe, the practice is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain, according to Reuters. Medically assisted suicide is also legal in several other countries across the continent.

In the U.S., medical aid in dying (MAID) is authorized in 10 states, including New Jersey and California, as well as Washington D.C., according to [False] Compassion and [Forced]Choices, a nonprofit that “works to improve care and expand choice at the end of life" [read: "murder people"].

We must do all we can to protect ourselves and our loved ones (indeed all humans) from being subjected to a Morally Abominable Inflicted Death.

"I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live: " (Deuteronomy 30:19). 

The Occult Life Coach

 

Recently, I saw Tony Robbins on his Tony Robbins Network (TRN), featuring news shows, live event coverage, and interviews aimed at personal development. Although I had heard of Robbins, it wasn't until a few years ago I realized he was an occultist. Now that he is getting even more popular with his bold AI powered app, I thought this would be a good time to warn Traditionalist about Robbins. 

(N.B. The information in this post has been taken from many sources, both online and in print. I take no credit for the material herein except for condensing it into a terse and readable post, as well as adding some commentary---Introibo). 

For those of you who don't know, Tony Robbins is billed as a motivational speaker, life coach, author, and philanthropist. He has molded a business empire with remarkable marketing savvy, and his clients include former President Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, and Hugh Jackman. According to one source:

Tony Robbins is a prominent entrepreneur, motivational speaker, and life coach, widely recognized for his dynamic seminars designed to inspire personal and professional transformation. Born Anthony J. Mahavorick on February 29, 1960, in Glendora, California, Robbins faced significant challenges during his childhood, including poverty and family turmoil, which fueled his desire for success and helping others. After being influenced by motivational speaker Jim Rohn, Robbins entered the self-help industry, founding Robbins Research International in 1983 and publishing his influential book, Unlimited Power, in 1986. Robbins is known for his high-energy events, including the famous "Date with Destiny," where attendees experience activities like firewalking, which symbolize overcoming personal barriers. (See ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/tony-robbins).

The documentary, I Am Not Your Guru (2016), is the first time that Tony Robbins allowed his 6-day annual seminar, Date with Destiny, to be filmed. Each day ran about 12 hours and cost each person about $5,000 ($6,864 in today's market when adjusted for inflation). 

How Robbins' Seminars Work

The "God" Within.

The people (about 2,500 of them) at the seminar are divided into teams and team leaders get information from them that is relayed to Robbins. In one moving scene in the movie, Robbins asks those who are suicidal to stand up (knowing already from the team leaders that several are suicidal). He talks to one woman who tearfully recounts her life in the "Children of God" cult  and the sexual abuse in it that nearly destroyed her.

Robbins tells her she has survived because she is pure love since she survived the abuse. Sadly, this woman is not being told of Jesus and His Church. Instead, Robbins points her to herself, to her own supposed inner strength. He has her choose three men from the audience who agree to be her so-called "uncles" for the next 10 years and check in on her. Robbins also offers her training in his principles to allegedly make her more powerful. 

Hopefully, you can see the serious problems with this set-up. This woman does not really know who these men are or what they are like. Yet this vulnerable woman is to trust these men for 10 years as though they are "spiritual uncles" who will be there for her. How do we know one of them is not a psychopath, abuser, rapist, or swindler? Ironically, this woman who endured sexual abuse may be setting herself up for more abuse from these unknown men, and she has Robbins to thank for it. 

Having a "Breakthrough"

On the next to last day, Robbins asks those who have not had “breakthroughs” to stand. Several stand, and he has them write down, Stay in your head, and you’re dead. He tells them that it is not over yet. A "breakthrough" is an emotional response that makes you feel as if you "learned something" about yourself. Most often, it's about what you need to do in order to "be whole" (e.g., be more loving, etc.). 

The message that staying in your head (thinking) is a bad thing, is done to provoke emotional or even irrational responses. Teaching that you are thinking too much or in your head too much is a maneuver to undermine logical or clear thinking. This idea of thinking too much or that you should get out of your head is found throughout the teachings of cult leaders, Eastern paganism, the occult, and even in the Star Wars franchise. This is a ploy to downgrade critical thinking, an indispensable tactic for speakers like Robbins, cults, and belief systems that are against God. 

The Occult Visualization.

The audience later gets into groups of four to announce to the others who they are: I, Sarah, am love; I, Roger, am passion, and so forth, naming their "breakthrough." The point is to redesign your life according to whatever breakthrough one may have had. The confrontations in the smaller groups are more passionate and intense. 

