The Ordinary Magisterium Of The Papacy

 There are many Traditionalists who incorrectly believe that only ex cathedra pronouncements of the pope need to be followed or believed. Hence, when Pope Pius XII promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, defining the Assumption of Mary, using his charism of papal infallibility, it must be believed or else you are a heretic. (This is correct). They then assert, incorrectly, that when a pope issues a decree that is not infallible, like Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (on Sacred Scripture), a true Catholic does not have to assent to it. They fail to grasp the Ordinary Magisterium of the papacy and all it implies. The purpose of this post is to set forth this teaching authority of a true pope, and the disastrous consequences which follow when it is either denied or not understood.

The Teaching Authority of the Pope

 On August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII promulgated his encyclical Humani Generis, which exposed and rejected some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine. His Holiness asked the great Thomist and Dominican theologian, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a fervent anti-Modernist, to draft the encyclical. Paragraph number 20 of that document states:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This paragraph brings forth great theological truths. I will condense the commentary on these truths as written by theologian Fenton. 

1. The teachings of the pope are not to be minimized based on the subterfuge that he is not exercising the fullness of his authority.

The teachings of the encyclicals posits an assensum per se (an assent by its very nature), because it is a teaching of the supreme doctrinal authority within the One True Church of Christ. Catholics are bound to give, not merely a polite acknowledgement, but a genuine and sincere acceptance, to the teachings which the pope sets forth with a theological qualification less than de fide (of faith--infallible) or even doctrina certa (certain doctrine). 

Humani Generis thus reasserts the right of the Supreme Pontiff to command "opinionative"assent.  When in his encyclicals, or in any other documents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the Church with anything less than his supreme authority (i.e., as infallible), the faithful must accept his opinionative judgement as their own. The obligation to assent  is not satisfied when a person merely allows that a teaching set forth in a non-infallible papal pronouncement is a "respectable opinion." Catholics are bound, guided by the teaching authority of Christ which comes to them in the declarations of His Vicar on Earth, to take that opinion as their own.

The day may come when an opinion of this kind needs to be modified. The Church Herself allows for this possibility by not proclaiming it as definitive and binding for all time. The holding of this opinion will possibly be seen as no longer necessary for the purity of the faith. The labors of the approved theologians will, in large part, be responsible for this development. The modifications of these declarations, when and if such modification ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as infallible and irreformable teaching.

2. The pope also teaches in a universal and ordinary manner; encyclicals are always based largely on assertions that have been taught by the Magisterium (in one form or another) before.

The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that a dogma of the faith is a truth which the Church finds contained in either of the two sources of Revelation (Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and which She presents as divine revelation that all must accept as such. The Council goes on to explain that such presentation may be done in an extraordinary manner (infallible definitions of popes and ecumenical councils), or in a universal and ordinary way (the unanimous teachings of the approved theologians or teachings of the bishops spread throughout the world). 

Vatican Council I also presents as dogmatic the assertion that the pope enjoys the same infallibility in defining dogma that the universal Church possesses. Since the bishops can define a dogma in an extraordinary way (ecumenical council called and approved by the pope), or in a universal and ordinary way (when approving theology manuals and catechisms, etc.), it follows that the pope can also teach in an extraordinary manner (ex cathedra pronouncements like the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, canonizations, etc.), he can also do so in an ordinary way, as in an encyclical letter. The pope's teaching is truly universal because he exercises true episcopal jurisdiction over each of the faithful. Many theologians consider the papal bull Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII, declaring Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void," to be in this category of a dogmatic pronouncement. 

3. When the pope passes judgment on a disputed theological point, it is no longer up for debate and discussion among theologians. This is one (but not the only) sign that the pope has exercised his supreme authority in an ordinary manner.

An example of this is the encyclical Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII. The question was disputed as to whether bishops receive their episcopal jurisdiction immediately from Christ, or from Our Lord through the Roman Pontiff, in such a way that it comes immediately through the pope. A large number of prominent theologians taught that the jurisdiction came immediately from Christ; the majority of theologians taught that it came through the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Pius XII settled the question in favor of jurisdiction coming through the pope. Another example is the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis also promulgated by Pope Pius XII, who settled long standing controversies over exactly what constituted the necessary and proper matter and form for Holy Orders when ordaining/consecrating deacons, priests, and bishops. 

N.B. The above section was condensed from theologian Fenton, The Church of Christ, Cluny Media, [2016] reprint of 1951 "Humani Generis and the Holy Father's Ordinary Magisterium" pgs. 110-123.   

Problems for "Recognize and Resistors"

 Given the above, how can the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) refuse to submit to the following teachings of "Pope" "Saint" John Paul II in his encyclical Ut Unam Sint (all emphasis is mine). 

 Today we speak of "other Christians", "others who have received Baptism", and "Christians of other Communities". The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as "Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church".This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. (para. # 42)

Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them (para. #11)

Problematic, as they must give their assent. Yet, how can they assent to an encyclical that teaches an ecclesiology completely opposed to what the Church taught pre-Vatican II? Consider:

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion...They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, para. #7)

Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely. "The Head and the body are Christ wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son of God, the body is His Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church"(Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, para. # 16). 

Remember, an encyclical is made up of assertions, most of which were previously taught by the Magisterium. Not so in this case, which is one of many such examples. Ut Unam Sint, clearly contradicts all that has gone before.  Yet, if your recognize the post-V2 "popes," you must assent to the teachings of Ut Unam Sint. The SSPX rejects how the Church teaches us. 

