Friday, June 28, 2013

Somewhere Over The Rainbow: Sodomatrimony

 Sodomites are rejoicing as the US Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional. The Federal government is now forced to provide "marriage" benefits to perverts. Also on that infamous day, June 26, 2013, the High Court refused to give standing to a group that challenged a Federal judge who declared Proposition 8 (amending the California Constitution to prohibit same sex "marriage" after the State Supreme Court allowed it) unconstitutional. As a result, same sex marriage can resume in our nation's largest state. This brings the total number of states allowing sodomatrimony to 13.

The blame lies squarely at the feet of the Vatican II sect. Having thrown out the True Faith and Morals supported by the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven Sacraments, they substituted Modernism and its pernicious errors. Invalidly ordained "priests" who the Modernists let in the seminaries with "same sex attraction" have molested children in the thousands and destroyed the vast moral authority and credibility enjoyed by the True Church before the damnable Vatican II Council.

As I have posted about the secular reasons for opposition to sodomatrimony before, here is a good Biblical list of reasons to be opposed (written by a Protestant minister, Dr. Jim Feeney), after which I will pile on some more attacks against the evils of Modernism and sodomatrimony:

Summary of Biblical Arguments Against Gay Marriage
1. God lists “homosexual offenders” among “the wicked” (1 Corinthians 6:9).
2. God lists “homosexual offenders” among those who He determines will “not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9).
3. Historically, homosexuality has incurred God’s destructive wrath upon an entire city (Gen. 19:4-5, 11-13).
4. God’s word defines the men of Sodom as “sinning greatly” because of their men having sex with men (Genesis 13:13; 19:5).
5. God calls Sodom’s sin “sexual perversion (Jude 1:7). Societies that remain in perversion (Sodom, Rome...) are on the road to destruction.
6. God’s word identifies husband-wife relations as “natural relations” and homosexual relations as “unnatural ones” (Romans 1:26-27) and “perversion” (vs. 27).
7. God’s word also rebukes those who “approve of those who practice” homosexuality (Romans 1:32).
8. Jesus settled the marriage issue once for all, declaring that God had made them “male and female ... a man ... [and] his wife” (Matthew 19:4-5). Jesus' affirmation of the heterosexual definition of marriage left no room for same sex marriages. (Emphasis in original).
Most Protestants have a better grip on the issue than the Vatican II sect which does nothing but pay lip service to true marriage. Indeed, with their phony "annulments" they have been promoting adultery for decades. I would now like to address one of the most sinister aspects of Modernism--ethical relativism. Enshrined in pop culture by the creed of "what's true for you, is not true for me," and "who are you to enforce your morality on others," here are a few points to remember:
  • relativists assume an absolute truth, "intolerance is wrong," and makes them intolerant of those who think intolerance is right
  • equality of persons doesn't mean equality among truth-claims. Indeed, if some claims are true, then the opposite claim must be false
  • people are not stopped from having any relationship they want, but it does not follow that the State must sanction it
  • Are you also for marriage between siblings? GSA's are also a recognized sexual orientation that deserves equal rights.
    There are many recognized sexual orientations that are established aT birth, including Pedophilia. Who decides which should be allowed the rights to marry whom they are attracted to, and should not? What gives one group a greater right than the other. With today's reproductive technology, you can't even say that GSA's should not marry, especially if they are both Gay and GSA. Also, should a 13 year old Gerontosexual be told they must control and suppress their urges?
  • That statement is purporting to be a truth-statement and not an opinion
  • Surely, some opinions are more worthy to be held than others, namely those that have more evidence and logic going for them
  • The rejection of your opinion means he can determine truth from opinion; ask him by what means he does this because if everything is an opinion, than that statement (everything is an opinion) is not an opinion and the position is self-refuting
Please realize that our right to free speech and free exercise of religion will come under attack. Think I'm being dramatic? Please read what happened in Michigan:
 On October 20, 2010, some students and staff at Howell High School recognized Anti-Bullying Day, a national movement aimed at raising consciousness to the bullying of individuals based on their sexual orientation. Students in the Gay Straight Alliance Club posted a flier asking staff and students to wear purple that day to show support for the cause.  A teacher printed purple t-shirts with “Tyler’s Army” printed on the front and “Fighting Evil with Kindness” on the back to bring attention to the plight of Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers student who committed suicide after his roommate allegedly livestreamed a video of him engaged in a nonsexual homosexual encounter. Other than permitting the Gay Straight Alliance Club to post its flier, the school administration did not participate in the Anti-Bullying Day activities.  They were not aware of the Tyler’s Army t-shirts.  The court determined that the Anti-Bullying Day and its related activities were not school sponsored.
Economics teacher Jay McDowell wore a Tyler’s Army t-shirt on Anti-Bullying Day.  In each period, prior to beginning his planned lesson, he engaged students in a brief discussion about bullying and showed a video about an individual who committed suicide after being bullied due to his sexual orientation.  As the sixth period students entered, McDowell observed a student wearing a confederate flag belt buckle and directed her to remove it, which she did.  Class began, and McDowell started to explain to the students about Tyler’s Army, the purple t-shirts, and what it meant to him.

At that point, based on the court’s findings, the following exchange took place:

Student Daniel (calmly raising his hand):  Why can’t she wear a Confederate flag belt buckle when students and teachers can wear purple shirts and display rainbow flags?

McDowell: Because of the difference in symbolism between the Confederate flag and the rainbow flag.  The Confederate flag represents the hanging and slashing of African Americans, it isn’t allowed in my classroom, and it’s discrimination against blacks.

Daniel: I don’t accept gays, and the purple shirts discriminate against Catholics.

McDowell: You can not say that in class.

Daniel: I don’t accept gays because I’m Catholic.

McDowell: It’s fine if your religion is opposed to homosexuality but  saying such things is inappropriate in a classroom setting.  You can’t say “I don’t accept gays” any more than you can say “I don’t accept blacks.” Do you accept gays or not?

