The End Of Innocence

In January of 2019, the Argentinian apostate pretending to be "pope," Jorge Bergoglio, made the following pronouncement about sex education:

He [Bergoglio] said: "Sex education must be given in schools." Specifying and underlining that above all "sex is a gift from God." And "it’s not a monster." It is God’s "gift to love." Then – fully aware he added - that some people use it to earn money or exploit is another problem, yet it does not affect the innate purity of the gift. .. Then he adds and explains: "Because if sexual education is given in schools soaked in ideological colonization, you destroy the person." At the same time, sex understood "as a gift from God must" be "taught" not with "rigidity," or with mental and ideological closure. By creating taboos, precisely. The Pope specifies that "to [be] educated, from the Latin "educere (to lead, to draw out, ed.), is to bring out the best of the person and accompany him/her along the way." The Bishop of Rome [sic]warns: "The problem is the system." He warns against the risks that "those responsible for education, both at the national and local levels, as well as in each school unit, may encounter:"  in particular, the type of "teachers" chosen for this task, and the "textbooks" that are adopted for children and young people.
(See https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2019/01/29/news/the-pope-sex-is-a-gift-we-must-talk-about-it-also-in-schools-1.33673131)

That we live in a sex-saturated culture is an understatement. In movies, television, radio, music, schools, and even in Vatican II sect churches, sex propaganda runs rampant. Promotion of artificial contraception, fornication, adultery under the euphemism "open marriage," sexual perversion/homosexuality, "single parenting," and abortion are routinely pushed on innocent youngsters with disastrous consequences to their bodies, souls, and society at large. Sex education is a large part of the problem, which is now lauded by Bergoglio and his sect of clerical perverts. When I speak of sex education, I'm not talking only about the kind found in the godless public school systems, I'm referring to any form of sexual education, even when under the auspices of a church and/or those claiming "traditional family values."

Sex education is inherently evil, and the reason was summed up nicely by a group in the early 1990s calling itself The National Coalition of Clergy and Laity (NCCL): Classroom sex education is a perversion of nature. It makes what is by its very nature private and intimate, public and open. All education is an activity which is essentially public, but because matters of sex are private and intimate (and pertain fundamentally to the family), the teaching of sex can not ever be accomplished in the classroom without violating that privacy and intimacy. Such a violation is an abominable form of scandal, scandal of the sort which Our Lord solemnly and literally condemned when he declared: "And whoever receives one such little child for my sake, receives me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it were better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matt. 18:5-6) (The group's website--which is "conservative" Vatican II sect--does not seem to be active in over ten years; See https://www.national-coalition.org/about.html).

This post will demonstrate Church teaching on sex education, the inherent evils that it produces, and its promotion by the Vatican II sect, which gives yet another reason that the sect cannot be the One True Church of Jesus Christ.

The Teaching of the Church on Sex Ed

Naturalism is the philosophy that human reason is supreme and nothing exists beyond nature; therefore there is no supernatural order. One of the grave errors that flow from Naturalism is that of Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). The United States was based on this premise since most of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and Naturalism is the guiding force of Masonry.

Public schools, as they exist in most countries today, have a type of sex ed most especially dangerous, because it is founded on Naturalism. No religion is allowed to be taught in public schools as they banish God from the classroom. Hence, everything must be approached as if God does not exist. We must depend upon ourselves to solve problems. No consideration of fallen human nature, sin, or God's grace can ever be considered.

Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri:

 Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace. (On Christian Education, 1929; para. #65 and #66).

Yet, what about sex ed in Vatican II sect schools? Aren't their sex education programs--sometimes called chastity programs-- morally acceptable because they are not based on Naturalism, and God can be invoked, especially in a "conservative" parish school? No. The reason was articulated well by the NCCL, "The child is deliberately exposed to information which focuses on and stimulates the sexual function - while at the same time he is being told to be chaste, i.e. pure in thought, word, and deed. This causes a tremendous (and unnatural) psychological, moral and spiritual conflict in the young, especially considering that stimulation of the sexual function, which is cumulative, will find a way to express itself."

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
The Congregation was asked, "Can Catholics approve of the method called "sex education" or "sex initiation"? Response: In the Negative. In the education of youth the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the Encyclical [Divini Illius Magistri, cited above] dealing with the Christian education of youth, promulgated on Dec. 31, 1929.The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion of both sexes. Esteem, desire and love of the angelic virtue must be instilled into their minds and hearts. They must be made fully alive to the necessity of constant prayer, and assiduous frequenting of the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; they must be directed to foster a filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin as Mother of holy purity, to whose protection they must entirely commit themselves. Precautions must be taken to see that they avoid dangerous reading, indecent shows, conversations of the wicked, and all other occasions of sin.

Hence no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications." Therefore, any theologian who advocated any loosening of these norms, on any grounds, would not have their books approved and would be censured. They could no longer be considered approved theologians.

Moreover, these norms against sex education or "chastity programs" retain perennial principles that do not diminish or "change with the times." When confronted with such Modernist sentiments the pope spoke forth.

Pope Pius XII, Allocution to French Fathers and Families, Sep. 18, 1951
…Even the principles so wisely illustrated by Our Predecessor Pius XI, in the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, on sex education and questions connected thereto are set aside — a sad sign of the times! With a smile of compassion: Pius XI, they say, wrote twenty years ago, for his times! Great progress has been made since then!...Fathers of families… Unite… to stop and curtail these movements under whatever name or under whatever patronage they conceal themselves or are patronized.

Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Fifth International Congress of Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology, April 13, 1953
The Holy See published certain rules in this connection [sex ed] shortly after the Encyclical of Pius XI on Christian Marriage [Casti connubii].  These rules have not been rescinded, either expressly or via facti.

The Dangers of Sex Ed--Both Public and Religious

1. It has a political agenda. As far back as 1991, Newsweek magazine reported in its June 17th issue that the ACLU was suing to get an abstinence-based sex ed program (still bad but much better than the rest) called Sex Respect. The reason the ACLU wanted it banished almost 30 years ago is telling: 

"Sex Respect, according to the ACLU, stereotypes boys as 'sexual aggressors,' and girls as 'virginity protectors,' mischaracterizes AIDS as nature's way of 'making a statement on sexual behavior,' frowns on birth control, and presents two-parent heterosexual couples as 'the sole model' of a 'healthy,' 'real,' family." 

Sex ed effectively:

• rejects traditional Catholic moral standards
• makes all things relative by interpreting traditional moral teaching as "outdated" or even "abnormal"
• considers religious objections to any behaviors to be irrelevant
• promotes choice and motive  as the sole criteria whereby sex acts are to be judged
• construes and calls any restraint on sexual behavior "an intrusion on human rights"
• encourages birth control, abortion and "sexual experimentation" through peer pressure

2.  The Vatican II sect supports this political agenda; now consider why they do.

After the 2002 pedophile scandal erupted, the Los Angeles Times conducted a survey showing how the sodomites had taken control. It began with the Communists putting an estimated 10,000 sexual deviants in the seminaries, and culminated with the Modernists letting the perverts walk in openly through the door after Vatican II. The results are here for all to see. I use the term priest without quotations for the sake of brevity:

• The Times poll of priests asked respondents to characterize their sexual orientation. A combined 15% identified themselves as homosexual (9%) or "somewhere in between, but more on the homosexual side" (6%)
• However, for priests ordained after 1982, the number of homosexuals rose to 23%
• 5% declared themselves "in the middle" (i.e., bisexual)
• 53% of priests who were ordained in since 1982 said a "gay subculture" existed in the seminary when they attended

(See https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-oct-20-me-gaypriest20-story.html)

In some accounts, the number of perverts (sodomites and bisexuals) are placed as high as 80%. (See In the Closet of the Vatican, [2019] by Frederic Martel).  If the sodomites can make their abominable acts acceptable, think of the benefits for them, and the inestimable harm to souls. 