Problems for Feeneyites

In his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pope Pius IX declares in para. #7:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

In the first part I emphasized, Pope Pius IX clearly states the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside The Church No Salvation). In the next part, he acknowledges that those invincibly ignorant, who live honest lives according to the Natural Law, and are open to the actual graces of God can be saved, not by baptism of water--or he would have written it--but "by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." God can infuse them with sanctifying grace and the True Faith before death (Baptism of Desire). "But it's only an encyclical, it's not infallible," the Feeneyites inevitably whine. As we see above, true assent must be given to encyclicals, but Feeneyites reject how the Church teaches us.  

Conclusion

When Traditionalists reject (or are in ignorance of) how the Church teaches us, error will inevitably follow. Non-infallible decisions of the pope are not "up for grabs" opinions that you can accept or reject at will. Those of the SSPX (and other R&R) reject this and wind up being pulled towards joining the Vatican II sect and losing the Faith. Feeneyites will accept only infallible decrees, and their own interpretation of them, to deny the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. 

In this time of the Great Apostasy, those of us who learn and accept the way the Church teaches us--- and we alone--- can hope to remain Catholic by God's grace. " But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). 

The Malice And Snares Of The Devil

As you're reading this post we are now in the fourth week of Lent. The First Sunday and Third Sunday of Lent show us the reality of Satan expressed in the Gospel; when Christ was tempted by Satan in the desert, and when he cast out a demon from a man who was mute, respectively. My spiritual father, the late, great canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw, used to preach that there were two errors when it came to belief in the Devil: (1) those who believe in him too much, and (2) those who deny his existence.

In the former category fall our malevolent, misfit "monks," Fred and Bobby Dimond, who claim that Protestant minister, the anti-Catholic Dr. James White, is possessed. What is their proof for this claim?

• A video of a talk wherein the face of White is alleged to have "demonic facial movements" and the upper-left side of his mouth "moves unnaturally"

• Another video where White gives "the devil's horns" sign with his hands while pointing

• A still shot where White is looking down and you can "see what look like horns starting from his eyebrows and going up to the sides of his head"

• He is seen in front of a band with cymbals, hence a reference (they claim) to 1 Corinthians 13:1-2- "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not charity, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing." This is not offered as "direct evidence" but allegedly shows him to be without charity. 

That James White hates the Catholic Faith (the True Church--and the false Vatican II sect insofar as it keeps any of the true beliefs, at least on paper) is not in question. However, are we to ascribe demonic possession to all such people? One need not be possessed to hate the One True Church. The "evidence" for this "possession" in facial expressions, the curve of his bald head, and holding his hands as "devil horns," is laughable. (See http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/dr-james-white-and-demons/#.WqBvBtQrKt8).

On the other hand, we have atheist Dr. Phil Zuckerman writing in Psychology Today, "How can people seriously believe in the devil? The year is 2015, not 1315. And yet, the fact remains that tens of millions of Americans continue to believe that there is a magical, wicked, evil — oh, and smart — being out there doing magical, wicked, evil deeds and presiding over a fiery realm, where demons crawl and witches cackle. Oh, wait. No cackling witches. Just demons, right? (See https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201509/the-devil-seriously).  This man is merely a pompous pseudo-educated dolt, who makes light of things he obviously doesn't understand.

Fr. DePauw understood well the Latin aphorism, "In medio stat veritas" ("in the middle lies the truth"). Not everyone is demon-possessed, and yet Satan is very real, going about like a roaring lion, seeking those he may devour (See 1 Peter 5:8).  This post will attempt to lay out Church teaching regarding the power of Satan and his demons, and how to avoid opening yourself up to their influence.

Satan and his influence

What, exactly, can Satan do? Satan and his demons are fallen angels. As such, they are pure spirits with intellect and will. They are capable of things people cannot do, as humans are both body and soul. The Devil and his demons can hurt humanity in the following ways:

• Temptation. According to theologian Pohle,"Satan and his demons...continually strive by lies and false pretenses to seduce men to commit sin and thereby incur eternal damnation." (See Dogmatic Theology, B. Herder Book Company, [1945], 3:345). 

• Physical injury. 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)."

• Possession. 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).

In addition, there is diabolic obsession, in which strong disturbances are imposed on the mind, e.g., thoughts of suicide, committing serious sins, or gender dysphoria. It can also take the form of an "infestation" in the house (e.g., hearing mysterious footsteps, bad odors with no cause--and all experienced by more than just the one primarily afflicted). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "But the influence of the demon, as we know from Scripture and the history of the Church, goes further still. He may attack man's body from without [obsession], or assume control of it from within [possession]." (See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm).  

According to theologian Delaporte, "Although very rare in ordinary life, obsession is very frequent in the heroic lives of the Saints...Persons of a nervous temperament and lively imagination, imagine themselves haunted by the  Devil, when there is nothing of the kind. People should not believe in obsession without the most convincing proof." (See The Devil, Does He Exist and What Does He Do?, [reprint from 1871], pgs. 129-130).  We must be on guard against Satan, yet not ascribe anything to direct demonic activity without ruling out natural causes, which will be the subject of the next section. 