Daniel: I do not.

McDowell: Leave and go to the office.  I’m writing up a referral for unacceptable behavior.

Second student: I don’t accept gays either, can I leave ?

McDowell: yes

After Daniel and the other student departed, other students asked why McDowell had thrown them out and “why didn’t they have free speech?”  McDowell “explained that a student cannot voice an opinion that creates an uncomfortable learning environment for another student.”

Upon investigation, the school district expunged any reference to Daniel’s referral and reassigned him to another class at the parents’ request.The school district suspended McDowell for 1 day without pay, issued him a written reprimand, and ordered him to attend First Amendment training.  The reprimand stated:
You “disciplined two students for holding and stating personal beliefs, to which you disagree.  You disciplined them in anger under the guise of harassment and bullying because you opposed their religious belief and were offended by it. The students were causing no disruption to the educational process.” (emphasis in original)….You “discipline[d] two students who told you that they do not accept gays due to their religion.  After a failure of getting one student to recant, you engaged in an unsupported snap suspension, rather than allow the student his beliefs.” …You “modeled oppression and intolerance of student opinion . . . This could be construed as teacher-to-student bullying; ironic of the Anti-Bullying Day intent.”
Scary. What's more scary is what's at the end of the sodomite rainbow: a place where everyone can "marry" anyone (or more than one) whom their perverse desire chooses. Vatican II is taking us there. God save us.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Note to The Society of St. Pius X: Who Cares What Lefebvre Said or Did?

The Society of St Pius X (SSPX) is guilty of doing what some Traditionalists do: make an infallible icon of one of their leaders. The SSPX does this to the extreme due to their schizophrenic theology of "recognize and resist" (i.e., we recognize the "pope" but we resist whatever we feel is wrong). The result is a mixed up pseudo-Traditionalist group that wants to keep the Faith and to be in union with the very Modernist who is seeking its eradication.

 In a recent e-mail they sent to friends and benefactors, there was an article entitled, "SSPX in the USA: 25 Years Ago" to commemorate the Silver Jubilee of Abp. Lefebvre's June 30, 1988 consecration of four bishops to continue the work of the Society. The purpose of the article was to "inform" the readers of how bad things were for "tradition" back then as compared to the present. Interestingly, the article notes (with some admiration), the "independentists" (i.e. those priests who did not belong to the SSPX), but they give no mention of Fr. Gommar A. De Pauw or Bishop Blaise S. Kurz who were the first to stand up and fight for the preservation of the One True Church. (See my post "The First" of January 19, 2013). Why did they omit Fr. DePauw and Bishop Kurz? It would conflict with one of the basic tenets of the SSPX; Archbishop Lefebvre was the first Traditionalist and he alone is responsible for the preservation of Catholic Tradition. But, wait a second, don't they believe that Francis is "pope"? Isn't the pope the Christ-appointed Guardian and interpreter of Tradition? Don't you accept John XXIII, PaulVI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, so that there was never a need for the Archbishop?

 The article continues with this tidbit: "So much good work could not go unimpaired. The trickster had to upset this well-oiled machinery of Tradition. That is when some of the earlier “founding fathers” decided that they knew better how to save souls than Archbishop Lefebvre and thought he was getting old and did not understand the American mentality."

The reference is to the nine priests who started the sedevacantist Society of St Pius V, and have a true Traditionalist theology (1983). Note what was written, "they knew better how to save souls than Archbishop Lefebvre.." The clear implication being that they were arrogant fools to think ANYONE knows better than Lefebvre. Truth be told the Archbishop was a good man, good Catholic Bishop and a true hero in the fight to save the Church in an age of near universal apostasy. But the SSPX uses him as a substitute pope whose teachings are preserved from error by the Holy Ghost. Please note that the SSPX, under Bishop Fellay who is looking to sell out to Modernist Rome, has begun to purge any articles and publications that contain Archbishop Lefebvre's statements entertaining the possibility of sedevacantism. Such historical revisionism is necessary because you can't hold someone up to be an infallible icon, whose every action and word must be uncritically accepted, and then expose people to his words endorsing the idea of a papal vacancy.  People might get the "wrong" idea, namely, sedevacantism is a logical and viable theological conclusion.

Traditionalist John Daly has compiled some interesting quotes of the Archbishop:
1. “You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

3. “To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

4.  “Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

5. “…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

6. “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

7. “If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

But, this does nothing to prove sedevacantism either! To be intellectually honest, any theological opinion or conclusion must be judged by the manifest weight of the credible evidence, not by what an Archbishop (no matter how holy) said, taught, or approved by his actions.

 There are manifest problems with not critically examining the facts, and here are just a few salient problems with the SSPX's theological positions:

1. They claim that the Novus Ordo is inferior to the True Mass and is subject to possible abuses and invalidity, but it is not invalid per se. Even if conceded that the Novus Ordo was valid (and it certainly is NOT), the fact they hold it inferior means it did not and could not come from the Church! The dogma of Indefectibility, declares that the Church can not give that which is evil. But to give God less than the best is an evil. Think of the Bible's recounting of Cain and Able.

Why was Cain's offering unacceptable? Some people have suggested that it was because he offered plants while Abel offered animals. I don't think this is necessarily the case, since God accepted grain offerings at other times (Lev.2) and since the laws regarding sacrifices had not yet been given (though it is interesting to note that Abel offered fat portions as prescribed in the Levitical law - see Lev. 3). It's possible that Cain and Abel had received some instruction on what constituted an acceptable sacrifice from God, or that Cain had committed other wrongs that would make his offering unacceptable to God. However, the passage does give us some clues. It says that Abel "brought fat portions from some of the firstborn." He offered some of what came first, as opposed to waiting until an animal had plenty of offspring (and the oldest were reproducing themselves) and then sacrificing one of the youngest, and he offered the choicest parts. Abel was clearly giving the best of what he had to God. Cain, on the other hand, brought crops, which were not necessarily the best crops - they may have been damaged and/or been what Cain considered "extra" or "leftover." Abel's and Cain's actions were a reflection of their attitudes towards God: should God receive the best of what they had or not?