3. On what basis can the Vatican II sect justify using sex ed or "chastity education"?

Four words: The Second Vatican Council. By introducing false principles by which theology should be guided, they lead the way to acceptance of unnatural behavior. The "Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes) begins the moral decay:

Para. #54:  "The circumstances of the life of modern man have been so profoundly changed in their social and cultural aspects, that we can speak of a new age of human history.New ways are open, therefore, for the perfection and the further extension of culture. These ways have been prepared by the enormous growth of natural, human and social sciences, by technical progress, and advances in developing and organizing means whereby men can communicate with one another. Hence the culture of today possesses particular characteristics: sciences which are called exact greatly develop critical judgment; the more recent psychological studies more profoundly explain human activity; ..." (Emphasis mine). 

Para. #62: "In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith." (Emphasis mine). 

The pagan aspects of psychology and sociology were thereby introduced. Vatican II joins modern psychology in the heretical teaching of humanity's "intrinsic self-worth." In Gaudium et Spes, para. 24 states, "...if man is the only creature on earth God has wanted for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself," as if people possesses such value in themselves that it would cause God to create them.  In the Catholic meaning, the self-worth or "dignity of man" cannot be considered as a characteristic in people's very nature that imposes respect for all choices, because this dignity depends on right will turned toward the Good and is therefore a relative and not an absolute value. 

A Father Who Really Knew Best

My friend, the late Fr. Paul Wickens, ordained in 1955 for the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, found his way back to the True Church when Archbishop Peter Gerety, an ultra-Modernist validly consecrated just after Vatican II (1966) "suspended" Father for his activities against him. One of Father's greatest complaints involved Gerety's attempt to destroy the innocence of children with a sick and sinful sex ed program. As reported in 1984 by the New York Times:

The 54-year-old Father Wickens, a self-styled traditionalist, has preached against the teaching of sex education in parochial schools, a view contrary to the Archbishop's, and then helped publish a newsletter which was generally critical of the Archbishop. (See https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/02/nyregion/newark-archbishop-evicting-defiant-priest.html)

Fr. Wickens told me how he then heard of Fr. DePauw and started reading his material. He eventually rejected Vatican II and opened up his own Traditionalist Chapel in 1996. Called St. Anthony of Padua Traditionalist Chapel, Father Wickens affiliated himself with the SSPX. He never made it all the way to sedevacantism, although he kept an open mind in our discussions. When he had approached Gerety about the sex ed program, he had a well-written statement about how all sex education conflicts with True Catholic teaching (as I outlined above). Gerety threw the paper in Father's face saying, "You don't know what you're talking about Wickens!!" He had Father unceremoniously thrown out of the Chancery and was told "don't bother me anymore." 

Father had cited statistics which former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, in a speech to the National School Board Association, would later discuss:

• More than one million teenage girls become pregnant each year, and 40 percent of today’s fourteen-year-old girls will become pregnant by the time they are nineteen.
• Teenage pregnancy rates are at or near an all-time high. The 25 percent decline in birth rates between 1970 and 1984 was due to a doubling of the abortion rate during that period. More than 400,000 teenage girls have abortions each year.

Bennett himself confessed, "These numbers are an irrefutable indictment of sex education’s effectiveness in reducing teenage sexual activity and pregnancies." (See William J. Bennett, “Sex and the Education of Our Children,” U.S. Department of Education, 22 January 1987; transcript of talk at the National School Board Association in Washington, D.C.) Yet, according to Gerety, Fr. Wickens didn't "know what he was talking about." Right.

Father Wickens died in 2004 at the age of 74 from esophageal cancer. While in the hospital, Gerety had the audacity to visit him and ask him to "be reconciled with the Church (sic)." Father's response was to throw his bedpan at Gerety's head and sent him running from the room! Gerety went to Judgement in 2016 at the incredible age of 104--and at least publicly---without any repentance for his heresy, his many sins, and corrupting the innocence of thousands of young people in his "Catholic" schools.

Conclusion

The Church has always taught that sex ed corrupts the minds, bodies, and souls of youth. Yet "Pope" Francis says, "Sex education must be given in schools." Vatican II sect apologists tell us that there is a "hermenutic of continuity" between mutually exclusive, contradictory teachings. The "recognize and resist" forces will tell us that Francis is a heretic, and sex ed is wrong, but Bergoglio can still be pope. It is allegedly up to us to decide what to accept and what to reject. This makes the individual (and not their pope) the Rule of Faith, which is contrary to Church teaching. $teve $kojec will tell us "the Church can defect, so please pay me for telling you" or words to that effect.

 In so doing, they all support, directly or indirectly, the man who destroys the innocence of youth. Remember the words of Our Lord quoted above and shudder, "And whoever receives one such little child for my sake, receives me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it were better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matt. 18:5-6). 

When God Permits A Plague

As I write this post, the non-stop frenzy over the spread of COVID-19 (aka "coronavirus") continues. Officially recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), it is shutting down entire countries and playing havoc with national economies. A couple of weeks ago, one of my long-time readers asked me in the comments section to explain the Catholic response to the pandemic. I gave a response in which I offered my opinion, and I stated there is no "Catholic position" on the outbreak of a disease. Her question kept me thinking, even as I find myself working from home and using Skype with clients. I think a bigger question underlying this threat (and the concomitant hysteria), is "Why does God permit such evil?"

People begin to question God's omni-benevolence. Why does God permit such things, and why doesn't He stop them, or at least save the good people? This is known as the problem of theodicy (i.e., "the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil"). The problem felt by all of us at some point, to one extent or another, is formulated as: (1) If God is all good He would want to stop evil; (2) If God is all powerful (omnipotent) He can stop evil; however, evil exists. Therefore, there is no all good and all powerful God. This post will examine theodicy, and how to make sense of this evil pandemic.

God is Good in Spite of Evil's Existence

Merely attempting to answer how God's goodness and power are reconcilable with COVID-19, can seem insensitive and uncaring, especially because so many people have been affected by this disease. If you, or a loved one, have suffered in any way because of the coronavirus, please know that I am deeply sorry for your experience. Our first response as Traditionalists is to empathize with those who suffer, and most especially, if they are also members of the One True Church. St. Paul writes under Divine Inspiration in Romans 12:15, "Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn." After empathizing with, praying for, and helping those who suffer, we must be prepared to answer their questions about how a good God can permit such evil. "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1 Peter 3:15).
Many points in this post were culled from Thomistic philosophy sources, most especially-- See theologian and philosopher Grenier, Thomistic Philosophy, [1948], 2:11-20 and 2:359-364.

1. God is not the cause of evil.
It seems as though God must be the cause of evil. Since God is the Creator of all things, and evil is something, does it not logically follow that God created evil? In a word: NO. The reply is found by defining the word "thing." In Thomistic terms, a thing is a substance, or a thing in itself. We must concede that God created all substances, but we need not agree that there are evil substances. The question naturally arises, "How can evil be real but not a "thing," or a substance?" The answer lies in the fact that evil is the real privation, lack, or corruption of something good. A couple of analogies may help illustrate this point:

• Evil is like having a wound in your leg. The wound does not exist in itself, rather it exists in something good, i.e., a leg. Anyone who had a wounded leg knows the wound is real, but the wound does not exist apart from the leg.

• Evil is like a sweater with holes in it from moths. The holes do not exist apart from the sweater. It is a lack of material. A totally moth eaten garment would no longer exist. Hence, evil is a real corruption, but not a real substance. 

2. Evil is not only a lack of good.

In order for a privation to be evil, it must be something the substance should possess. For example, neither rocks nor blind people have the ability to see. However, there is no privation of sight in the rock because rocks are not meant to see; yet people are supposed to see by nature. For a human being to be blind, it is a physical evil, but the absence of sight in a rock is not evil because there is nothing lacking in its nature. 

3. If God is not the cause of evil, from whence does it originate?

 Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of evil, moral evil (e.g., murder, rape, lying, etc.) which is the direct result of the abuse of free will, and there is physical evil (e.g., hurricanes, fires, floods, famine, diseases, etc.). God is free to create any world He wished (His free will), and He chose this world. As to moral evil, it began with the abuse of our First Parents free will when they committed Original Sin. It affected everything. People are now inclined to do evil. Satan and his demons were angels who abused their free will and rejected God. 