The attendees also practice a fast-breathing exercise that involves raising hands up and down. They then stop, close their eyes, and breathe deeply while Robbins leads them in a guided meditation (visualization) about their "heart" as Eastern music plays. Some people put their hands on others’ heads as this is done. 

The identification with an emotion and experience, the breathing exercise, the physical touching, and the visualization are manipulations. The breathing exercise alters the mind to a suggestible state, as does the guided meditation. It causes altered states of consciousness, and thereby will also open one up to diabolic obsession or possession, as is done in pagan religions. 

Firewalking?

More than any other teaching or practice, firewalking is what initially drew the media to Tony Robbins. Does Robbins still promote firewalking? Yes. During his “Unleash the Power Within” conferences, for instance, attendees walk barefoot across a bed of hot coals that is some twelve feet long (taking about five or six steps to complete).

The term firewalking is itself a misnomer in that one does not walk across literal flames, but hot coals. Critics are quick to point out that walking across hot coals without getting burned is not a matter of positive mental thinking or religious mysticism, but merely physics. Just as placing your hand inside a hot oven will not burn you while touching metal in the oven will indeed burn, the solution to safe firewalking has to do with heat conductivity and thermal conduction. There’s also the factor of time. Firewalking over ten or twelve feet is literally over within a matter of just a few seconds or less — hardly enough time for hot coals to burn through the soles of the feet of the average person. 

The Pattern of a Cult Followed:

•  to expect something big
• to create emotional response
• to confront people with hard questions in an emotional context that yield a seeming cathartic breakthrough
• to praise people for rejecting something in their life that supposedly holds them back
• to have others there to affirm the changes (group think/peer pressure)

Tony Robbins: Deceptive and False Teachings

Hedonism

Robbins is quite clear about his belief that success in life is determined by our views of pain and pleasure. Indeed, changing our perspective of pain and pleasure, according to Robbins, is key to succeeding in life. Calling it “the force that shapes your life,” Robbins explains, “There is undoubtedly a single driving force behind all human behavior. This force impacts every facet of our lives, from our relationships to our finances to our bodies and brains. What is this force that is controlling you even now and will continue to do so for the rest of your life? PAIN and PLEASURE! Everything you and I do, we do either out of our need to avoid pain or our desire to gain pleasure."

(See Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within [1991], pgs. 52-53; Emphasis in original)

Within the Christian worldview, Christ is our highest good and our best pursuit, not our own pleasure. Christ told his followers not to focus on themselves, but to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him (St. Matthew 16:24). 

Neuro-associative conditioning (NAC)

A form of Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), it is neurological nonsense. According to Robbins, it is not enough merely to understand his perspective on pain and pleasure: “If you and I want to change our behavior, there is only one effective way to do it: we must link unbearable and immediate sensations of pain to our old behavior, and incredible and immediate sensations of pleasure to a new one.”

(See Awaken the Giant Within, pg.123).

The intent is to be able to create nearly instant change in any area of life, thus creating a changed "state,” as Robbins calls it. Consequently, a problem that may normally take much time and effort to address, such as a phobia, can supposedly be cured rapidly by applying Robbins’s NLP-inspired techniques.

However, does NAC have any validity? In a 2019 paper published in International Coaching Psychology Review, a group of experts wrote that: “there are many critics of NLP who view NLP as variably a pseudoscience, pop psychology or even a cult, with no evidence base for its effectiveness.”

(See researchgate.net/publication/330881008_The_Evidence_for_NLP_International_Coaching_

Psychology_Review_Vol_14_No_1_Spring_2019)

Even if, ad arguendo, NAC were true, there are some “states” that we are better off not changing instantly. For instance, God may wish to use pain, guilt, remorse, and other circumstances in order to help us mature as individuals, lead us to Him, and, in the long run, make us better people rather than desiring us immediately to vanquish such feelings.

Cognitive and Religious Relativism

In Awaken the Giant Within, Robbins writes, “The question is: which one of these beliefs is the true belief? The answer is that it doesn’t matter which one is true. What matters is which one is most empowering.” (pg. 79). Therefore, truth is relative. If you find atheism empowering, be an atheist. If you find Christianity empowering, be Christian. If you find pantheism to be empowering, be a pantheist.