Ruling Out the Natural Causes

 All Traditionalist priests, like those before Vatican II, must rule out natural causes if someone claims to be "obsessed" or another person is "possessed." As to the subject of "obsession," here are some natural explanations:

• Sleep disorders. Many times people attribute demonic activity in their lives because of things they experience when falling asleep or upon waking. Humans pass through a state of consciousness where they dream while partially awake, and problems may occur in those who experience it longer than most. This  is called hypnopompic hallucination when going into a full sleep state, and hypnagogic hallucination when coming out of a fully asleep state. These hallucinations seem real and may appear to be supernatural in origin to the one experiencing them

• Overactive imagination. Considering the amount of occult themes that completely pervade today's movies, TV, books, Internet sites, and music, there are people who are unusually sensitive to any sound or passing image, and will ascribe to it an other-worldly origin

• Medication. People (usually the young or the aged) have bad side effects to medications that can make them "see" and/or "hear" things

•  Neurological disorders.  One who seriously fears demonic activity must go to a neurologist and psychiatrist to rule out brain tumors, dementia, the onset of some psychosis, epilepsy, etc.

• Head or Eye injuries. These can cause people to "see and hear" things out of the ordinary

Once all of the above has been ruled out, then a priest may intervene with the Church's prayers for deliverance. It may consist in prayers over the person combined with an intensified prayer and sacramental life, and not necessarily the Rite of Exorcism.  

Signs of Demonic Possession

The Church has always recognized three (3) signs of authentic diabolic possession. Contrary to Fred and Bobby Dimond's contentions, it does not include facial expressions, hand gestures, or "looking like your head has horns." According to theologian Sagues, the signs of someone possessed are: (1) to speak a foreign language never studied or to understand someone speaking it; (2) to know things hidden far away; (3) to possess strength beyond one's age or natural condition. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, II B:221; these signs are also mentioned in the Rituale Romanum.). 

Possession, in most cases, involves sin. Some innocent children may be possessed because their parents were Satanists and cursed them. However, this is much more rare than those who allow Satan in by their personal sins. Any one who is in a state of mortal sin (or Original Sin), does not have God dwelling in them, and are ---already and in a real sense---a slave of Satan.  Fr. Gabriel Amorth (d. 2016, ordained 1954), was an exorcist in Italy, and the author of several books on demonic possession. He called the revised Rite of Exorcism "promulgated" by Wojtyla (JPII) in 1999 to be "useless" against demons. He continued to use the Traditional Rite of 1614. Unfortunately, he never saw the biggest helper of demons; the Vatican II sect from which he never separated himself; this is a complete mystery to me.  Fr. Amorth was validly ordained, yet the revised Rite was useless. Think of the invalidly ordained Vatican II clergy. No matter what Rite they use, they are not priests and it wouldn't be efficacious. 

The Vatican II sect helps Satan by taking away the Faith, morals, sacraments, Mass, and spiritual help everyone needs. Secondly, it helps the cause of Hell by not merely failing to warn people of grave spiritual dangers, but by actually incorporating them and promoting them. Fr. Amorth noted that there was more demonic activity than ever before. Here is but a partial list of things that can allow Satan into your life. See also how many are either used or never condemned by Vatican II sect clergy.

• Ecumenical services that, by their very nature, spit on the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("Outside the Church no salvation").
• Yoga
• Reiki "healing" (Bergoglio uses it!)
• Buddhist and other pagan forms of meditation
• Astrology
• Ouija boards
• Tarot cards
• Mediums and so-called psychics
• Pornography
• Joining the Masonic lodge 

The list is not exhaustive, as I stated, only partial. I must also warn you to stay away from influences that, although not necessarily a direct cause of possession, can lead you to hold erroneous ideas. Those ideas can lead to further actions which, in turn, can open the door to possession. These influences include:

• Horror films. They have gratuitous sex and violence, which desensitizes you to sins against the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Many also depict evil as good, or blur distinctions between them.

• Rock and pop music. The repetition of evil messages can subconsciously change the way you think, and alter the way you view life. (See my once per moth posts on rock and pop music published the first Monday of the month). 

• Fantasy and science fiction books and TV/movies. Many contain the idea that there is "good magic" and witchcraft is harmless (e.g. The Harry Potter franchise), or promote pagan ideas, such as pantheism ( The Star Wars franchise). 

Conclusion

Against the errors of atheists and Modernists, we know the Devil is real. However, we must not come to hasty conclusions that anything that goes wrong is the direct work of Satan. The fallen nature of humanity is inclined to evil. The temporary things of the world tempt us to sin. These are all too real as well. To be victorious over Satan and his demons, try to always remain in the state of sanctifying grace. If you (God forbid) fall into mortal sin, make a sincere act of contrition and get to Confession as soon as possible. Stay close to Christ in the Mass and Holy Communion. Pray the Rosary, and develop a pure devotion to the Immaculate Virgin Mary. Use Holy Water, and other sacramentals, especially the Medal of St. Benedict, or the Crucifix-Medal of St. Benedict. Have your house blessed by a priest, and enthrone the Sacred Heart. If you have a relic, give it a place of honor, praying before it. If you fear evil influences, pray also to St. Michael the Archangel, and St. Joseph.

Do this, and you will be following the sage advice of St. James, "Be subject therefore to God, but resist the devil, and he will fly from you. " (St. James 4:7). 

Singing For Satan---Part 8

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

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

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

Tori Amos and the "Lilith Performers"

The 1990s spawned a new genre of music, known as "alternative" rock, or simply "alternative." It has its roots in the 1980s for those artists whose music was outside the mainstream and offered an "alternative." Ironically, by the early 1990s, alternative took the world by storm, replacing the heavy metal and hard rock bands of the previous decade at the top of the charts and becoming mainstream themselves. I couldn't help but notice that a new phenomenon was emerging within the music. While alternative bands and artists were known for their nihilistic worldview and angst-filled lyrics, there were solo female performers filled with hate and rage towards God, men, and life in general. They sought to be the antithesis of the Blessed Mother; embracing everything unholy and reveling in it with pride. 