God wanted to create a world of free beings who choose to be with Him. God the Son, Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, became Man and suffered, died, and rose from the dead. He redeemed us and founded His One True Church whereby people can be saved and escape evil forever in Heaven. This is why moral evil exists: the possibility of the abuse of free will. There is also the possibility of salvation offered to all.

The objection then arises: What are we to make of the billions who did not have the opportunity to believe through no fault of their own? A possible solution is God wants as many people as possible to be saved and He wants as few as possible to be lost. So what God has done is to create a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost. A world that involves the maximum number of saved for the minimum number of lost people. And he gives sufficient grace for salvation to everyone whom He creates. Everyone can be saved if they want to be saved. Perhaps God has so ordered the world that those who never hear about Christ and the Church and are lost are only people who would not have believed in Him even if they had heard about it. In other words, anyone who would have believed and entered the Church to be saved if he heard it, is born at a time and place in history where he does hear it. 

 The logical objection would be, "So isn't it more merciful not to create such a person in the first place if God knows they freely choose damnation?" To this it can be replied that if you change one thing in this world, it will have repercussions on everything else. Who knows how the absence of those people would affect the salvation of others? Remember too, people are only lost through their own fault.

4. How do you explain physical evils?

Physical evil is connected directly or indirectly to the agency of free, rational creatures who are moral agents. There are nine (9) ways physical evil is caused in the world.

• Self-infliction. Many people choose to abuse drugs, alcohol, practice unnatural sex acts, smoke, overeat, etc. All these things can cause disease, suffering, and an early death (not to mention causing moral evils on society)

• Indirect result of free choice. While no one wants to be poor, many people choose not to use their God-given talents and are lazy. They don't want to work very hard, get an education, or do as much as they can. I was born in poverty, and it took a lot of hard work to become a middle school science teacher, and then a lawyer. I worked many hard jobs while in college, teaching, in graduate school, and in law school. I then paid off my student debt in full within ten years after becoming a lawyer. Many with whom I grew up in New York City still live in poverty; many went to jail, and many died of drugs and/or alcohol. Proverbs 24: 33-34 tells us, "A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man."

• Indirect result from the choices of others. You may be crippled in a car accident because someone else chose to drive drunk. Our Lady of Fatima said that, "War is a punishment from God for sin." Although no one is required to believe in private revelations, it makes prefect sense. War is simply the evil men do magnified. If everyone sins and turns from God, He can allow them to go their own way. Little conflicts end up as big ones. Communism is the grand scale turning away from God. If people believed in God and followed Him, Communism would be non-existent. Even if you are not a Communist, you can suffer as a result of their actions, including wars

• Byproducts of a good process. The enjoyment of swimming can be an occasion of drowning, flying on a plane can be the occasion of a crash. Every step we take while walking could result in us tripping and breaking our necks, yet although everything has inherent dangers, no one would seriously suggest that we should never walk, drive a car, or take a plane 

• Necessary for a greater physical good for something else. The early bird gets the worm (good), but the worm gets eaten (not good for the worm). Some people in Africa may get eaten by wild animals, and although animals are not moral agents, a disordered world was caused when sin entered by Adam. In extreme circumstances, some people have cannabalized others 

• Needed for a greater moral good. Physical evils often remind us how short our time is on Earth, so we think of God and turn from sin

• Justice from God in punishing evil actions. God inflicted the plagues upon the Egyptians in their refusal to release the Jews. (See Exodus chapters 7-11)

• From Original Sin. Death and the suffering that comes with it was inflicted by the Fall. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned..." (Romans 5:12)

• The result of Satan and his demons. According to theologian Ott, "The evil spirits also seek to hurt mankind physically also, through the causing of physical evil (e.g., Tob. 3:8, Job 1:12, 1 Cor. 5: 5)."   Once more, from theologian Ott, "In some cases people are possessed, in which case the demon takes forcible possession of the human body, so that the bodily organs and the lower powers of the soul, but not the higher powers of the soul, are controlled by him. The possibility and reality of possession is firmly established by the express testimony of Christ, Who Himself drove out evil spirits and Who bestowed power over the evil spirits on His disciples (Church's power of exorcism---St. Mark 1:23; St. Luke 10: 17 et seq)." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Mercier Press, [1955], pgs. 121-122)

Some Truths to Remember During the Pandemic

Having gone through the fundamental principles of evil, I would like you to remember these following points as we go through this pandemic:

1. Although we may not know why God permits a certain evil, God has a plan in which everything ultimately works out for the best. Just because we may not know why (we have limited intellects), God knows why, and we need to trust in Him.  Once, here in New York City, I was listening to a radio show in which a man was telling about (what he thought) was the worst day in his life. He was going to work to meet a very important client and needed to be on time. The subway was late and after he came up, he decided to take a shortcut through an alley to make up for the time delay. A man came up behind him with a gun and demanded his wallet. He handed over his wallet, and the mugger hit him over the head with his gun, rendering the man unconscious before he fled. Waking up two hours later with his head splitting and his wallet gone, he was also late for work. He suddenly realized all the panic on the street. It was September 11, 2001, and he worked in the Twin Towers. Had he been on time for work, he would have died. The mugging saved his life!

2. God is calling upon us to think about Him and what is really important in life. This is a great lesson during Lent. "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." (Sirach 7:40). Turn from sin and stay in God's sanctifying grace always. 

3. God is sending us a trial to see how we respond. It is an opportunity to build character. Could God be punishing humanity for its many sins?  Possibly, but you also have a chance to expiate your sins and gain great graces by offering up your mental anguish (and sickness if you [God forbid] get it) to God in reparation.

4. God has not (and will not) abandon the members of His One True Church who call upon Him. He will get us through, and give us the strength we need to face what we must. We must pray and be in the state of grace. Christ is there with us in our trials. "For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). 

Conclusion

I am most especially remembering all my readers (and their families) in my prayers, and I ask that you please do the same for me (I already remember you all every day, and also Sundays at the Most Holy Sacrifice). We need to storm Heaven with our prayers now more than ever. I think St. Vincent de Paul said it best, "When once we have placed ourselves totally in the Hands of God, we have no cause to fear misfortune; for if any should come to us, He will know how to make it turn to our good, by ways which we do not know now, but which, one day, we shall know." 

A Sickness Of Soul

Since Vatican II, ecumenism is the driving force behind the sect the Robber Council created. One can easily see how bad things became with the Assisi interfaith prayer abominations, and "cardinals" (like Donald Wuerl pictured above) with the pagan Dali Lama, totally unconcerned about converting heathens since "proselytism is solemn nonsense." Before the Modernists took control of the once Catholic church buildings, they started sowing the seeds of ecumenism prior to the Council. Modernism was driven underground by the great Pope St. Pius X, who in spite of his most noble and extraordinary efforts, could not extirpate the "synthesis of all heresies" as he called it.

After World War II, Catholics in the United States were exposed to different religions as never before. They became less concerned with what their non-Catholic friends believed as long as they were "nice." It became hard for many to conceive of God letting those outside the One True Church go to Hell. Seeing an opening, the crypto-Modernists in the clergy and religious orders began a brilliant campaign to get ecumenism in the minds of the faithful by distorting a Catholic truth.  Fr. "Love the World" and Sister "Mary Sunshine" would tell people that they need not worry about the fate of non-Catholics because they would all (or almost all) be saved by Baptism of Desire (BOD).

In reaction to this distortion of Catholic teaching, a Jesuit priest from Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, began a pernicious error; he began denying that BOD and BOB  were part of the Church's teaching regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (i.e., "Outside the Church there is no salvation"). I've written on his followers ("Feeneyites") many times before, but this post will be different. I recently read a book, published in 1979, entitled Walled In. I've often wondered why modern day Feeneyites (like the infamous Dimond brothers) tend to exhibit disturbing characteristics, such as calling anyone who disagrees with them "liars" and "heretics." If you point out an error in what they write, supported by facts, they will simply respond that "it's not true" without any evidence to back up their claim (and after calling you a "liar").