Yet, as these beliefs are mutually exclusive (since they involve contradictory assertions), all cannot be true. Robbins is not concerned with the truth, but with reaching broader audiences with his message, allowing him to avoid criticizing or excluding his audience’s beliefs or traditions and getting more followers. 

His idea of empowerment is also a dangerous one. If feeling empowered is all that is necessary for something to be true/good and followed, what of a serial killer who finds murder empowering? Robbins never follows his teaching to its logical and dangerous conclusion. 

Robbins’s primary emphasis, however, comes across as sympathetic to Eastern religious ideas. Specific phrases and ideas are occult, such as when he writes, “Your reality is the reality you create." (See Robbins, Unlimited Power: The New Science of Personal Achievement, [1986], pg. 67). He often cites other occultists such as Deepak Chopra and Marianne Williamson. 

Visualization: The Occult Practice Exposed

Robbins ends with visualization/guided meditation, to make attendees "redesign their lives" and realize they can "create their own reality" for they are "god." By using your mind's eye to envision things, visualization claims you can actually make it happen. For example, visualization can supposedly be used to change one’s self-image from negative to positive by holding a positive image of oneself in the mind. Visualization may also serve to uncover a claimed “inner divinity” that can allegedly manipulate reality. By creating the proper mental image and environment and then holding it or projecting it outward, practitioners claim they can exercise mental power over every aspect of their lives. Related practices are also used in magick (i.e., occult) rituals to call on spirits in order to secure such goals.

Since the mind is potentially so powerful, proponents say, proper visualization methods can affect health, finances, educational abilities, relationships, career — and even one’s destiny. In the pagan Hindu and Buddhist religions, for example, the thought or image one holds at death is believed to powerfully influence one’s next life (the heretical doctrine of reincarnation). This is one reason given for adopting mental training exercises such as visualization. The influence of this practice cannot be overstated. 

Visualization is now employed in education at all ages, such as in counseling, creative writing, and problem-solving courses. It is also used to develop altered states of consciousness in students in order to acquire the capacity to reach “inner guides” or allegedly tap the “higher self” and its powers. It is used for enhanced learning potential, self-esteem, and stress reduction. 

Sports, exercise and health are using visualization and there is even a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to it, the Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity. The objective of the journal is stated as follows:

The Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity is the first peer-reviewed journal devoted to research on the role of imagery in sport, physical activity, exercise, and rehabilitation settings. Imagery, also referred to as cognitive enactment or visualization, is one of the most popular performance enhancement and rehabilitation techniques in sports and physical activity. Journal editor Sandra Moritz (University of North Dakota) is a recognized leader in the field, and the journal’s editorial board represents leading institutions in the U.S., U.K., and Canada. The single destination for all imagery-related research in sports and in physical activity, the Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity is an indispensable tool for scholars and practitioners of imagery, sports science, kinesiology, physical education, and psychology. (See degruyter.com/journal/key/jirspa/html?lang=en; Emphasis mine). 

Shamans, spiritists, magicians, and witches routinely use visualization, and it is commonly used in pagan/occult sects such as Rosicrucianism, Tantrism, Hinduism and Buddhism. 

There are three (3) basic reasons people get involved with visualization when they are not a member of a pagan religion or already involved in occult activity:

1. The Quest for Personal Power. Visualization promises people the ability to transform reality to their benefit. It is "God-like" power. You can “think yourself rich” (or healthy, handsome/beautiful, happy, etc.). 

2. The Quest for Spiritual Enlightenment. Visualization claims to be able to evoke "the wisdom that lies deep within us." Suddenly, information you never knew will be revealed to you in your mind's eye, or you will meet your spirit guide who will give you "wisdom."

3. The Quest for Physical Health. Wild claims are made that visualization can make you super-athletic and cure every known malady. 

Sounds just like Robbins' sales pitch. (N.B. There are also Vatican II sect "priests" who employ visualization, but that is outside the scope of this post, and that reason will not be discussed---Introibo).

The Dangers of Robbins Visualization:

People will come to believe heretical and occult teachings; specifically:

• Pantheism : Everything is interconnected by divine energy, the One power, or ultimate cosmic reality

• Humans are divine in their true nature and each person controls his personal destiny; he is an integral part of this divine energy and can realize this experientially through proper technique and instruction

• The mind of each human has “infinite” potential; the “higher self” or unconscious mind provides the connecting link to the infinite and is believed to be the repository of vast wisdom and ability

• Visualization is an important technique that initiates contact with the ultimate cosmic reality.