If the Vatican II sect is not giving God the best as the SSPX claims, then the sacrifice is NOT pleasing to God, an evil, and could not come from the Church. That means Paul VI and the bishops in union with him, despite all the outward appearances, defected from the Faith, lost their authority, and set up a false sect.

2.  They claim all the other Vatican II sacraments are valid, just less good than the pre-Vatican II sacraments. This means their fight is not one of Truth vs. falsehood, but rather mere preference, i.e., you like Latin and I like the vernacular, etc.

3. Annulments from the Vatican II sect are accepted in the SSPX. There were only 392 annulments worldwide from 1952-1956, and 49,069 annulments in the US alone in 2000. So the SSPX is increasing the annulment problem and has even set up tribunals to handle annulments themselves. This is another example of a Modernist error that Catholics must avoid. How, if you have a pope and bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction, can you "oversee" and "check" their work? This sets the SSPX up as an "Uber-magisterium." How is this any different from having no pope and no Magisterium functioning as you can't trust their teachings anyway?

4. The SSPX believes Vatican II Popes are true, but at the same time disobeys them. Catholics MUST submit fully to true Popes on matters of faith and morals.
 And these are just SOME problems.

The bottom line is this: Archbishop Lefebvre was a good man, of great learning and piety. He did the best he could to think through the unprecedented age we're in. He was not (nor did he claim to be), the pope, sent as an oracle from God, or the final arbiter as to what must be done. Those who now control the SSPX and try to make more of him then he was, are theologically wrong to do so and disingenuously hiding behind his (selected) words and deeds to coerce compliance with things which are not Catholic and dangerous to souls.

 As Father DePauw said publicly, "Don't ever call yourself a "follower of Fr. DePauw." The only One you should follow, is the One Who resides in the Tabernacle. We are called Christians because we follow Christ, the God-Man Who deserves to be followed and must have our undying loyalty." Amen! Some of those who run the Catholic Traditionalist Movement have unfortunately forgotten his sage words, which are true objectively, not because he said them.

To the members of the SSPX: Don't ask yourself "WWLD" (What Would Lefebvre Do), rather ask yourself, "What does the Church teach through Her approved theologians"? This way you will be following Christ and His Church, and not a mere man--no matter how esteemed.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Lacking the "Fullness of Marriage"...Or Is It "Partial Fornication"?

Modernist theology has developed the idea of "truth in degrees." Lumen Gentium is the Vatican II document that began the "Frankenchurch" heresy, to wit: The Church of Christ is not identical with the Roman Catholic Church. It "subsists" there in its "fullness," but it is also present in other "churches" according to how many "elements of truth" they supposedly possess. Hence, the Eastern Orthodox schismatics, who have valid orders and seven sacraments have more elements than Lutherans, who have the Bible and so forth. To have all the elements is best, but having just some is OK too. It's been compared to a McDonald's Happy Meal where you need the box and the toy for the fullness of the meal, but if you get the elements of the burger and fries it still nourishes you.

It was only a matter of time before this would spread to morality. Now, according to Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, aka ""Pope" Francis, you can be fully or partially moral. In 2010, Bergoglio co-authored a book entitled On Heaven and Earth with a left wing Rabbi named Abraham Skorka. In Chapter 16, Begoglio writes,"It is a sociological fact that co-habitation certainly does not have the fullness, or the greatness of marriage...."

So "shacking up" is now "co-habitation" and it doesn't have the "fullness" of marriage!! Interestingly, Chapter 16 is on the topic of Same Sex "Marriage;" therefore it won't be long before sodomite unions are seen as less desirable as true marriage but a "partial marriage" that contains "elements" of true marriage and must be given legal recognition.  In the same chapter, he continues with this madness:

  "he (a "catholic priest") does not have the right to force anything on anyone's private life. If God, in creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to get involved? We condemn spiritual harassment that takes place when a minister imposes directives, conduct, and demands in such a way that it takes away the freedom of the other person".

"Spiritual harassment"-- that's a new one. Will there be "quid pro quo" spiritual harassment (whereby you offer someone forgiveness in return for turning away from sin) and "hostile environment" spiritual harassment (when you condemn what's wrong publicly and make the sinner uncomfortable)?
Your private sins send you to a public Hell, and it is the concern of a every true Catholic priest and bishop to admonish the sinner as a spiritual work of mercy (unlike "spiritual harassment," the spiritual works of mercy are part of Catholic teaching). But Bergoglio is not a bishop, not a priest, not even a Catholic. He's more interested in being "nice" by the world's standards than in saving souls from Hell. He is not a "Good Shepard" he is a hireling who cares not for his sheep. (See St. John 10: 12-13).

What does the True Church teach? From Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors (1864):

Condemned proposition 40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.

Condemned proposition  56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

Condemned proposition 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

Condemned proposition 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

Hence, the teaching of the Catholic Church is necessary to the well-being and interests of society. Moral laws need divine sanction, and human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature (which excludes sodomite unions) and receive their binding power from God (Who condemns fornication).  Every State should ideally be a Catholic State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship and the opposite will corrupt the minds and morals of the people more easily.

 You've all heard the old adage "you can't be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant." In Vatican II's Modernist theology you just might be able to do so! Take abortion: it's not murder, it's preventing the fullness of life to a woman who does not experience the joy of the fullness or greatness of pregnancy! Sounds absurd, but no more so than the Modernist clap-trap Begoglio's sect spreads. Begoglio is fully Modernist and partially mad in his race towards Hell. Don't go with him.