Nevertheless, the book I read by Robert Connor (real name Robert Colopy) whose parents were followers of Feeney, chilled me to the bone. I was so disturbed by what I read, I did further research on the topic of Fr. Feeney and his original followers back before Vatican II. I am convinced by the manifest weight of the credible evidence that Colopy's ordeal (subtitled "The True Story of a Cult") is accurate.

My friend, Mr. Steven Speray, (whose blog Catholicism in a Nutshell I highly recommend) has written extensively against the Feeneyite error. He once told me that Feeneyites have a certain "sickness of soul." I think he hit the nail on the head more accurately than he imagined. This will be the most difficult post I've ever written because the content is truly shocking and ominous, but it is a tale that needs to be told. What you will read is the story of a priest who was either mentally deranged, demon possessed, or pure evil. However, given the large number of people who only know Feeney for his heresy, I believe it is a narrative that needs to be told. WARNING! The content of this post contains descriptions of child abuse and other behaviors that many will find highly disturbing (as I did). Reader discretion is strongly advised.

From Loyal Priest to Maniacal Heretic 

Leonard Feeney was born on February 18, 1897, in Massachusetts. He entered the novitiate of the Jesuits in 1914 and was ordained a priest on June 20, 1928. In the 1930s, he was literary editor at the Jesuit magazine, America. He became a professor at Boston College, and soon became the chaplain at the Catholic Saint Benedict Center at Harvard Square in 1945. Soon after, he started preaching against BOD and Baptism of Blood (BOB). He gained a large following. His Jesuit superiors ordered him to leave the Center for a post at the College of the Holy Cross, but after initially going there, he returned to the Center and repeatedly refused to comply with the order. Feeney was summoned to Rome to answer for his teachings, but he staunchly refused to go. On February 13, 1953, Fr. Feeney was solemnly excommunicated by Pope Pius XII.

Despite the claims of many of his followers that he was some learned scholar, Fr. Feeney never held either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD), or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). His early writings were devotional works. In 1934 he published a collection of essays entitled Fish on Fridays which became a best seller. In it, he made it known he believed that it was possible for a Protestant to be saved (but not as a Protestant, of course, but as a Catholic received in the Church by that rare miracle of BOD). His later works, most notably Bread of Life (1952), set forth his false teachings. Theologian Salaverri, makes it clear that to be considered a theologian, that cleric's works must be known for "...orthodoxy of doctrine...at least to this extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the schools, with the knowledge of and with no opposition from the Magisterium of the Church."(See Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. IB, pg. 327, #857; Emphasis mine). Obviously, Fr. Feeney, a gifted writer, could not be considered either a theologian or canonist ( i.e., Church-approved expert in Canon Law). Once a faithful priest, Fr. Feeney turned from the teaching of the Church which he held on BOD and BOB.

 Interestingly, the heresy he left as his legacy, and which bears his name ("Feeneyism"), was never taught as 99% of his adherents teach it today. Feeney taught serious, and illogical, errors involving justification and salvation. Justification is the passage from the state of sin to the state of sanctifying grace; salvation is the passage out of this earthly life and persevering to the end in the state of sanctifying grace so as to merit Heaven (either directly, or after time in Purgatory). The Sacrament of Baptism imparts an indelible character on the soul, such that it cannot be repeated. Feeney taught that the character was necessary for salvation. This has never been the teaching of the Church. If a validly baptized person commits mortal sin, they retain the baptismal character, but not sanctifying grace. The two are distinct and separable. In Bread of Life, pg. 118, Feeney writes, "Justification is now being turned into salvation with the aid of water."

If someone is justified, they have sanctifying grace. Baptism cannot turn anything "into salvation." This would mean you are somehow assured of going to Heaven as "justification by faith alone" Protestants falsely teach. On pg. 25 of his book we read: "...Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." Finally, as a "Q and A" format, Feeney presents his heretical teaching very clearly:

Q. What does 'Baptism of Desire' mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can 'Baptism of Desire' save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could 'Baptism of Desire' save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of 'Baptism of Desire,' and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never.

 In other words, you can have sanctifying grace, but die and go to Hell unless you receive Baptism by water! A person in sanctifying grace is a child of God with the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in his soul. How could such a person go to Hell? They can't. Fr. Feeney on pg. 125, "I myself would say, my dear children, that a catechumen who dies before Baptism, is punished." Really? The 1917 Code of Canon Law states in Canon 1239, section 2, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without baptism, are to be treated as baptized." The commentary on this canon expressly states the reason. "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through baptism of desire." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2:493).

Modern day Feeneyites (such as the Dimond brothers of "Most Holy Family Monastery") realize the illogical position of Feeney, and so teach that without Baptism of water, no one is saved or justified. While more logically consistent (although totally false), they do not believe as Fr. Feeney did, but "improve" upon his teaching---a teaching demonstrably illogical as well as out of line with the teaching of the Church.

Feeney's Fanatics

I'm very careful when using the word "cult." I only use it in connection where there is some form of coercion used to get people in a religion or to prevent people from leaving. Hence, Lutheranism is a false sect, but Scientology is a cult. What Fr. Feeney and his followers did in the 1940s can only be described as a cult.

 Fr. Feeney established the "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (a "religious Congregation" known by the Latin initials "MICM") without ecclesiastical approval and aided by a married laywoman, Mrs. Catherine Clarke, on January 17, 1949. She took the name of "Sr" Catherine, and continued to live with her husband, Hank. Most of the members of the MICM were married and had children. They took vows of obedience and chastity, and the vow of obedience was to Feeney himself. As a Jesuit priest, no one can make vows of obedience to him. He was not the General Superior of the Order, nor a bishop with Ordinary jurisdiction, nor did he receive special permission by the Vatican or Pope Pius XII.

Canon 542 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law makes it very plain that "Married persons for the duration of their marriage...are invalidly admitted to the novitiate." (See Abbo and Hannan, op. cit., 1: 559, 558.) This means that they cannot become religious as long as their spouse is alive even though they may be "separated" and even if "the other spouse consents that his spouse may enter religion." (Ibid., 1: 560). A few more points are in order of how contrary this goes against Church law:

• Canon 492, section 1, requires the approval of a bishop for the Constitutions of a new religious Congregation, and said bishop must first consult the Holy See. If the bishop obtains permission of the Holy See, he must then sign and publish a formal document of erection for the Congregation. (See canonists Woywood and Smith, A Practical Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, pgs. 206-207). None of this was done 

• Feeney "established" his so-called "Congregation" (and declared himself a member of it) prior to his expulsion from the Jesuits. Under Canon Law, no one may belong to one Congregation or Order while belonging to another. Even if Feeney had been expelled first, he still could not take valid vows in any Congregation or Order without an Indult from the Holy See. According to canonists Creusen and Ellis, under the heading Impediments to Valid Admission  [to a religious Order or Congregation], we read that one category includes: "Those who are or have been bound by the bonds of religious profession. Whoever has left a religious institute after taking vows, even only temporary ones, cannot validly re-enter the same institute, nor be admitted validly into any other institute, without an Indult from the Holy See. It makes no difference whether the person in question was dismissed, left of his own accord, during, or after his time of profession." (See Religious Men and Women in Church Law, [1958], pg. 139). Applied to Feeney, he was a member of the Jesuit Order at the time he "professed" himself a member of MICM, which wasn't even properly established and recognized by the Church. He also never had any Indult from the Holy See. His vows were absolutely null and void as per Canon Law

• As to the twelve (12) married couples becoming "nuns" and "brothers," canonist Fanfani teaches that it is no longer permissible (under the 1917 Code) for married couples to validly enter the religious life while their spouse is alive. "Mention is no longer made in the Code of the possibility on the part of married persons of entering religion by mutual agreement. It therefore seems valid to conclude that once a true marriage has been contracted the parties fall under the diriment (i.e., "invalidating") impediment which prevents their entrance into religion." (See Catechism on the Religious State: In Conformity with the Code of Canon Law, [1955], pg. 31). Only a Papal Indult from Pope Pius XII could dispense from such a requirement as the pope can dispense from any prohibition in Canon Law that is not also part of the Divine Positive Law and/or Natural Law. None of the twelve couples ever received such papal permission

The result is clear. Feeney started a phony, non-Canonical "Congregation," wherein all the vows of the members were null and void as to the married couples and Feeney himself. It is questionable (at the least) as to the validity of vows taken by single men and women to a "Congregation" not recognized by the Church, and as of February 13, 1953, run by a cleric (Feeney) who was solemnly excommunicated by Pope Pius XII and was therefore not part of the Church. He could not licitly offer Holy Mass, administer the sacraments, preach, and he could not validly absolve anyone from sin except in danger of death. I will deal with the Feeneyite canards that their founder was either (a) not validly excommunicated, or (b) excommunicated for disobedience, but not for his teaching denying BOD and BOB in another section of this post.