While not as famous as most other performers, these women sold millions of records nevertheless. In the summers of 1997-1999, "The Lilith Fair" was started by singer Sarah McLachlan, to give female recording artists exclusive coverage to combat what she perceived as bias against women in the recording and radio industries. The tour grossed $16 million dollars in 1997, making it one of the most successful tours of all time. A partial list of notable participants included Tori Amos, Sheryl Crow, Natalie Merchant, Jewel, Meredith Brooks, and Joan Osborne. 

The fact the tour was named Lilith is telling about what these women represent. The name Lilith comes from the evil Jewish Talmud, and she is alleged to be Adam's first wife--made of the same earth as he. Lilith refused to be subservient to Adam, and so she left him to mate with an archangel named Samael, who tempts people to sin. They had demon-children together. The figure of Lilith is popular among Wiccans (witches) and other occultists. She is envisioned as promiscuous night demon who steals babies in the dark. Apostate Catholic turned Freemason Samael Un Weor (born Víctor Manuel Gómez Rodríguez in 1917; d. 1977), writes in his book Pistis Sophia Unveiled, that homosexuals are Lilith's "henchmen" and women who have and/or support abortion are close to her. 

In my opinion, the quintessential woman of alternative music is Tori Amos. I will give brief mention to some others. WARNING! The lyrics and interviews of these artists are extremely vile, blasphemous, and disturbing. I've censored them as much as possible.

The "Female Judas"

 Tori Amos (b. Myra Ellen Amos in 1963) was a musical prodigy, and the daughter of a Methodist minister. She began composing music at the age of three years old. She was admitted to the prestigious Peabody Institute at John Hopkins University in 1968, when only five years old--the youngest person ever admitted to the conservatory. She was expelled in 1974, at age eleven, because she liked rock music better than classical music, and didn't want to conform to the rules of the conservatory. Amos took the name "Tori" when her boyfriend at the time said she looked like a Torrey pine tree. She continued composing and playing music, and formed a 1980s pop band called Y Can't Tori Read (So named because she refused to read sheet music at the Peabody Institute). The band was a flop, releasing one eponymous album and breaking up. 

 At age 21, while playing at a bar in Los Angeles, a patron asked her for a ride home; Amos agreed, only to be brutally raped at knife-point. She later wrote a song about it entitled Me and A Gun even though the weapon was a knife. Her big break came after the failure of her pop group. She had a contract with Atlantic Records for six albums, so she completely changed course with her music and released her first solo album, entitled Little Earthquakes, which met with commercial success. It mostly dealt with her views on religion and sex.  She has had many successful albums since, and she is listed on VH1's "100 Greatest Women of Rock and Roll" list

Although  raised in a devout Protestant household, she rejected Christ for Native American pantheism (the belief that identifies "God" and the universe as "One"). She stated, "I have built my world through Native American mythology. Growing up in a strict Methodist household in Maryland, there was no room for me to explore spirituality. When I got older, I chose to look at Christianity as another myth." (See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithgoespop/2012/10/tori-amos-i-chose-to-look-at-christianity-as-another-myth; Emphasis mine). 

She is a strong supporter of sodomites. In an interview with Pride Source, Amos spoke of her (at that time) eleven year old daughter as follows: "She’s grown up with gay people in our life. We have people from all walks of life on our crew – gay women and gay men that we work with. She’s been brought up in it...I had a chat with her once that if she ever came home and said she was a lesbian then that’s her choice. " (See https://pridesource.com/article/49435/). 

In reference to sodomite "marriage" and Christian opposition, she said, "If anybody calls themselves a Christian, I don’t see how you can ban consenting adults. I just don’t understand how you can see yourself as Christian and have no compassion for another person’s path. It goes against the Christ-like energy and light that I was brought up with."

In her song Spark, Amos mocks God's plan and wants to be like Judas Iscariot:

She's addicted to nicotine patches
She's addicted to nicotine patches
She's afraid of the light in the dark
6:58 are you sure where my spark is here here here
She's convinced she could hold back a glacier
But she could'nt keep baby alive
Doubting if there's a woman in there somewhere here here here
You say you don't want it again and again but you don't don't really mean it
You say you don't want it this circus were in but you don't, don't really mean it, don't Really mean it
If the divine master plan is perfected
Maybe next I'll give Judas a try (Emphasis mine)

In a 1992 interview with Hot Press magazine, Amos blasphemously suggested Christ and St. Mary Magdalene had sexual relations: "I’ve nearly always believed that Jesus Christ really liked Mary Magdalene and that if he was, as he claimed to be, a whole man, He had to have sexual relations with her…I may have felt guilty at the thought of wanting to do it with Jesus but then I say why not? He was a man." (Emphasis in original).

Her song Crucify mocks both Christ (Who can't be found), and His Church which is about "guilt":

I've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets
Looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets
I've been raising up my hands
Drive another nail in
Got enough GUILT to start 
My own religion (Emphasis in original).

In a 1998 interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Amos declared, "Yes, I do have a mission, to expose the dark side of Christianity." In the same interview, she spews forth these most vulgar and blasphemous words, "Why don’t people want to hear about God getting a b*** j** ?(disgusting reference to oral sex, censored by me--Introibo) I thought those born-again Christians would love that." (See https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tori-amos-secret-garden-19980625). 