Friday, June 14, 2013

Homoheresy: It Gets Worse

Mr. Bergoglio, leader of the false Vatican II sect, acknowledges a "gay mafia" inside the structure of what used to be the Roman Catholic Church. Not surprising, as the heretics began letting in disordered men with same sex attraction in the 1960s and officially in the 1970s. Ratzinger wanted to keep them out of seminaries when he was "Pope" Benedict XVI. Good luck. He found out that you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, and he was one of the biggest "squeezers" in the 1960s as a young Modernist heretic.

 Now, these seminarians are the "bishops" and "cardinals" 40 years later. The result was reported by the blog "Rorate Caeli":

But the problem of the homosexual lobby in the sacred palaces could be just the tip of the iceberg: there are those who are convinced that the great challenge of the new Pope is to tackle the problem. One of those is Fr. Dariusz Oko, theology professor at the Pontifical University John Paul II, in Krakow, who in December had publicly denounced the gay lobby in the Vatican, and who reaffirms it today: "The Holy Father has confirmed that which everyone had known for many years," he explains, "I think that the wall of omertà that has existed for a long time is destroyed. But now, how to demolish that other wall of omertà that exists inside the seminaries? Who is concerned with the revolution of Benedict XVI who forbade the ordination of homosexual priests?" The Polish priest is convinced that on this matter the Pope has a great battle to wage: "The problem of the gay lobby in the Vatican is important, but marginal," he explains. "The true challenge of the Pontiff is the heresy of homosexuality, what I call the 'homoheresy, that is, the rejection of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, whose defenders are in favor of priesthood for gays. The Holy Father must combat this heresy that has spread throughout the Church.". And the root of the problem, Fr. Oko confirms, is to be found in the places of formation: "Who, in Italy, is interested in the current situation of the seminaries?", the theologian asks. "And there is where the future of the Church is decided! The only way forward is to continue the revolution of Ratzinger, who wished to 'free' the seminaries from gay educators and homosexual seminarians." ...

The only way to go is back to the One True Faith of the One True Church. Faith and morals are inextricably intertwined. When one goes, the other will follow. If you keep the Faith, true morals will remain. So, just how does Bergoglio intend to do anything about homoheresy, gay mafias controlling policy, etc, if he is himself a heretic? Look what is happening to the youth, as reported in LifeSiteNews: (I will comment in red).

 Ontario, June 10, 2013 ( – A Catholic high school in the York Catholic District School Board held its second annual “Inclusivity Week” this spring with “rainbow inspired” events that included a “celebrat[ion] of our different genders, races, sexual orientation [sic] and abilities”.
This is all part of ecumenism. Accept everyone and don't correct them when they are wrong. Truth is relative and we celebrate the good and bad, wheat with the chaff.
St. Robert Catholic High School’s Empowered Student Partnerships (ESP) club dedicated each day of the week to a different theme of inclusion, including “Different Abilities,” "Gender Equality,” and "Bully Prevention". The week took place in March. ESP is a student-driven campaign to “keep schools safe” facilitated by school staff together with Toronto Police Service officers. The program encourages students to promote “safe schools to reduce youth violence”.

This is all part of the "It Gets Better" propaganda. It is ostensibly about protecting homosexual youth from being bullied. While no person should be bullied, the program ironically serves to isolate Christian youth who will be pressured into keeping silent about their beliefs lest THEY are branded "bullies" for helping those who live disordered lives seek out the help they need. "Getting better" would mean healthy sexual attraction to the opposite sex where marriage and family can come about in society. Another possiblity is loving God in a celibate lifestyle like the members of "Courage." Living a shorter and disordered life in objective mortal sin is not "getting better."

Gay activists are increasingly using the concepts “safety” and “anti-bullying” to promote the homosexual agenda in schools.
Yes they are; see my comment above!

St. Robert’s “Inclusivity Week” included “theme-inspired morning prayers written by students, announcements, posters, videos, and trivia games.” All members of the school were asked to “reflect on what it means to be a caring and inclusive school, where everyone feels part of the school community.”
Being one in Faith and morals should accomplish being "inclusive."

The week ended with a “Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation" event where students were asked to wear a solid coloured shirt as a show of support. Students were provided with rainbow coloured cupcakes and rainbow tattoos. Collaborating on the event were ESP and St. Robert’s Inclusive/Outreach Group.
“[W]e came together as a community so that we can love and be loved in our own skin,” said Priscilla C., a grade 12 student and ESP member.

And when Pricilla loses her soul, she'll find out too late that there is no "love" where God is excluded.

St. Robert’s motto is “knowledge is the beginning”. The school’s websites states that a Catholic High School is a place where the “teachings of Jesus Christ are integrated into the day-to-day curriculum and social fabric of high school.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts “intrinsically disordered” since they are “contrary to the natural law” and they “close the sexual act to the gift of life.” It also says that the inclination itself is “objectively disordered”. While people with such inclinations are to be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” under “no circumstances” can homosexual acts be approved. contacted St. Robert’s principal Jennifer Sarna and the York Catholic District School Board for comment but did not hear back by press time.

Wanting "knowledge" is what lead to the Fall. Satan told our First Parents that they would be like God if they ate from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The so-called Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church is not acknowledged; it's a dead letter (and not even a good one). Is it any wonder that the youth, so brainwashed by "Catholic" schools will grow up experimenting and becoming "gay"?  Some of these young men will then enter the seminary with their perverse desires having been fed and affirmed. The result? Homoheresy, gay mafias, and more decadence that will never end except by God's intervention. Scripture tells us that "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"(Proverbs 9:10). Yet fear God, the Vatican II sect does not.

They claim "Knowledge is the Beginning", but their motto should be "Damnation is our End."

Saturday, June 8, 2013

When Theology Gets Out of Hand (Part II)

In part one of this post, I began tearing down the blog "Pistrina Liturgica's" (PL) so-called refutation of Fr. Cekada's article "The Validity of Ordination Conferred with One Hand" available at I will now pick up where I left off.