What is really awful is what happened to the children. There were thirty-nine (39) children of these "married religious" who were raised in a wacky commune built for the "Congregation." The MICM bought some houses and erected a fence around them. Fr. Feeney and "Sr." Catherine (sometimes referred to as "Mother" just as Feeney was known simply as "Father") ran the place in dictatorial fashion. Unlike Catherine Clarke and the others, only Feeney was recognized by the Church as a validly ordained priest who, until his expulsion, was a member of a true religious order, the Jesuits. The rest were all "self-appointed" as "nuns" and "brothers." They continued to call their "community" "St. Benedict's Center" (SBC).

 One such couple that got into this madhouse was Mr. John Colopy and his wife Loretta. They were overwhelmed by Feeney's charismatic appeal and fiery speeches. Loretta, in particular, wanted to join and was willing to leave her fiancee if he didn't join. Married in 1949 by Fr. Feeney, they were given the "religious names" of "Brother Mark" and "Sister Mary Agnes." They had five children by 1954; Michael, Benedict, Matthew, Paul, and Robert. While their family was growing, Feeney had been both expelled from the Jesuits and excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for his false teachings.

Drinking Feeney's Kool-Aid

This section of my post is compiled from several sources, including Feeneyite author Gary Potter, who defends Feeney both personally and as to his teachings in his book After the Boston Heresy Case. ("The Boston Heresy Case" was the name given to the conflict between Feeney and the Vatican by some in the media). The book Walled In: The True Story of a Cult, was authored by Robert Colopy, one of the 39 children who was writing under the pen name "Robert Connor." Two sources, Joseph D. McLellan's article originally published on January 21, 1965, Father Charges Feeney Sect Alienated Tots (See https://thecatholicnewsarchive.org/?a=d&d=CTR19650121-01.1.2&), and Little Sister [2019] by Patricia Walsh Chadwick who was also one of the 39 children, corroborate much of what Colopy wrote. Taken together, it paints one damning picture of Feeney and his twisted followers. Whenever a member of the MICM cult is given the title "Sr." or "Br." I will write them without quotation marks for the sake of brevity; only Feeney's title of Fr. or Father is authentic. 

In 1954, Feeney demanded the vow of celibacy from the married "religious." All children born or adopted by his followers (Catherine and Hank Clarke had two adopted children), had to live apart from their parents and Feeney would "raise and educate them" communally together with Sr. Catherine. According to Feenyite author Gary Potter, in his book After the Boston Heresy Case, "The children's parents effectively ceased to exist as parents to the children, and more so as a child grew from three to five to ten and older. Care was taken that the children had no direct or special contact with their parents, save on a half-dozen major feast days during each year when the entire community would gather for socializing. On these occasions the children might chat with their parents, but after a certain time, the parents were seen by the children as scarcely more than another Big Brother or Big Sister." (pg. 171 [1995 ed.]; Emphasis mine).

What happened to them can justly be deemed child abuse, on this basis alone. Children have a right by Natural and Divine Law to be raised by their married parents, and not reared as "siblings" of wannabe "nuns" and "brothers." 

The Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 1013 section 1 states, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.  It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence." (Emphasis mine). The raising and education of children is the responsibility of the parents, not Fr. Feeney. The children were referred to as "Little Brothers" and "Little Sisters." Their parents were known only by their religious names, not "mom and dad." As a matter of fact, the children were forbidden to call their parents by anything other than their "religious" names, and they were told it was wrong to be "too attached" to any person. John Colopy (Br. Mark) had one of his children innocently ask him, "Mister, are you my father?" 

The Abusive and Strange Happenings in "Feeney-Town:"

• Fr. Feeney was convinced that the "outside world" (i.e., all those not in SBC) were evil and out to get both him and his followers

• Therefore, no one was allowed to read newspapers, listen to the radio, watch movies, or have any contact with those outside SBC

• As a way to keep their activity secret, they developed strange code words. Morning Mass offered by Feeney was to be called "First Breakfast," Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in the evening was called "Tea," and the Blessed Sacrament Itself was called "D.N." for "Dominus Noster"---"Our Lord"

• Every child was assigned an "Angel" (so-called nun) to watch over them and punish them for the slightest infraction of the rules

• Punishment included being sent to Br. Isidore, who was called "B.P." for "Big Punisher." Punishments included being cracked over the buttocks repeatedly with a two by four (wooden plank), being punched with closed fists, getting ten lashes with a long black rubber hose across the bare back and stomach which left left marks, and being repeatedly beaten with a belt in front of the other Little Brothers and Little Sisters to show them what happens when you disobey a rule of Feeney (Father) and/or Sr. Catherine Clarke (Mother). It was done to "save them from Hell."

• The children were told an angel from heaven would be watching them at "First Breakfast" and if they didn't pay attention, the angel would report back to God so that they would get an especially painful place to burn in Hell forever if they did not confess to Father right away and change their ways

• One boy suffered from nocturnal enuresis (i.e., nighttime bed wetting) and instead of being taken to the doctor, was accused of "disobedience" when he was told to stop but couldn't help himself. In order to make him stop wetting the bed, the B.P. beat him in front of the other kids with the belt. When that didn't work, he was given only bread and water to eat for days, then scalded with hot water, and even burned with matches

• The children were told not to get close to anyone emotionally, including their parents. "Particular friendships" were forbidden by Sr Catherine. The children were not allowed to have real friendships with each other and were punished if their "Angel" thought they were becoming friendly with anyone. Particular friendships were "worldly" and "sinful"  

• When someone from the "outside world" would criticize something Feeney said (usually when he was out protesting against Cardinal Cushing), Feeney would blasphemously make the sign of the cross over them and say in English, "I curse you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

• Even prior to Vatican II, Feeney did not allow any member of MICM to attend the Mass of any other priest, as they were all "heretics" and part of the "evil world"

• Feeney would refer to His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, as a "dirty WOP." (WOP, meaning "without a passport," is a degrading and derogatory ethnic slur used against Italians) 

Defending the Indefensible

If the above section seems too horrific to be true, it is actually mentioned in Feeneyite author Gary Potter's aforementioned book. Below is what he had to say on Colopy's book, in his work After the Boston Heresy Case. Potter read the book, and his attempted defense of overt child abuse is so outlandish, it makes you wonder how any person with an ounce of reason and morality could possibly write such absurdities. It is difficult to grasp the extent to which Feeneyites will go in order to sanitize their founder. Potter never claims that Colopy's account of the abuse was either false or exaggerated. He also refers to the abuse as mere "corporal punishment" without further description. Since Walled In was not a best seller, Potter was probably hoping that his readers would not have (or take the time to locate) the book. 