Other Disturbing Facts Re: Tony Robbins

Robbins has faced his share of controversy. In 2001 his fifteen-year marriage ended in divorce, with Robbins remarrying later that same year. Some critics pointed to his divorce as an example of the failure of his teachings, noting, for instance, that at the time of the divorce Robbins was leading workshops on the subject of healthy relationships.

Another controversy involved accusations by financial “guru” Wade Cook, who claimed that Robbins used material from Cook’s book Wall Street Money Machine, including specific terms and phrases, without permission. Cook filed a lawsuit and, in 1998, was awarded more than $650,000. 

The National Council against Health Fraud, a private health agency, has also questioned some of the health and dietary advice offered by Robbins including dubious breathing techniques, “misinformation” about combining foods, and more, noting, “Robbins reveals his ignorance about physiology as he misinforms readers about how the body rids itself of metabolic wastes. 

(See quackwatch.org/ncahf/articles/o-r/robbins/).

Conclusion

Robbins will say that we all have been programmed to believe certain things that hold us back, and we need to cast those false ideas off and start fresh. We make our own reality because of the "divine within;" that is the clear thrust of such teachings. Manipulative techniques discussed in this post make one suggestible and then condition one’s thinking to conform to the teachings. The teachings are occult and heretical. Visualization can open you to an altered state of consciousness where demons can cause obsession or even possession. 

Find your personal power in Christ, His Immaculate Mother, the sacraments, and the teachings of the One True Church. Reject Tony Robbins as your "life coach," and make Christ your "Eternal Life Coach."

Contending For The Faith---Part 49

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

The Titles of the Blessed Mother

Christ's Mother is constantly under attack in the godless world and in the Counterfeit Catholicism of the Vatican II sect. On the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary, Robert Prevost ("Pope" Leo XIV), signed the document Mater Populi Fidelis ("The Mother of the Faithful People of God"). It was a direct attack on the Mother of God's titles as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Grace. The lies of the Vatican II sect and the truth about the Blessed Mother's titles shall be the subject of this post. 

The Lies of the Vatican II Sect

Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF) has this to say about Mary's title as Co-Redemptrix:

The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons. Saint John Paul II referred to Mary as “Co-redemptrix” on at least seven occasions, particularly relating this title to the salvific value of our sufferings when they are offered together with the sufferings of Christ, to whom Mary is united especially at the Cross. (See para. #18; Emphasis mine).

On at least three occasions, Pope Francis expressed his clear opposition to using the title “Co-redemptrix,” arguing that Mary “never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as a co-Savior. No, a disciple.” Christ’s redemptive work was perfect and needs no addition; therefore, “Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus… She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. There is only one Redeemer, and this title cannot be duplicated.” Christ “is the only Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.” For “the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction.” While we are able to extend its effects in the world (cf. Col 1:24), neither the Church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions. (See para. #21). 

Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. (See para. #22). 

MFP has this to say about the venerable title "Mediatrix of All Grace:"

In 1921, Cardinal Mercier, Archbishop of Mechelen — with the scholarly collaboration of the Catholic University of Louvain and the support of the bishops, clergy, and laity of Belgium — petitioned Pope Benedict XV to issue a dogmatic definition of Mary’s universal mediation. However, the Holy Father did not grant this request; he only approved a feast with its own Mass and the Office of Mary Mediatrix. From then until 1950, theological research on this question continued to develop up to the preparatory phase of the Second Vatican Council. The Council did not enter into dogmatic declarations but preferred to present an extensive synthesis “of Catholic doctrine on the place to attribute to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the mystery of Christ and the Church.” (See para. #23).

The Second Vatican Council’s terminology regarding mediation primarily refers to Christ; it sometimes also refers to Mary, but in a clearly subordinate manner. In fact, the Council preferred to use a different terminology for her: one centered on cooperLumen Gentiumation or maternal assistance. (See para. #27). 

The Elephant in the Room: Ecumenism

The "Dicastery for the Doctrine [Destruction] of the Faith" put out this document (and signed by Prevost) for one reason only: to denigrate the Mother of God in the name of ecumenism. The sect is founded on the false ecclesiology that the Church of Christ is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ resides there in its fullness because the Catholic Church has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ, however it can reside in other sects (more or less) according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have only some is just as good and leads to salvation. (See Lumen Gentium, para. #8: This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth." This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.).