6. From East to West the Matter Remains the Same

The most absurd "rebuttal" to Fr. Cekada's work, occurs when PL attempts to refute his arguments that one handed ordinations are routinely used in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. They do not claim his translation is wrong and that two hands are used. They do not claim he simply made stuff up. Their "argument" (I'm being kind in referring to it as such) is as ridiculous as it seems:
"SO WHAT!" (sic)

Remember, PL thinks that the plain meaning of SO is all that counts, so they go on to declare:

"Therefore, it seems to us very simple: after April 28, 1948, the only valid matter for priestly ordination in the Roman rite is the imposition of the bishop's (two) hands. Nothing else matters, so to speak. All this business about Byzantine, Coptic, or Maronite rites is not germane. If you're going to be an undoubted priest of the Roman rite in the wake of the promulgation of Sacramentum Ordinis, you must receive the imposition of (both) the bishop's hands. In light of the explicit definition found in Pius's apostolic constitution, one-handed conferral of priestly orders can only be viewed as a defect in the Roman rite of ordination. Whether one-handed conferral is an essential defect or not must wait until the Church decides the question, an event that may not happen for quite some time. In the meanwhile, a deeply solicitous regard for the salvation of souls demands that one-handed priestly orders be considered, for safety's sake, an essential defect. "

This is sheer ignorance at its worst. The underlying assumption PL makes is that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff to subtantially (i.e. "essentially") change the matter of a sacrament, so that what is valid in one rite might become invalid in another. Pope Pius XII could not declare that use of leavened bread for the Eucharist is an "essential" or "substantial" defect in the Latin/Roman Rite, so that a properly trained and validly ordained priest of the Roman Rite using it at Mass would not confect the Eucharist but an Eastern Rite priest would do so. Illicit, yes. Invalid, no. Likewise, to say that one handed ordination might be illicit is one thing, but not invalid.


  • "It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo nono, 1910

  • "The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or "ceremonial" parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited..." Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896

  •  Theologian John de Torquemada declared (1) that the Church had no power over the matter and form of the sacraments and (2) that the sacraments must be the same in the whole Church, since 'the unity of the Church is necessarily founded in the unity of faith and the unity of sacraments, in what concerns the substance of the sacraments.' Pope Eugene IV immediately approved this language. Further, the substance of a sacrament must at the very least convey Christ's meaning, so it would seem fully within the power of the Church to say that this or that form does or does not sufficiently express the meaning....In Extreme Unction, the Church never doubted the validity of the sacrament in the Orthodox Church, although the words of the form are various (See Leeming, Bernard Principles of Sacramental Theology (1962), pgs 420, 430).

  • It's clear that Pope Pius XII, could NOT have changed the substance (essence) of the sacrament so as to make the matter for the Latin Rite differ in validity from the Eastern Rites. It would result in this absurdity: A Latin/Roman Rite Bishop attempts to ordain a man to the priesthood using one of the Eastern Rites. Is it invalid? If the pope allows him to become a Bishop in the Eastern Rite, is it now valid? Or is it the subject (Roman or Eastern) whom determines what matter must be employed for validity? Bottom line: If it's valid in one Rite, it is valid matter for all Rites and can not be substantially different.

    7. Summary and Conclusion

    • The use of one hand on Dan Dolan remains speculation at best. It is unproven.

    • PL uses a "Feeneyite Hermenutic" which rejects the consent of the theologians in determining what the Church's understanding is when a document was promulgated. This leads to confusion and error.

    • Even the "plain meaning" of Sacramentum Ordinis in no way shows one handed ordinations to be invalid; to the contrary, it shows that an imposition of hands can be with one hand or two.

    • The unanimous consent of the theologians gives us moral certainty that one handed ordinations are valid.

    • The Church has no authority to change the substance of the sacraments. What is essential matter in one Rite is sufficient for validity in all Rites. Many of the Eastern Rites confer ordination with one hand, thus proving that using one hand in the Roman Rite might be illicit, but is NOT invalid

    •  Regatillo assures us in an appproved theology manual that the Holy Office declared ordinations with one hand valid.

     In PL's fourth post on the alleged rebuttal, they ask me in the footnotes, "Whaddya say Mr. Introibo ad Altare"? Since you asked, here's what I think:

    When a group of uncharitable boors whose opinion of themselves vastly exceeds their intellectual abilities are requested to give a point-by-point refutation of an article, all you can expect is what they gave: a pseudo-intellectual screed posing as "scholarship." The "Reader" should try reading moral theology regarding charity and and use his act of contrition for casting doubt where none should exist regarding ordinations by Bishop Dolan.

    If you want serious examination of questions, don't waste your eyesight on PL's puerile name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and poor reasoning skills. However, when it comes to causing strife where none should exist, and casting derision on good clergymen, I have to hand it to them. (And one hand will suffice for validity).

    When Theology Gets Out of Hand

    The blog "Pistrina Liturgica" has not been on speaking terms with logic and reason for quite some time.
    On April 22, 2013, I put up a post entitled "An Underhanded Accusation" in response to Pistrina Liturgica's (hereinafter "PL") contention that ordinations conferred with one hand are dubious. They name call Traditional clerics, in particular, Fr. Anthony Cekada and Bishop Daniel Dolan, the latter whom they refer to as "One Hand Dan" due to his alleged priestly ordination in which Archbishop Lefebvre used only one hand.

     I challenged them to refute point by point Fr. Cekada's article "The Validity of Ordination Conferred with One Hand" which can be found at They took me up on my challenge, putting out a series of posts intended to refute Fr. Cekada. They failed. I will examine each of their counter arguments and show why they have been "weighed and found wanting." Before reading the rest of this post, I suggest that my readers first read my post of April 22, referenced above, to get the background on this controversy.