• The punishments inflicted by SBC were no different than public schools in California

The situation [involving hitting children] was far different in the 1950s. It was not merely Center [SBC] children who were strictly disciplined. children in general were subject to more discipline than today [1995]. Even public school teachers were permitted in most states to inflict corporal punishment in loco parentis. The present writer [Potter] vividly remembers his sixth grade public school teacher, a man in his thirties, sternly reading the relevant empowering paragraphs from the state code to the class. However, in my elementary school, corporal punishment was usually inflicted by the principal, who was a male, at least when it came to the punishment of boys. The principal used a wooden paddle about the size of a heft of a cricket bat. You dropped your trousers and bent over the principal's desk, and there was no talk about "this hurts me more than it does you." Parents were informed of such punishment ex post facto [after the fact]. (pgs. 189-190 of the 2011 edition)

I'm surprised Potter didn't analogize to beating and killing your slave without any problems back in the South prior to the Civil War. Just because something was done in the past doesn't necessarily make it right, and does anybody really believe that what Potter described is in any way similar to the abuse described at SBC?

• The punishments weren't that bad because Robert Colopy became successful later in life, and SBC paid his college tuition

"Connor" (Colopy's pen name) undercuts himself by his admission 'I had lived my life under strict discipline for for the first twenty-one years, and when I finally left, that self-discipline helped me to make the adjustment. The habit of hard workand single-mindedness helped me to graduate from MIT, complete a Master's degree at Stanford (in electrical engineering) and land a job at a large electronics corporation.' (He did not mention that his MIT tuition was paid by the Center). (pg. 191; 2011 ed.)

Some background information. Robert Colopy was highly intelligent and was beaten less severely than most of the other 39 children. He had an unusually strong will produced by the fear of the beatings he witnessed and the fear of Hell, which he says in his book was constantly used to make the children fearful, and became a form of psychological abuse. Everything not to the liking of Feeney and Clarke was labeled "mortal sin." John Colopy, finally got up the courage to leave, and with the help of Bishop Bernard J. Flanagan of Worcester, obtained lawyers to successfully sue to get his five children back in 1965.  Robert had a hard time adjusting and remained in contact with SBC against his father's concerns. Robert broke all ties in 1970, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, became an agnostic. (I was unable to verify if he is still alive. If so, he will turn 71 this year). I was unable to verify from any other source that Colopy's MIT tuition was paid for by SBC. Even if, ad arguendo, that happened, it does nothing to vitiate the heinousness of the abuse perpetrated at the SBC. There are many victims of the Vatican II clergy abuse who went on to be successful. (I personally know one who became a high ranking NYC police detective). Does that mean sodomizing children can make them successful? Beatings are somehow OK if you get educated and make money at the expense of losing your faith?

• Raising children "communally" has "difficulties"

Unquestionably, his [Colopy's] book offers a picture--probably a fairly accurate one---of some of the difficulties that arise when the communal upbringing of children is attempted by any group. (pg. 191;2011 ed.; Emphasis mine)

Bringing up children communally is contrary to Natural and Divine Positive Law (and Canon Law). The parents have an obligation to raise and educate their children not some "commune." Declaring that physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual abuse is a "difficulty" is like saying being held prisoner in a concentration camp is "inconvenient."

• The children at SBC are better off than children of divorced parents

...and after his descriptions of the corporal punishment meted out to Center children, Connor's [Colopy's] real subject is the emotional deprivation felt by a child separated from his natural parents and the difficulties it can produce later in life...Center children, even raised communally (but in a stable environment), could actually have enjoyed greater emotional security than a bride with six fathers (her natural one and five stepfathers) in attendance at her wedding. (pg. 191; 2011 ed.)

I really had a hard time comprehending how Potter could, in good conscience, call the living Hell at SBC a "stable environment."  Potter is not a psychologist and offers no evidence for his assertion that being severely abused is better than being raised in a divorced household with multiple ex-spouses. I guess one could say being beaten until you're permanently disabled is better than being tortured to death, but that in no way justifies the beating or makes it less sinful and morally unconscionable.

More Bizarre and Heretical Theology From Feeney

Apart from his denial of BOD and BOB, Feeney taught other non-Catholic theological nonsense.  In Bread of Life, pgs. 97-98, Fr. Feeney writes these most disconcerting words, "I think baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary. What happens to those children who die between baptism and the Holy Eucharist?...They go to the Beatific Vision. They are in the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as 'those angels who died in infancy.' They have the Beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical Body of Christ...I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary..."

Baptism makes you part of the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, yet Feeney talks of infants who die after baptism as not moving in Heaven as "part of the Mystical Body of Christ"? They are not true Catholics? Isn't Fr. Feeney contradicting his so-called "strict interpretation" of "Outside the Church no salvation"? The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, and by extension, to each member of His Mystical Body. How dare Feeney call baptized infants who die before First Communion "not a child of Mary." Note well he never cites to even one approved theologian, canonist, Encyclical, or other authoritative Church declaration in support of his novel ideas--and with good reason: there aren't any. More heresy.

Fr. Feeney was Truly Extra Ecclesiam

The Feeneyites, even today, desperately try to defend Feeney as a "martyr for the Faith." When his excommunication is bought up they will defend both him and his errors by claiming either (a) the excommunication was not valid and/or (b) it was for false charges of disobedience not his theology.

Both claims are false.

• The decree of excommunication was allegedly defective because it was only signed by a notary

A notary, in the Church (before the Robber Council), is a type of ecclesiastical lawyer who draws up legal documents. The decree against Fr. Feeney was an oraculum vivae vocis , defined as a legal act which the pope or a Roman congregation first gives orally in an audience or a Plenary Congregation. Such an act is taken down in writing by one of the curial officials present, who afterwards puts it into an appropriate legal form. The oraculum vivae vocis is a standard form for many Roman decrees, including excommunications. For examples, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis, xii (1920), 37; xiv (1922), 379–380; xxii (1930), 517–520.

(See http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=1&).

• Fr. Feeney was only excommunicated for disobedience and not for his teachings

The Letter of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston states the following: 

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has very carefully followed the beginning and the continuation of the serious controversy raised by certain associates of the St. Benedict Center and of Boston College, concerning the interpretation of tie maxim: "Outside the Church, no salvation".

After having examined all the necessary and useful documents on this subject — among others the file sent by your chancellery, the appeals and reports wherein the associates of the St. Benedict Center expound their opinions and objections, besides many other documents referring to this controversy, collected through the official channels, — the Sacred Congregation has reached the certitude that this unfortunate question was raised because the principle "outside the Church no salvation" has not been well understood or examined and the controversy has become envenomed as a result of a serious lack of discipline on the part of certain members of the aforementioned associations, who have refused to give respect and obedience to the legitimate authorities. (Emphasis mine). 

The decree of excommunication against Feeney reads:

Since Father Leonard Feeney remained in Boston (St. Benedict Center) and since he has been suspended from performing his priestly duties for a long time because of his grave disobedience to the Authority of the Church, in no way moved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, and has still failed to submit, the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals, during a plenary session held on February 4, 1953, have declared him excommunicated with all the effects that this has in law.

On Thursday, February 12, 1953, Our Most Holy Father Pius XII, Pope by Divine Providence, has approved and confirmed the decree of these Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that this be made a matter of public record.

Given in Rome in the general quarters of the Holy Office, February 13, 1953. 

Marius Crovini, notary (Emphasis mine).

Note well two facts:
1. The Holy Office is charged with safeguarding faith and morals, not enforcing discipline.
2. The decree of excommunication was approved and confirmed by Pope Pius XII and ordered to be published.

Proof of #1 above: According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "The Sacred Congregation for Religious is exclusively competent in matters affecting the government, the discipline, the studies, the property, and the privileges of religious of the Latin Rite, including religious of both sexes, those of both solemn and simple vows, and members of societies livining in common without vows, as well as members of secular Third Orders." (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:308; Emphasis mine). Hence, if Feeney's problem was merely and exclusively one of disobedience, it would be a disciplinary matter to be handled by The Sacred Congregation for Religious. The Holy Office would not (and could not) involve itself in a purely disciplinary matter.