From a Protestant commenting on MPF:

While I am not Roman Catholic, in recent years I have held a growing conviction that Roman Catholicism is a great gift to the body of Christ. Wesleyans and Catholics share a theological confluence on sanctification that deserves more attention at popular and congregational levels than it receives. The Second Vatican Council's statement on sanctification in Lumen Gentium stands as one of modern theology's most profound and pastoral reflections on holiness. Surprisingly, Rome's new clarification on Mary offers Wesleyans an unexpected entry point for continuing conversation on holiness. This essay argues that while significant dogmatic differences remain, Mater Populi Fidelis articulates a Mariology that resonates with core Wesleyan theological commitments, particularly Wesley's understanding of cooperation with grace and the social nature of sanctification. (See https://firebrandmag.com/articles/mother-of-the-faithful-a-wesleyan-reading-of-mater-populi-fidelis).

Protestantism hasn't changed. If MPF "resonates with core Wesleyan [Methodist] theological commitments" especially cooperation with grace and the social nature of sanctification, than the Vatican II sect's document is heretical (no surprise there). 

Weighty Theological Arguments for "Co-Redemptrix"

While the title had theological opposition pre-Vatican II, MPF simply glosses over the compelling reasons advanced in favor of the title Co-Redemptrix:

(a) Redemption designates the sum total of meritorious and satisfactory acts performed by Christ while on Earth, offered to the Eternal Father in and through the Sacrifice of the Cross, in virtue of which the Eternal Father was moved (humanly speaking) to reinstate the human race into His former friendship. When we say Mary is Co-Redemptrix of humanity, we mean that together with Christ (although subordinately to Him and and in virtue of His power) She atoned or satisfied for our sins, merited every grace necessary for salvation, and offered Her Divine Son on Calvary to appease the wrath of God, and that as a result of this, God was pleased to cancel our debt and receive us into His former friendship. This co-redemptive role of Mary actually began when She accepted to become the Mother of God by her own free will. 

(b) Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."

(c) Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."

(d) Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace. 

(e) On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.

(f) Just as Adam alone brought sin in the world, yet had the cooperation of Eve, Mary is the Second Eve. Christ alone brought redemption to the world with the cooperation of Mary.

(g)   When the Church teaches Christ alone is our Redeemer, they are referring to the primary, universal, and self-sufficient causality of Christ in the redemptive process which does not exclude Mary's secondary and totally subordinate cooperation which drew all its efficacy from the superabundant merits of her Divine Son. 

(h) Mary was redeemed by Christ, so how could she both receive the effect of redemption and be the cause of it? Because Mary cooperated to redeem all others not herself. Mary was redeemed by God preemptively in the Immaculate Conception, then together with Her Divine Son, she cooperated to redeem all others.

(i) Christ's merits have infinite value, so how can Mary's cooperation add anything to the Passion? Mary did not add (and could not add) anything to Christ's merits. However, God was pleased to accept her satisfaction together with Christ as a fitting way of making her the Second Eve, even as Christ was the Second Adam.

(See theologian Carol's Mariology, [1956] pgs. 56-65)

Seems very Catholic, does it not? However, even more importantly, the title Mediatrix of All Grace was going to be defined by Pope Pius XII.

Mary is the Mediatrix of All Grace

During the days of the last true pope, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, the pontiff had requested some theologians to become part of a commission to survey the world's bishops regarding their opinion on a dogmatic definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mediatrix of All Grace. Anticipating a positive outcome of the poll, the Holy Father also instructed them to prepare a draft of an Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma. Fr. DePauw knew at least two theologians appointed to that commission, and he too, believed that Mary's role as Mediatrix could (and should) be formally defined ex cathedra as a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith.

Less than a year later, Pope Pius XII died, and Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) scrapped the entire project as being "offensive to Protestants." Then there was to be an entire document on the Mother of God at Vatican II. The orthodox theologians in the Preparatory Commission drew up the schemata to be named  DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF GOD, AND MOTHER OF MEN. Within it, Mary was defined as Mediatrix of All Grace and Co-Redemptrix. It, too, was relegated to the trash bin by a slim majority of  stalwart Modernist bishops. The final vote to retain the Constitution failed; 1,097  bishops voted to keep the Constitution on the Blessed Virgin Mary, and 1,114 bishops voted to completely eliminate the Constitution altogether. 