Tori Amos tells who is behind her music in the song Father Lucifer, which is a description of a hallucinogenic drug trip she had in South America in which she experienced meeting the devil:

Father Lucifer
You never looked so sane
You always did prefer the drizzle to the rain
Tell me that you're still in love with that Milkmaid
How's the Lizzies
How's your Jesus Christ been hanging

Amos just doesn't hallucinate about Lucifer; she actually credits him as being the guiding force behind her songs! In a 1996 interview with Spin magazine, she said, "I wanted to marry Lucifer…I don’t consider Lucifer an evil force…I cry and feel his presence with his music. I feel like he comes and sits on my piano."

I'm sure he does, and Ms. Amos is his willing pawn. I find it more than slightly interesting that those who practice pagan religion often claim that "Lucifer" or "Satan" simply represents "nature" or "impulses" in humans, yet they attribute the actions of an intelligent being to him, e.g., "marry" and helping to compose music. What impersonal "force of nature" or "human impulse" could be the subject of such desires or cause of such things?

Sarah McLachlan

Canadian singer Sarah McLachlan (b. 1968), is the founder of the 1997-1999 Lilith Fair. Although calling herself an agnostic (and almost nothing known about her religious upbringing), MacLachlan made a statement that she recognizes pantheism (much like Amos). In a radio interview, she said, "I don’t believe that there’s a guy up there watching down upon all of us. But I do believe that the idea … how do I explain this? God is energy. God is nature. God is in us. God is everything that breathes and lives, that connects us to ourselves and each other. It probably sounds really corny."

Again, she once stated, "I don’t follow any organized religion, but I do believe in the idea of god (sic) as a verb — being love and light, and that we are part of everything as everything is part of us." (See http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1465316; See also https://aolradio.slacker.com/).

McLachlan is a rabid pro-abortionist, yet feels strongly against killing baby seals. She said, "The commercial sealing industry in Canada is perverse and sick… They club these seals as early as 12 days old, and half the time they hook them and they drag them across the ice… It’s archaic, and it’s horrible, and I want it to stop." Typical feminist/Wiccan/eco-worship nonsense: killing baby seals is horrific (it is bad) and must be banned, but murdering an innocent unborn baby by abortion is a "woman's right to choose."

The January 1998 edition of Details magazine, McLachlan told the interviewer that she acts on her sexual impulses, and in February of that same year, told US magazine, "I'm such a slut." She did a remake of the 1980s group "XTC" song Dear God; an atheistic anthem full of anti-Christian blasphemy and hatred.

Dear God, hope you get the letter and
I pray you can make it better down here
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image
See them starving on their feet
'Cause they don't get enough to eat from God
I can't believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you but
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image
See them fighting in the street
'Cause they can't make opinions meet about God
I can't believe in you
Did you make disease and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the Devil too!
Dear God don't know if you noticed but
Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book
And us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look
And all the people that you made in your image
Still believing that junk is true
Well I know it ain't, and so do you
Dear God
I can't believe in
I don't believe
I won't believe in heaven or hell
No saints, no sinners, no devil as well
No pearly gates, no thorny crown
You're always letting us humans down
The wars you bring, the babes you drown
Those lost at sea and never found
And it's the same the whole world 'round
The hurt I see helps to compound
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
Is just somebody's unholy hoax
And if you're up there you'll perceive
That my heart's here upon my sleeve
If there's one thing I don't believe in
It's you
Dear God

Originally released in 1986 by XTC, band member Andy Partridge, who wrote the song, loved McLachlan's cover version. (She sings it with much rage in her voice). Partridge, a self-professed atheist, relates that the song was written as a letter to God by a small boy (representing him at that age). As Partridge explained in an interview with SF Gate, "As a kid, I was really... I got myself worked into such a sweat over religion. I remember that, about the age of eight or nine, one afternoon I had visions in the sky of clouds parting, and there was God on His throne, surrounded by angels, talking to me and grinning at me. I mean, if I lived in a Catholic community, I could've milked that and made myself a fortune! But, no, I think it happened because I was in such a hysterical state about religion as a child, and about the existence of God and that sort of thing. Religion is a source of a lot of problems, and if there is a God, he would hate Christianity, he would hate Islam, he would hate Buddhism, he would hate everything that's done in His name, because nobody behaves in a way that you're supposed to behave." (Emphasis mine). This is who McLachlan admires, and what she sings.

In the Details interview, McLachlan sums up her ideology: "I think that the Devil has gotten a bad rap. The Devil is the fallen angel, the one who was willing to embrace his dark side, whereas all other angels were in total denial...The Devil is more like us..."  Her song Black takes this philosophy to its logical conclusion:

As the walls are closing in
And the colors fade to black
And my eyes are falling fast and deep into me
And I follow the tracks that lead me down
And I never follow what's right (Emphasis mine).

Joan Osborne

Joan Osborne (b. 1962), is a bisexual and apostate Catholic. In an interview with Beliefnet, she was asked if she still considers herself Catholic. Her reply, "Oh, no. I definitely lapsed out of Catholicism a long time ago. I educated myself about the history of the Catholic Church and was very put off by the history of it— just the Church's involvement in so many temporal things and political things. But, I think there is something that I retained from that,. I try to have that sense of a spiritual space inside myself and try to find that in the everyday world and in the ordinary world.