Proof of #2 above: "In one respect, the Holy Office differs from all the other Congregations in that it exercises both judicial and administrative power, or, at least, may only use judicial power at the request of the parties interested. Thus, the Holy Office in dealing with all matters which directly or indirectly concern faith or morals, will not judge only heresy, but, where it pronounces an adverse judgement, will also apply the canonical punishments incurred by heretics and schismatics." (See theologian Williams, The Catholic Church in Action, [1958], pg. 92). The Holy Office has the authority to excommunicate any person. The Prefect is the pope himself, a "Pro-Prefect" heads the Congregation on a daily basis, but the pope must personally approve all decisions and order them published. Pope Pius XII personally approved the decree of excommunication emanating from the Holy Office and ordered it published.

The letter of solemn excommunication against Father Leonard Feeney was duly published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official publication of the Holy See. Its reference number is 45-100. All laws promulgated through it have binding force with no other form of publication/promulgation being necessary.
The inescapable conclusion is that Fr. Feeney was properly and validly excommunicated for his false teachings. 

Who Would Want A Monster like Feeney? The Vatican II Sect

Eventually, the SBC compound came down. Feeney and Clarke should have been brought up on charges, but they did a good job of hiding behind the First Amendment and the Free Exercise of religion which made the authorities highly reticent to investigate. Ironically, the First Amendment (written by Masons) runs counter to Church teaching regarding separation of Church and State, placing all religions on equal footing. "Fr. EENS" had no problem using it to hide behind and berate the Holy Father, Pope Pius XII.

Once Montini came in, he liked the false pope (notwithstanding being a "WOP" ). Fr. Feeney died "reconciled" to the false Vatican II sect under Paul VI (Montini). He was never made to recant his errors. This "hero" of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus refused to acknowledge that BOD and BOB are part of that very same dogma! He now finds favor with false pope Paul VI and was spoken of in glowing terms by arch-heretic "Cardinal" Avery Dulles. These heretics promulgated documents which, among other errors, declare false sects to be "a means of salvation." Yet just as Feeney could hold inconsistent views on other topics, so too, he was able to embrace the false sect of universal salvation and offer the Novus Bogus "mass." Leonard Feeney and the Law of Non-Contradiction, never were on speaking terms. ( The Law of Non-Contradiction maintains that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time, e.g. "It is raining in NYC right now" and "It is not raining in NYC right now").

As Vatican II sect canon lawyer, Peter Vere (a married layman), responded in a letter to Brother Andre Marie, MICM--a modern Feeneyite and defender of Feeney--which letter was dated May 29, 2007:

There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church.  (sic)
Pope Paul VI lifted Father’s [Feeney's]excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. 

While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr. Feeney with the Church. On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennot diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of several of Father’s spiritual descendants...Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. 

This would have given rise to scandal had Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from doctrinal or moral error.

Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church without recanting his position... 
Most of Fr. Feeney’s spiritual descendants have been reconciled with the Church without having to renounce or recant their interpretation of BOB, BOD, or EENS.
(See http://www.catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf--- Emphasis mine).

Therefore, the Vatican II sect will allow you to believe that everyone goes to Heaven, or virtually no one goes to Heaven, but only the truth of BOD, BOB and EENS as properly taught by the One True Church is excluded.

Conclusion

This was one of the longest and most difficult posts I've ever written, but I feel it needed to be done. It exposes the founder of the Feeneyites for what he was and was not. He was not qualified as a theologian or canonist, excommunicated for mere "disobedience," and some ersatz "martyr" for sound doctrine. 

Feeney started a non-Canonical cult made up of married couples pretending to be "brothers" and "nuns." He made the couples renounce their marital rights and took away their God-appointed duty to raise and educate their own kids. The children were subjected to overwhelming emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual abuse. Colopy lost his faith as did the other author, Chadwick, who now supports "LGBTQIA++" perversion. 

Yet the sanitizing falsehoods (and information not given) by modern day Feeneyites---e.g., https://catholicism.org/author/srcatherine, continue unabated. Under the heading of "Sr. Catherine Goddard Clarke," we read:

In 1942 the well-known and loved Jesuit priest, Father Leonard Feeney, became associated with the work of the Center, counseling students, lecturing, and eventually becoming — by general demand, and by appointment from his superiors in the Society of Jesus and the Archdiocese of Boston — the spiritual director of Saint Benedict Center. An author and poet in his own right, Father Feeney was hailed by his Jesuit Provincial as "the greatest theologian we have in the United States by far," and was also acclaimed publicly as "America's Chesterton." Before long, Father was lecturing on Holy Scripture to a packed Center every Thursday evening, while Mrs. Clarke enjoyed equal success with her Monday evening lectures on Church History.

Feeney did not qualify as a theologian by a long shot. They refer to Clarke as both "Sr" and "Mrs" like it is normal to be a "married nun." No mention is made that she abandoned her own two adopted children to "communal living" and presided over the abuse of thirty-nine innocent children. Furthermore, what can honestly be said about a priest who did all these Satanic things? Was Feeney mad, possessed, or just incredibly evil? Let the Feeneyites consider their "beloved founder" in light of the truth. Ironically, Feeney died extra ecclesiam and in the embrace of the Vatican II sect. Whatever may have driven Fr. Leonard Feeney to do such evil, I think my friend Steve Speray said it best---Feeney and his followers have a "sickness of soul." 

Theology By Dummies

There is a popular series of books known as the "For Dummies" titles. The books are written on a plethora of topics, from the mundane to the esoteric, and their purpose is to educate people as simply as possible in the basics of said topic. For example, Bookkeeping For Dummies is written very simply by one or more experts on bookkeeping, so that a person completely uneducated in the field can understand the fundamentals. Notice that the books are to be written for dummies, not by them. This past week I had the misfortune of watching an approximately 14 minute long video produced by a Vatican II sect "theologian" and apologist named David L.Gray. I wrote a post regarding the very poor argumentation of Mr. Gray, which he displayed in his article entitled The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism. (See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/11/distorting-sedevacantism.html).

On his website, Gray presents his CV as follows:

Born in 1972, David L. Gray is an American Catholic Theologian and Historian, and the President and Publisher of Saint Dominic’s Media. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Central State University (Ohio) and a Masters of Arts in Catholic Theology from Ohio Dominican University. His published work, ‘Inside Prince Hall (Freemasonry)’ predates his conversion to Catholicism. He currently resides in the Greater Saint Louis area with his wife Felicia. They are active in Queen of Peace Catholic community on Scott Air Force Base. (See http://www.davidlgray.info/aboutme/). It's interesting to see what the Vatican II sect considers a "theologian." Pre-V2, only clerics with a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from an approved Catholic institution of higher learning could be considered true theologians, and only clerics with a Doctorate in Canon Law (also from an approved Catholic institution of higher learning) could be canonists (aka canon lawyers). Now a married layman with a Masters degree can apparently claim that once lofty title.

In his ridiculous article on the alleged "Four Fatal Errors" I critiqued above, I demonstrated how Gray purposely distorts sedevacantist arguments to tear them down. In logic this is known as "straw man arguments," i.e., "when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well." (See Hurley, Patrick J. "Informal Fallacies." A Concise Introduction to Logic. 9th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, [2006], pg. 121).

Mr. Gray never attempted to answer me. Someone sent him my post via Twitter to which he replied, What a BRILLIANT exercise in making strawman and never responding to the crux of the issue. Sedes lean on their own understanding. They don't trust the Holy Spirit. They are like Martin Luther really, by setting up an outside sect. 

I tweeted back:

I responded to each of the alleged "Fatal Errors." You are either culpably ignorant or lying about our positions regarding the Mass, etc. I demonstrated how each allegation was false. The only one attacking stawmen is you. I would LOVE to see you reply point by point to me! Needless to say, he never did. Moreover, when someone linked to my post in the comment section of his "Fatal Errors" post, all he had to say was: Sedevacantism is Protestantism. I[t] really doesn't really deserve a thoughtful reply. It's just a lie from the pits of Hell.  My post didn't merit a "thoughtful reply" because in order to do so you must first be capable of logical thinking.