(N.B. Below, I have compiled and condensed the Mariology works of theologians Garrigou-Lagrange, Pohle, O'Connell, Neubert, and Carol. I take credit only for condensing the information from these sources. Furthermore, I have avoided, as much as possible, technical theological terminology that would need elaboration. In this way, I hope to make the explanations as easy to understand as possible for the average Traditionalist who has no advanced study in philosophy or theology.---Introibo). 

1.  The Meaning of the Prerogative

Mary is the one through whom all graces are bestowed upon humanity. Just as no one goes to the Father, except through Jesus Christ, so too, no one goes to Jesus except through His Immaculate Mother. By the term "all grace" it is meant just that: all sanctifying grace, actual grace, infused virtues, the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and all favors in the natural order (insofar as they may help attain eternal life) come to us through Mary. Why do all graces come through Mary? Primarily, because she gave us the author of grace, the God-Man Jesus Christ through her virginal womb. Secondarily, through her participation in her Divine Son's Passion as Co-Redemptrix, she subordinately to Christ and in virtue of His power, cooperated in His redemptive work, and she should therefore have a certain right to cooperate with Him in the distribution of the graces He so merited. 

Protestants will object that the Bible teaches there is but one Mediator between God and humanity; Jesus Christ (See, e.g., 1 Timothy 2:5).  However, while this is true, Mary, as Mother of God and Mother of Men, serves as a bond between people and her Son. Her mediation, far from diminishing or replacing that of Christ, results from His mediation and seems to complete it: it is carried out under Christ and in union with Christ from Whom it receives all its efficacy. 

Mary, by her intersession, allows all graces to flow to humanity throughout all space and time. Those prior to Mary's Assumption received grace in view of the future merits of Our Lady, and since her Assumption, all receive grace through her intercession. This does not mean we must ask for God's grace in Mary's name, but rather, whether she is invoked or not, we get the graces through her intercession. 

2. Holy Scripture indicates this prerogative

In Genesis 3:15 we read, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel." Our Lady is shown as intimately united with Christ in the whole process of redemption. Since the actual dispensation of grace is but an aspect of that whole process, it follows that Mary should be part of it. Mary's intercessory power is seen at the first miracle of Christ wrought at Cana (St. John 2:1-11), and in the sanctification of St. John the Baptist while in the womb of St. Elizabeth (St. Luke 1:41). 

3. Sacred Tradition indicates this prerogative 

There is no exact explicit mention of Mary as the "Mediatrix" in the first few centuries. but the root of the teaching was definitely with the Church Fathers:

St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397) wrote:

Mary was alone when the Holy Spirit came upon her and overshadowed her. She was alone when she saved the world — operata est mundi salutem – and when she conceived the redemption of all — concepit redemptionem universorum.

St. Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373) called Mary the “dispensatrix of all goods.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) wrote:

Hail, Mary, Mother of God, by whom all faithful souls are saved.

Mary, as Mediatrix of All Grace, is implicitly revealed in the different titles which Tradition gives Mary—that of Mother of God, most powerful in intercession with her Son, that of the new Eve intimately associated with the Redeemer, that of Mother of all men. Besides, it is a doctrine explicitly and formally affirmed by the morally unanimous consent of Fathers and Doctors of the Church, of preaching throughout the Church, and of the Liturgy. 

4. The Magisterium positively teaches the prerogative through papal pronouncements

We judge nothing more powerful and better for this purpose than by religion and devotion to deserve well of the great Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, who is the treasurer of our peace with God, and the mediatrix  of graces....(Pope Leo XIII, Supremi Apostolatus officio; Emphasis mine).

... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us--for 'grace and truth came through Jesus Christ' (Jn 1.17)--nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother. (Pope Leo XIII,  Octobri mense; Emphasis mine).

Hence that never dissociated manner of life and labors of the Mother and the Son... . there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, not merely occupied in looking at the dreadful sight, but even rejoicing that 'her only Son was being offered for the salvation of the human race; and so did she suffer, with Him, that if it had been possible, she would have much more gladly suffered herself all the torments that her Son underwent' (St. Bonaventure I. Sent. d, 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). Now from this common sharing of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she 'merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world' (Eadmer, De Excellentia Virginis Mariae, 9) and therefore Dispensatrix of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His Death and by His Blood.... But Mary as St. Bernard fittingly remarks (De Aquaeductu 4) is the 'channel' or, even, the neck, through which the body is joined to the head, and likewise through which the head exerts its power and strength on the body. 'For she is the neck of our Head, by which all spiritual gifts are communicated to His Mystical Body.' (Pope St. Pius X, Ad diem illum; Emphasis mine). 