The readings that I've done in Buddhism have really affected me very strongly. [I] try to keep that mindfulness of ourselves as living in a spiritual space. It doesn't have to exist inside of a church and it can be brought to our minds and to our attention at any point and any place. To say that I'm a practicing Buddhist and sit and meditate every day, it's not true. But, when I do feel the need for that kind of solace, that a religion or a spiritual tradition can bring, that is the tradition that I turn to and those are the readings and writings that I turn to." (See http://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/music/2008/12/joan-osborne-interview.aspx?p=3).

Her one and only smash hit, One of Us, was released in March of 1995. It mocks God, and asks if you would really want to see Him if it meant believing in Jesus Christ.

If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?
If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?
And yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
And yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see if, seeing meant
That you would have to believe in things like heaven
And in Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets?
And yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
And yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
Just tryin' to make his way home
Like back up to heaven all alone
Nobody callin' on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome (Emphasis mine)

Well, in Osborne's wacky world, God won't be getting phone calls from Bergoglio, as he doesn't qualify for the office of pope.

Conclusion

 The crowning jewel in all of God's creation is a woman; the Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Unfortunately, some women choose to go the way of the mythological Lilith, a demon representing destruction and rebellion. The alternative rock women of the 1990s represent this deviance par excellence. They are hateful and angry towards God and the world. I can understand how the horrible crime Tori Amos experienced could make her bitter. However, we all have crosses to carry. We can be like the thief who mocked Christ and asked to be taken down from his cross, or we can be like the Good Thief and ask God to lift us up instead. 

Pagan religion, occultism, and carrying venomous hatred of God is a good way to ensure you're miserable in this life, and even worse off in the next. Avoid the wicked music of these women, and pray that they may convert and use their talent for God. They think they are "liberating women" with their music when, ironically, all they do is try to keep them in the bondage of sin and away from Christ and Mary--their only hope for healing and happiness. 

In The Beginning

 There has long been a battle of ideas regarding the origin of the universe and of life. It has (unfortunately) been portrayed as one of "science vs. religion." The people alleged to be on the side of science accept Neo-Darwinian evolution, while those alleged to be on the side of religion accept a literal Biblical account. To be certain there are scientists who subscribe to scientism, i.e., the application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method. The so-called "Four Horseman of the New Atheism" (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens) clearly fall into this category. On the other side, there are those who think a literal reading of Scripture is the truth. The Book of Genesis needs to be understood as the One True Church understands it. If this were done, the false "science vs. religion" scenario falls apart. God is the Author of both true science and true religion, so that neither can contradict the other. This post will expound on Church teaching in this matter.

The Teaching of the Church

  On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").  

Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"

Answer: In the negative.

Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?"

Answer: In the affirmative.

We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.

The basic gist of Church teaching in this area is set forth by the eminent theologian Van Noort:

"Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical." (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224; Emphasis in original). 

Let's take a look at one of the aforementioned teachings and how it squares with science.

The Extent of the Great Deluge

 Atheists will mock the story of the flood and Noah. The most frequent question is "How could two of every living thing fit on such a small ark?" Theists are left trying to come up with all kinds of solutions to a problem that is only apparent and not real. Actually, many of the problems evaporate like the flood waters once a correct perspective on the event is understood. As theologian Van Noort teaches, the deluge is about the manifestation of Divine Justice and not equally about the geographical extent of the flood. 

Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, everyone has begun to think globally. Even those who can't travel, can now see friends and family half-way around the world thanks to Skype and other technologies. I guess the song rings true, "It's a Small World After All." When we read the Bible, this view colors our perspective. In Genesis 7, we read phrases like "every living thing on the face of the Earth," and we think of the spherical body of the third planet from the Sun. What constitutes "the face of the Earth" from the perspective of the people of the time in which Moses wrote Genesis? This is how we would properly understand it, from their perspective, not ours in the 21st century. 

Consider that there are six (6) other events referred to as "worldwide" in Scripture:

• Joseph feeds the whole world. Gen. 41:57, "And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere." Obviously, the Incas in Peru and the Maoris in New Zealand didn't come. The worldwide famine was "the world" as known to the Jews of the time.

• The coming of foreign dignitaries to receive wisdom from King Solomon. 1 Kings 4:34, "  And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." "All people" extended roughly 1,300 miles from Jerusalem in any direction.

• The census decreed by Caesar Augustus. St. Luke 2:1, "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled." Since the authority of Augustus only went as far as the boundaries of the Roman Empire, this was "the world"---the "Roman world." 

• The gathering at Pentecost. Acts 2:5, "Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." For Jews in first century Jerusalem, "every nation under heaven" would refer to the Roman and Parthian Empires. 

• St. Paul's words to the Christians of Rome. Romans 1:8,"First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world." St. Paul was not implying sub-Saharan people, outside the Roman Empire.

• St. Paul's words to Christians in Colossae. Colossians 1:5-6, "For the hope that is laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel,which is come unto you, as also it is in the whole world, and bringeth forth fruit and groweth, even as it doth in you, since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth." Once more, it means the Roman Empire.

The implication from all this should be obvious--the "worldwide deluge" was worldwide in respect to that portion of humanity to which God had spoken and in which Christ would be born. It was not worldwide geographically. This means that Noah's ark only needed to take two of every creature indigenous to the immediate area. The other creatures not exclusive to the region could find their way back into the area from other places in due time.