    1. The Use Of One Hand is Still Unproven
     In my April 22 post, I wrote:
     "Fr. Cekada talks about the "supposed" use of one hand by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is not admitted that this actually happened. Is there a video or pictures of the ordination? Eyewitness testimony by those who were there taken under oath? Why are not the other dozen or so priests referred to as "One Hand"? Moreover, why would the Archbishop, who was trained, ordained and consecrated all well before Vatican II used only one hand and only that one time? Didn't he know it was "dubious"? Wouldn't he conditionally re-ordain those affected if it was brought to his attention, as it asserted (without proof) that Fr. Dolan was well known by this moniker since his ordination? The "fact" of using one hand is certainly not proven, and the burden of proof lies with those claiming a defect as a Sacrament is presumed valid whenever a properly trained priest or bishop sets out to confer it."

     PL has not come forth with any claim of video or photographic evidence. They have not produced an admission by Bishop Dolan. They have have no eyewitness testimony taken under oath. They have only two arguments set forth as alleged "proof."
    • The letter of the SSPV priests of 9/21/90 asking then-Fr. Dolan to refrain from any priestly functions because there is a doubt about one handed ordination. This letter was written AFTER he left the SSPV, an organization which hols as invalid any and all ordinations which descend through the episcopal lineage of Archbishop Thuc. They even deny communion to those who attend the Masses of the CMRI, and others who derive their orders from Thuc. There are several salient points that need to be said about this letter and the SSPV.
               (a) While I have only esteem for the SSPV priests I know,  any personality conflicts among Traditionalist clergy almost always devolves into attacks against each other, which only causes consternation among the Faithful. If the SSPV fairly and logically applied their criticism of Thuc to Bishop Mendez (from whom they derive their orders), it would render Mendez' orders "doubtful" as well. So, if they knew about the "one handed ordination" why did it take them eight (8) years to bring this allegation forth? Could it be back-biting because he left?

            (b) None of the priests who signed claim to have been at the ordination and witnessed it first hand (no pun intended). At least one priest, (now Bp.) Donald Sanborn, retracted his signature.

           (c) What about the other priests ordained alongside Dolan? Were they all ordained with only one hand? How do they know if they weren't there and no one has photographic evidence? Why didn't they track down the other priests at that ceremony and ask them to all get conditional re-ordination?

          (d) At least one SSPV priest I spoke to said he had doubt about the episcopal consecration of Richard Williamson because some of them watched the video and only saw the Archbishop impose one hand! When I asked if they could clearly see whether Bishop Antonio de Castro-Mayer (co-consecrator) imposed only one hand, he quickly changed the topic!

         (e) It seems fairly clear the letter was written with someone who had an ax to grind, and they have no proof of a one handed ordination for Dolan, anymore than they have proof of one handed consecration for Williamson (and at least a video exists for that ceremony!).

        (f) Why would Archbishop Lefebvre (trained well before Vatican II) use only one hand if it was dubious? Wouldn't he stop those priests and re-ordain them conditionally? Dolan was with the SSPX for about seven (7) full years before he left to form the SSPV and in all that time the Archbishop never caught and rectified his alleged gaffe?

    • The next argument from PL for "proof" of a one handed ordination would be funny if not so pathetic: Bishop Dolan should have issued an unequivical, vigorous public denial in 1990 when the allegation was made(See footnote #1 to part one of PL's post on the subject). I see, because someone does not loudly denounce something it must be true?  What if his strenuous denial was a lie? Must all unequivical, public denials be accorded apodictic certainty?
         (a) Several years ago, I was accused of breaking one of the Canons of Legal Ethics. I knew that my calumniator misinterpreted it, and I had not done anything wrong. Rather than get into a "urinating contest" with this despicable person and give more publicity to his accusation (which is what he wanted), I said nothing. It died out, and nothing came of it since I had done nothing wrong. If PL's foundational presupposition for the making of a veridical accusation were valid, I MUST be guilty because I did not unequivocally and vigorously deny it and make my denial public. I hope these folks at PL NEVER sit on a jury.

         (b) Likewise, Bp. Dolan may not have wanted to draw attention to something he believed didn't matter anyway, because even if true it would not affect the validity of his orders.

        (c) Archbishop Lefebvre never issued an unequivocal, vigorous public denial that his ordaining and consecrating bishop was a Freemason. Therefore we have proven Lienart's Masonic membership?

         (d) The SSPV has never responded to Fr. Cekada's contention that the ordinations of Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell were dubious. In speaking with one of these priests, I think Fr. Cekada got it wrong--just like his take on the Schiavo case---but the SSPV chose not to give it anymore publicity. They were prudent, I believe, in so doing. However, in PL-land, the doubt must exist due to lack of unequivocal, public denial. I could go on, but there is no need to belabor the obvious.

    2. Reading Sacramentum Ordinis With A "Feeneyite Hermenutic"

         PL has this to say about Pope Pius XII's Apostolic Constitution on Holy Orders Sacarmentum Ordinis: "Sacramentum Ordinis is so clear that it is sui ipsius interpres -- it interprets itself. If any birdbrain were to have a problem with the straight-forward text, the solution would come from internal evidence by means of intra-textual analysis."
     This is exactly how Feeneyites approach Trent's decrees on Baptism, and even the decision of the Holy Office in 1949.

    The Council of Trent infallibly decreed:
    Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:
    Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.

    Well it interprets itself, right? So very clear it is sui ipsius interpres which renders the question of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) res judicata. If true and natural water is absolutely necessary for baptism, then baptism by blood or desire has been clearly ruled out by the Extraordinary Magisterium. Or so the Feeneyites think. Actually, the Church's decrees must be understood in the very same sense with which She understood them when they were promulgated. To say otherwise is the heresy of Modernism. So how do we discover what the Church believed when something was defined? By the teaching of Her approved theologians at the the time who had Magisterial approbation. (I'll have more to say about this in the next section).