Now, on February 26th, Gray puts up a video on his site (also linked to YouTube) entitled How to Destroy Every Sedevacantist Argument, in which he demonstrates that his reason-challenged arguments sink even lower than I had originally believed. The caption to this video reads:

Are you tired of Sedevacantist bull? Want a quick way to destroy all of their arguments and expose them as being the Protestants they are? Then take a listen to this video (YouTube Link) and I’ll explain to you how to destroy every Sedevacantist argument with just Four Words. (See http://www.davidlgray.info/2020/02/26/sedevacantism/). 

A man who purposely distorts what sedevacantism is about and can't make a sound, valid argument, now thinks he can "destroy all sedevacantist arguments" with only four words. I don't know if this guy is hubris on steroids or just plain delusional. In the first part of his video he clings tenaciously to the distorted and debunked Four Fatal Errors. I guess he believes if you ignore the actual position of your opponents and the laws of logic they will disappear. Then he reveals his "four (magic?) words" that can supposedly "destroy sedevacantism." Are you ready? Here they are: "Based on your authority." In other words, David Gray believes that sedevacantists lack authority to make any pronouncement about heresy, Vatican II, the post-V2 "popes," and anything else. This absurd proposition, and the equally absurd consequences which flow from it, will be the subject of this post.

No Black and White in the World of Gray

Gray's video is puerile to say the least; and that's actually a charitable characterization. After he references and reasserts his Four Fatal Errors (without the slightest change in their mis-characterizations and inaccuracies), he then announces his Four Words which, he assures us, will defeat every sedevacantist argument and "shut them down," i.e.,---"Based on your authority." He then attempts to demonstrate how his "magic words" work. The video cuts to Gray dressed in a tuxedo and top hat (looking somewhat like a cheesy African-American version of Fred Astaire minus the talent) and he speaks in a deep voice. This is supposed to represent a sedevacantist for some strange reason.

As the sedevacantist, he intones in an ominous voice that Vatican II is heretical. The video cuts back to Gray looking and speaking normally, and he says, "Based on your authority." The film goes back to "sede-David" who says, "No, the heresy is in the documents of Vatican II, it was not in continuity with the Councils before it." "Regular David" says, "Based on your authority." Sede-David says, "No, based on what other popes and councils have said about religious liberty, ecumenism, and salvation." Regular David says, "Based upon your authoritative interpretation of what those documents mean." You get the idea by now. 

Here is the linchpin of his argument: "Only the Church can interpret anything that She decreed. Therefore, no one without Magisterial authority can ever discern what any Church teaching means apart from the pope and the bishops in union with him." This presents several salient problems, both in the area of theology and epistemology (the philosophic discipline that studies how we know what we know).  He twists and misapplies a valid principle (only the Church can authoritatively pronounce what the correct interpretation of the Bible is and what is to be believed concerning Faith and Morals), which is what leads him to call sedevacantists-- a little further on in his video--"Protestants." Traditionalists allegedly do with Church decrees what Protestants do with Scripture; employ private interpretation. 

Why Gray is Wrong:

1. No one could ever know what the Church really teaches.

Sedevacantism rightly acknowledges that the pre- and post-Vatican II teachings are virtually word for word contradictions. Since God is Truth and Truth doesn't change ("Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." [Hebrews 13:8]), both teachings cannot be true. To give but one example:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, para. #3-4 teaches:

But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians...Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity?...But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. (Emphasis mine).

Wojtyla ("Pope" "St." John Paul II), Ut Unum Sint, para. #42 teaches:
The "universal brotherhood" of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out; ...(Emphasis mine).

The Church, prior to Vatican II, always taught through the constant teachings of Her popes, councils, Roman Congregations, catechisms, and approved theologians, that true ecumenism means converting non-Catholics to the One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved. All false sects lead to Hell and are a means of damnation. Yet Vatican II decreed in Unitatis Reditegratio, para. #3, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..."(Emphasis mine). Which is it?

Now, if what Gray maintains is true, we have no authority to recognize the Law of Non-Contradiction which tells us that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. In order for the new teaching of Vatican II not to be heretical, Gray would have to believe that what Catholics were taught by the Magisterium since the Church was founded either (a) evolved into something new or (b) there is no objective meaning to words and ideas; what you thought something meant really means something altogether different.

In either case, objective truth and the ability to have a firm faith in a proposition is utterly destroyed. If truth evolves (as the Modernists teach), what was true today (e.g. abortion is murder) might be false tomorrow (abortion is not murder). If there is no objective meanings to the words and teachings of the past, the Assumption of Mary was true when defined by Pope Pius XII, but it could be interpreted as being not true by "Pope" Francis. Therefore, there is no black or white, right or wrong, true or false. You can never be sure what is objectively true and must always be believed. You are left with a Magisterium that is unable to teach.

2. Every conclusion is a matter of authority; the pope is an oracle.

As a logical corollary of Gray's four magic words, the pope and bishops can interpret anything in any fashion and it must be believed. If Bergoglio were to teach "Thou shalt not kill" means "suicide is wonderful," then you can go and take your life with no fear of damnation. You cannot protest against his teaching because whatever you say to the contrary would be "based on your authority" (of which you are devoid). Then you would be acting like a Protestant. There is no such thing as conclusions based on correct reasoning.

3. Faith is prior to authority.

As Bishop Sanborn so aptly put it:
Faith is metaphysically prior to authority, since authority consists in a relation of the public person to the community, the basis of which is the furtherance of the common good of the community. But it is the Faith which determines the common good, the finality, of the Church. Hence the profession of the true Faith is a condition sine qua non of the assumption of apostolic authority in the Church, and it (the Faith) must be verified before apostolic succession is verified. But Vatican II, the New Mass, and the New Code, contain contradiction to the teaching of the Church. 

This contradiction is therefore an  infallible sign that the material incumbent of the throne of Peter lacks or lacked the necessary qualities to assume apostolic authority, for we must believe by the virtue of divine and catholic faith that it is intrinsically impossible that apostolic authority contradict itself in faith, worship and discipline, whereas it is not impossible, either by faith or reason, that an incumbent pope lose his authority. (See http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=41&catname=10; Emphasis in original).

4. Laymen can and should discover heresy on their own.

Theologian Sarda y Salvany clearly teaches this in his theological work entitled Liberalism is a Sin. The book was published in 1886. It was endorsed and praised by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII. Here's what Chapter 32, "Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases" has to say:

Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions. (See http://www.sedevacantist.com/liberalism.htm for the book online; Emphasis mine).

 Ad hominem attack at the end of the video. 

I would be remiss if I didn't make note of the fact that Gray has announced in advance that he will not engage any sedevacantists in debate. The reason he gives is because sedevacantists are "having a temper tantrum"(!) and "should not be treated as adults." The video shows Sede-David crying and saying, "He called me a Protestant mom!" (OK, and sedevacantists should not be treated as adults?). Why is sound reasoning based on Church teaching "having a temper tantrum"? What makes us "not adults" and Gray "mature"?

The real reason is apparent. I can't believe a man at his age and educational level could really be that obtuse. Rather, he knows he can't reason well and cannot even attempt a syllogistically sound argument against sedevacantism, so he merely calls names and pretends that his four magic words are really defeaters for all Traditionalist arguments. This gives him an out from having to defend his position in rational discourse without looking incompetent or being accused of cowardice.

Conclusion

David Gray has proven, once more, how pathetic the Vatican II sect apologists are in their feeble attempt to defend a false religion pretending to be Catholic. He calls himself a "theologian," and I wonder if that title is self-imposed. If he is officially recognized as such, it would show the Vatican II sect is not merely devoid of Faith, but even bereft of reasoning skills. Should you ever meet David Gray, and he tries to give you an argument against sedevacantism, use these four words: "Based on your stupidity."