There is scientific evidence for a great flood in the area of Mesopotamia, but not, e.g., North America. The problem of the worldwide flood turns out to be no problem at all. Three more pieces of evidence that support the view of a localized flood:

1. Genesis 8 tells us how God removed the floodwaters using a wind. The drying method works in a flooded plain like Mesopotamia because water in such a flat region would flow very slowly to sea. The wind would speed this process and accelerate evaporation. It would do nothing for a global flood.

2. When Noah sends out a dove, he returns with a leaf from an olive tree. Olive trees do not grow on mountaintops, but on foothills. The water was not covering Earth, but a portion thereof.

3. The ark landed on Mount Ararat. Given its elevation at 16, 945 feet, must we not believe a global flood? No. The word used in Genesis 8 is har meaning the plural or "mountains of Ararat," which range in size from thousands of feet, to merely hundreds of feet. Noah landed on the mountains (plural) of Ararat, not THE Mount Ararat necessarily.  

Conclusion

I've use the term "Science Denier" to label those Traditionalists who feel the need to deny modern science, and impose certain ideas on people that the Church does not. We do not have to believe the world is 6,000 years old or be a "heretic." (You may, of course, believe it if you wish). We do not have to believe in a creation that took place in exactly six days of 24 hours each. We need not believe that the Great Deluge covered the entire geographic Earth. When you learn the teaching of the Church, you'll also learn how beautifully it fits with modern science. 

Marriage And Authentic Natural Family Planning

 Marriage is under attack as never before. We see sodomite "marriages," "no fault" divorces, and Bergoglio giving "communion" to adulterers. As if this weren't bad enough, there are those who give good Traditionalists who are married wrong information which then burdens and troubles their consciences. I see more and more posts, websites, and comments that declare Natural Family Planning ("NFP") to be mortally sinful--an intrinsic evil that cannot be condoned. There are some who claim kissing between a validly married husband and wife to be sinful. Cult leader Richard Ibranyi goes as far as to state that a married couple who engage in sexual relations for the purpose of begetting children, sin mortally if they take pleasure in the act. Like the Manichean heretics of old, they repudiate the true meaning and beauty of marriage. I will set forth Church teaching on the nature of marriage and the use of NFP.

Marriage is of Divine Institution and was Raised by Christ to the Dignity of a Sacrament

 This is not disputed among the "modern day Manicheans" although they go terribly awry in most other areas concerning marriage. (Manicheanism [sometimes spelled "Manichaeism"] was an ancient heresy which taught, inter alia, all marriage is wrong since the body--and all matter-- was the work and effect of evil). As to the Divine Institution of Holy Matrimony, and its establishment as a sacrament; from the Council of Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the New law, instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

Pope Leo XIII:

"God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (See encyclical Arcanum Divinae para. # 3; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius XI:

And to begin with that same Encyclical [Arcanum Divinae], which is wholly concerned in vindicating the divine institution of matrimony, its sacramental dignity, and its perpetual stability, let it be repeated as an immutable and inviolable fundamental doctrine that matrimony was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man were the laws made to strengthen and confirm and elevate it but by God, the Author of nature, and by Christ Our Lord by Whom nature was redeemed, and hence these laws cannot be subject to any human decrees or to any contrary pact even of the spouses themselves. (See encyclical Casti Connubii para #5; Emphasis mine).

The Primary Purpose of Marriage is the Procreation of Children

Pope Pius XI:

"Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth." As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'." (See encyclical Casti Connubi para. #11; Emphasis mine). 

The 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."  

The Secondary Purpose of Marriage is Mutual Love and Support and to allay Concupiscence

Besides the Code of Canon Law cited above, we have this truth beautifully summed up by Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae:

"Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity." (para. #11)

Artificial Contraception is Intrinsically Evil

Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii: 

"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (para. #54; Emphasis mine)

Is NFP Artificial Contraception?

NFP is restricting the times of marital relations to the woman's infertile period, so as to avoid pregnancy. The unanimous teaching of the moral theologians pre-Vatican II teach that NFP is NOT the same (or the moral equivalent to) artificial contraception. It was also taught by Pope Pius XII. 

According to theologian Jone:

 "Abstaining from intercourse during this [infertile] period has come to be known as the Rhythm Method of Birth Control [later NFP]. For a proportionate reason and with the mutual consent of husband and wife it is lawful intentionally to practice periodic continence, i.e., restrict intercourse to those times when conception is impossible...[it is subject to three conditions] (1) Both parties must freely agree to the restrictions it involves; (2)The practice must not constitute an occasion of sin, especially the sin of incontinence; (3) There must be a proportionately grave reason for not having children, at least for the time being." ( See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 542).  

According to theologian Prummer:

"To make use of the so-called safe period has been declared lawful..." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1955], pg. 413).

According to theologians McHugh and Callan:

"(b) If birth control refers to a means of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:604; Emphasis in original). 

Pope Pius XII:

"Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one...

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called 'indications,' may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles." (See Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951). 

The Errors of the Neo-Manicheans

Fred and Bobby Dimond, along with Ibranyi, and trusaint.com (among others) have spread various errors. Here is a refutation of the most egregious.

1.  Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) endorsed NFP in Humanae Vitae. It must be wrong.

 Not everything a false pope says is necessarily untrue. For example, Wojtyla (JPII) often condemned abortion, and on this particular point, he was correct. Roncalli had set up a Commission to "study" whther or not artificial contraception could be used. Clearly, it cannot. It reminds me of Bergoglio "studying" ways for adulterers to receive "communion." The majority of heretics on the Commission wanted to allow artificial contraception. The minority held fast to the prohibition. Fr. DePauw told me that Cardinal Ottaviani had convinced Montini that if he went with the majority report, his "papacy" would be looked upon as illegitimate by many. (Too bad that didn't happen!). So, in 1968, Montini ruled in favor of the minority report.