      At the time of Trent, the Church was not defining there is no baptism of blood or desire, rather She was combating the error of Luther who taught that milk or beer could substitute for natural water if none was readily available. Water is necesary for the sacrament of baptism, but no one claims BOD or BOB to be sacraments. (See e.g. Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique concerning Luther's heresies, and St. Alphonsus’ Theologia Moralis explicitly affirming both canon 2 and baptism of desire as de fide).

     In 1949, the Holy Office condemned the error of Fr. Feeney. Not so fast! It wasn't signed by Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Ottavianni (!) was a heretic! That's the way we plainly interpret it; and it's not infallible anyway respond the Feeneyites. We now see the same basic errors in PL, namely, the refusal to accept the unanimous consent of the theologians in discovering the proper intention of the Church and using bizarre methods to twist any given document to their liking.

     Which brings me to the next question:

    3.Is An Apostolic Constitution to be Interpreted as the U.S. Constitution?

    Having discarded the teaching of the theologians as "mere opinion," PL asks "What if you were honestly searching for the truth and not trying to confirm a prejudice? What spite of very limited Latin or not having immediate access to professional, independent translations...what if you had some formal training in construing the meaning of legal prose when in doubt?"........"Then, by George, you'd ask yourself, Can I construe the papal constitution in pari materia or by applying noscitur a sociis or by the rule reddendo singula singulis, or by some other appropriate canon of statutory construction? In other words, is there anything in the constitution's words, its sentence structure, or its expository configuration that might give clueless-me a clue?"

    Having discarded the unanimous teaching of the theologians, PL opts for a "plain meaning" rule and thinks that using the legal Canons of Construction can help to decipher the text. The plain meaning only works against them as we will see soon enough. As far as Canons of Construction go, Antonin Scalia has never been my favorite "theologian."  "The usual criticism of canons that for every canon one might bring to bear on a point there is an equal and opposite canon, so that the outcome of the interpretive process depends on the choice between paired opposites---a choice the canons themselves do not illuminate. (You need a canon for choosing between competing canons, and there isn't any.)" (See Richard A. Posner, Statutory Interpretation In the Classroom and in the Courtroom, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 800, 806 (1983)). That's not to say the meaning of a text can not be reasonably ascertained, but it's not always as easy as it seems at first glance.

    If PL wishes to debate me over the efficacy of using Canons of Construction on legal texts, I'll save that argument for another day. It suffices to show that an Apostolic Constitution must be read as the Church intended, not according to canons of construction that can only serve to bring more confusion, not less, as we have competing interpretations as the logical outcome. We need to find the intent of Holy Mother Church. So, if we discard the teachings of the theologians, does going by the "plain meaning" of a very clear text work? Well, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.." seems pretty clear. So why do we have scholarly books and articles reaching up to the ceiling debating its meaning and application? Nevertheless, let's no quibble over Latin. I am going to concede to PL they have the correct translation of Sacramentum Ordinis (hereinafter "SO") and apply a "plain meaning." The result?

    4. "Plain Meaning" Proves Holding One Handed Ordinations Invalid is Just Plain Wrong

     In paragraph #4 of SO, we read:"Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands;.."

     But this is WRONG!! It should read, "The matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Order of the Diaconate is the imposition of the HAND, and the only matter of the Sacred Orders of the Priesthood and the Episcopacy is the imposition of the HANDS." Pope Pius knew that the diaconate is conferred with only one hand, so why did he put it in the same category as the other two orders which require both hands?

    If PL is right, that one handed ordinations are dubious, they must concede that somehow the imposition of one hand is SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT MATTER than two hands. Fr. Cekada brought this point home quite nicely, and PL never addressed it. I must therefore ask PL, "Does that make ordinations to the diaconate with TWO HANDS dubious? If the matter is substantially different, then it must be so, yet I've never heard that argument made by anyone. Why?
    According to theologian Henry Davis, "The diaconate is more probably conferred by the imposition of HANDS of the ordaining bishop together with the Preface which is the form..." (See Davis, Henry Moral and Pastoral Theology, Volume IV (1935), pg. 15 Emphasis mine).

     You see from the usage that an imposition of hands may refer to either one hand or two--a point Fr. Cekada also made clear. According to theologian Pohle, "The ordination rite for the diaconate contains only one imposition of HANDS..." and later, "According to all extant rituals the Holy Ghost is communicated when the bishop lays his HANDS upon a candidate to make him a deacon." (See Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments Volume IV (1924), pg 70, 104 Emphasis mine).

    If the plain meaning is right, either Pope Pius XII was in error when he wrote that all three orders have as the matter the imposition of the hands OR as we can see from historical usage by the theologians, "imposition of hands" may refer to one hand or two.  SO goes on to describe the matter of the diaconate as being the one imposition of the hand because that's what was proscribed. As SO further notes, "Finally, what We have above declared and provided is by no means to be understood in the sense that it be permitted even in the slightest detail to neglect or omit the other rites which are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; on the contrary We order that all the prescriptions laid down in the said Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and performed."

    5. Rejection of The Consent of the Theologians to Determine Meaning and Resolve Controversy

     I now reproduce PL's rejection of theologians:
    "Among his array of flawed defenses are the canonists' and theologians' opinions he advances in support of one-handed validity.