For he [St. Dominic] knew well that Mary ... has such influence with her divine Son, that He confers whatever of graces He confers on humans, does so always with her as minister and decision-maker. (Pope Benedict XV, Fausto appetente die; Emphasis mine).

... we know also that all things are imparted to us from God the Greatest and Best, through the hands of the Mother of God. (Pope Pius XI, Ingravescentibus malis; Emphasis mine).

... having been associated, as Mother and Minister, with the King of martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption, she is always associated, with a practically measureless power, in the distribution of the graces that derive from the Redemption.... And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion. (Pope Pius XII, Radio Address to Fatima, May 13, 1946; Emphasis mine). 

Objection: Sacramental graces are effectuated ex opere operato ("by the work worked [done]"). As long as the proper administer uses the correct matter and form, with the intention to do what the Church does, the sacrament will confer grace to any recipient who does not place an obstacle (obex) in the way. Therefore, Mary is not needed, and does not dispense sacramental graces.  

Reply: Mary mediates sacramental grace in two ways. Remotely, she gave us Christ, Who as True God and True Man instituted the sacraments; and sacramental grace was merited by her together with, and subordinately to, Jesus Christ as Co-Redemptrix.  Proximately, to have the very desire to receive the sacraments, and the proper dispositions to do so worthily, are the effects of actual graces which come about only through the intercession of Mary Immaculate. 

Did Vatican II Really Refrain from Using Mary's Titles?

Yes, but for pastoral/ecumenical reasons that were heretical, not for dogmatic reasons as falsely stated by MPF. What really gives the lie to all this Modernist claptrap is the original schema proposed by the orthodox theologians under Cardinal Ottavianni. 

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and Mother of Men (BVM)

a) The Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redmeptrix of the Human Race.

Para. #2: The Word of the eternal Father willed to receive his human nature from a woman so that as

death came from a woman so also life would arise for us from a woman and thus liberation would be accomplished by both sexes

He did not accomplish this, however, until the designated Mother, redeemed in a more sublime way by the foreseen merits of Christ, had given her free acceptance (see Lk 1:38) so that by the incarnation the Son of God would become her Son also and the new Adam and Savior of the world. By this consent Mary, the daughter of Adam, not only became the Mother of Jesus, the one divine Mediator and Redeemer, but with him and under him also joined her work in accomplishing the redemption of the human race. This salvific consent of the Mother of God and thus her participation in the work of redemption lasted from the time of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ until his death; it especially shone forth when, not without the divine plan, she stood by the cross (cf. Jn 19:25), when she powerfully shared her only Son’s, with him and through him with all her heart offered him as the price of our redemption, and when she was given to men as their Mother by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross (see Jn 19:26-27). Because, however, the mystery of human redemption was not completed until the Holy Ghost Christ had promised came on the day of Pentecost, we contemplate Mary in the Cenacle with the Apostles persevering in prayer (see Acts 1:14) imploring by her prayers too the outpouring of the Spirit.

b) The Blessed Virgin Mary is Mediatrix of All Grace.

Para. #3: This humble "handmaid of the Lord," for whom "he who is mighty has done great things" (see Lk 1:49), is called the Mediatrix of all graces because she was associated with Christ in acquiring these graces, and she is invoked by the Church as our advocate and Mother of Mercy, because even now she remains the associate of the glorious Christ in heaven and intercedes for all through Christ so that in the conferral of all graces to men there is present the maternal charity of the Blessed Virgin. But in no way is the mediation of our only Mediator--according to the absolute sense of the words of the Apostle (1 Tm 2:5): "There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus"--obscured or diminished; indeed this mediation of Christ is extolled and honored. For it is in Christ that Mary is Mediatrix, and her mediation comes, not from any necessity, but from the divine pleasure and from the superabundance and virtue of the merits of Jesus; it rests on the mediation of Christ, entirely depends on it, and obtains its entire force from it.

Conclusion

The assault on the Mother of God continues unabated in both the world and especially in the Vatican II sect. What's most perverse is that Robert Prevost and his merry band of Modernists try to make her denigration look like "devotion" and "faithfulness to Scripture." I don't want to even contemplate what fate awaits them if they do not sincerely repent before death.