    We'll grant him  (Fr. Cekada--Introibo ad Altare Dei)one thing: the names are big ones -- Cappello, Regatillo, Aeternys, Damen, Nabuco, etc. Their views naturally carry weight and are worth hearing. However, we must keep one thing uppermost in our minds: These are only opinions.
    Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.)(1)
    Frankly, we still can't quite see how after 1947 there could be much free discussion on the question of hands in priestly ordination, inasmuch as Pius declared in paragraph 5 that "the matter is the first imposition of the bishop's hands..." (...materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio). However, the Blunderer's authors must have had their reasons to promote an opinion that appears to have been settled by a Pope (i.e., hands, not a hand). Maybe it's not related to the faith or perhaps they didn't think the Pope was settling anything there. Who knows, right? At any rate, they offer a mere opinion, no matter how far flung their esteem in the eyes of men. Bear in mind, too, that an opinion is distinct from certainty or ignorance or doubt: It's an "adhesion of the mind to one of two opposite statements with a certain fear lest the other alternative be true."(2)

    In other words, there's always the possibility the opinion could be wrong. The canonists themselves knew that hard fact despite their habitual manner of speaking categorically. The history of theology shows that bigger names than theirs have erred in the past. As Ludwig Ott observed, "the majority of the Scholastic Theologians wrongly regarded the traditio instrumentorum as the matter of the sacrament of Order."(3) So, while we should lend an attentive ear to the canonists' opinions, there's no guarantee from them that priestly ordination with one hand is valid. Maybe yes, maybe no. It's mere opinion. But, we earnestly inquire, who wants to risk eternity on a mere opinion, no matter how grand a reputation its proponent enjoyed?"

    Nice try PL, but your argument must fail. I hope I'm not the only one who finds it amusing that PL uses the authority of a recognized theologian to call into question the use of the authority of theologians!  PL cites to theologian Ott, but now I must ask, isn't what he says mere opinion as well? So why should I believe him when he could be wrong? It's self-refuting and disingenuous.

    Please note:
    (a) While the majority of Scholastic Theologians might have been on the wrong side of a question, the debate lead to the position adopted by Pope Pius XII, showing how the Holy Ghost moves through the theologians in helping guide the Church and clarify Her teachings. The debate over the "traditio" was great; not so in the case of using one hand to ordain because in this case all theologians who addess the issue are in agreement it's valid.

    (b) The asssertion the theologians "could be wrong" is problematic. Epistemologically, apodictic certainty can be held for (1) my own existence and (2) my immediate sense impressions. I can't deny #1 without existing, so it's self-refuting. I can't deny what I immediately perceive even if I'm dreaming, a brain in a vat, etc, I'm still having those perceptions. Everything else is subject to degrees of probability. The highest degree is moral probability beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond any doubt). Therefore my belief that I'm typing this post is morally certain and I'd be a fool to doubt it. The unanimous consent of the theologians give us moral certainty, and that's all we need to go forward.

    (c) If PL really wants to apply the principle that something "could be wrong" and without absolute certainty you can't act, they must avoid all the sacraments. The priest could have a positive contrary intention and invalidate the sacrament. Even if you ask him if he has the right intention, he could lie to you, so why not adopt the "safer course" and stay away from adoring what might be only bread and not the Eucharist?

    (d)  Application to real life. If you thought your arteries were clogged and you went to three distinguished cardiologists all of whom tested you and said in their expert opinion you didn't require surgery, what would you do? Go with the experts, or find some disreputable doctor willing to open you up and check you out as "the safer course"?  The answer should be obvious.

    (e) PL cites theologian Lennerz:
    The practice of the Roman Congregations in repairing defects of the ordination of priests done before the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis is, that the ordination be repeated conditionally, if the defects were either in the imposition of hands (in the beginning of the ordination), or in the handing over of the instruments; it is supposed therefore that such defects can render an ordination invalid. [Our emphasis.](4)

    Even PL admits that there is no proof that a "defect in the imposition of the hands" refers to one handed ordinations. No one argues that defects in the imposition might occur, but they are not one step closer to proving that one handed ordination is such a defect. They have therefore yet to find a theologian who denounces one handed ordinations as dubious or invalid.

    (f) Theologian Regatillo, whose works were used in pre-Vatican II seminaries for the training of the Church's priests are held to the highest scrutiny when granting an Imprimatur declaring them free from all errors in Faith and morals. Regatillo cites in his tome that the Holy Office has declared one handed ordinations valid. Does PL wish to suggest that this work contains a material false statement on such an important subject concerning Faith?

    See my conclusion in the next post.

    Monday, June 3, 2013

    The Landmark Anti-Roe

     In the world's only country named after Jesus Christ, El Salvador ("The Savior"), a huge pro-life victory was scored. According to the AP news:

    A seriously ill woman denied a medical abortion has had a successful cesarean section to deliver a baby that doctors have given little chance of surviving, El Salvador's Health Ministry announced late Monday.
    The 22-year-old woman, known only as Beatriz for privacy reasons, underwent the operation in the afternoon after 27 weeks of pregnancy, the ministry said. Her baby girl was born without a brain.
    "No one can say how long she will live," Morena Herrera of the Feminist Collective for Local Development told The Associated Press. "It was painful to see the little creature. That's what the grandmother told us, and the doctors confirmed it."
    The country's Supreme Court last week prohibited an abortion for Beatriz, who suffers from lupus and kidney failure and whose lawyers said the pregnancy was threatening her life. Her plight drew international attention and a ruling from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights that El Salvador should protect her life and help her end the pregnancy.
    The Health Ministry stepped in late last week after the ruling and said it would allow the C-section because the pregnancy was already at 26 weeks and the country's strict abortion laws were no longer at play. Ultrasound images had indicated her fetus was developing with only a brain stem.

    What the Associated Press failed to report was the landmark decision of El Salvador's top court stating that the right to life is from biological conception until a natural death!

    This landmark ruling comes after a women tried to convince the court to permit her abortion because she was ill with lupus. With conviction, the courts upheld by a 4-to-1 margin the country's legal "absolute impediment to authorize the practice of abortion," and ruled that "the rights of the mother cannot be privileged over those" of the fetus.

    One of my best friends from law school, Romulo, was born and raised in El Salvador. Both he and his dear mother converted to Traditionalism in 2006 from liberal Protestantism. I was one of God's unworthy instruments used to kindle the One True Faith in their hearts. Vatican II may have decimated the Faith; but it will always survive as Christ promised. We need to bring it to all those we can. Miracles still can happen. And wouldn't it be most fitting if the culture of death gets its first setback by the good people of the country named after "The Savior" who ransomed us from death?