Paragraph #16 is frequently cited by the Neo-Manicheans: "…married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained." They claim this teaching is "novel." What they omit is the fact that Montini's footnote to this passage cites to the Address given by Pope Pius XII! It was the Traditional teaching of the True Church.

2. Pope Pius XII only taught NFP in an address. It's not infallible.

This argument rejects the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) of the Church. Pope Pius XII was simply expressing what had already been taught by the UOM. That's no surprise as all the proponents of these evil teachings are Feenyites (surprise, surprise). See my post of January 22, 2018 for more on the UOM.

3. There is no difference between NFP and artificial contraception. They both prevent conception and stand condemned by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii. 

NFP makes use of what God placed in human nature. Such couples must have serious reasons, and must practice abstinence during fertile periods. The artificially contracepting couple is using means not intended by God for selfish motives and their own convenience. That's a huge difference. Furthermore, there are decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary (the official Church body that decides definitively questions of morality, especially as they pertain to the sacrament of Penance) which teach NFP. In 1853, the Penitentiary answered a query: "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The answer was: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation." This was under Pope Pius IX. The question was raised again in 1880, under Pope Leo XIII, and on June 16, 1880, received the answer that not only may confessors do nothing  to "disquiet" or "disturb" married couples who are already practicing periodic continence; it even authorizes the confessor to advise them about it to prevent onanistic practices (e.g., "withdrawal"). 

Then, in a response dated July 20, 1932, the Sacred Penitentiary answered the following query regarding the exclusive use of the infertile period:

 "Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons." The answer: "Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880." This was under Pope Pius XI, author of Casti Connubii! The Neo-Manichaens would have us believe Pope Pius XI didn't understand his own encyclical. 

According to the eminent canonists Vermeersch and Bouscaren, in What is Marriage?, a catechism based on Casti Connubii, points out: "Let us observe that there is a great difference between the practice of birth control and the restricted use of marriage of which we speak. The abuses of birth control can be practised constantly, they give free reign to passion, they do not demand the exercise of any moral force whatever; whereas this limited use of marriage requires, for voluntary abstinence on certain days, a moral force the exercise of which is not without social value." (pg. 44). 

4. Married couples are required to have as many children as physically possible. St. Catherine of Sienna was twenty-fifth of twenty-five children.

Married couples should be generous and have many children. However, God's plan is different for each couple. According to theologian John O'Brien, "Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children, much less to give birth to the largest number possible." (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 61-62). 

5. The marital act is sinful if pleasure is taken therein.

Trusaint.com states, "Thus, spouses may never kiss each other in a sensual way or in this way provoke themselves into sexual lust or 'pollution,' either as an act that is separated completely from the marital act or as an act that is committed in relationship to the marital act (such as foreplay), even if pollution or ejaculation is excluded." Yes, you read that wacky statement correctly. Furthermore, the site claims the marital act is evil and can only be "excused" by a positive intent to produce a child. Really? Why has the Church always allowed the infertile and older widows/widowers to marry?  They base this insanity partly on a decision condemning lustful kisses on the part of single people!

According to theologian O'Brien, "Contrary to the assertion of misinformed writers, the Church does not look disparagingly upon sex nor upon the enjoyment of the conjugal relationship by married couples even when there is no probability of conception. It is precisely because she holds sex to be the high creation of Almighty God, the source of mankind's deepest happiness, as well as the divinely ordained fountain whence streams race, that she raises Her voice in protest against its degradation by the unnatural method of contraception. Nothing could be farther from the truth than to picture the Church as viewing sex as merely a necessary evil which must be indulged to keep the race from extinction."  (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 49-50).

Pope Pius XII in his Address to Midwives (1951):

"The same Creator, Who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman, by uniting them in matrimony, for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also decreed that in this function the parties should experience pleasure and happiness of body and spirit. Husband and wife, therefore, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure do no wrong whatever. They accept what the Creator has destined for them."

Conclusion

 If you are married, please don't have your conscience burdened by Neo-Manicheans who denigrate the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. You are not forbidden to use NFP (speak to a Traditionalist priest first) for good cause. You are allowed to enjoy the marital act, even if incapable of having children. Nor must you have as many children as physically possible. Use the sacrament as God intended; to bring the two of you closer to Him and beget children insofar as you may be able under your circumstances in life. Let us all remember to be charitable in our thoughts towards married couples who may have few---or maybe no--- children. Don't assume they are sinners, you don't know their hearts--God does. 

First, look to what the Church's approved theologians teach in all matters, ignoring what others say to the contrary. Second, have charity towards all. Put them together, and it's a "marriage made in Heaven."  

Addendum: This post is about AUTHENTIC NFP, as stated in the title. It is not about contraception by means of any natural method, thereby endorsing the contraceptive mentality of being child free on purpose and merely substituting natural means for artificial means. This is often found among "conservative" Vatican II sect types (e.g., EWTN, etc.)

Shameful Misrepresentations Of Sedevacantism

 The blog "Shameless Popery" is run by one Joe Heschmeyer, a "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect. A friend of mine brought my attention to a post he had written on June 3, 2014 entitled, "Sedevacantism is Impossible: How We Can Know Francis is Pope." Mr. Heschmeyer, by all indications, is an intelligent and thoughtful man. However, reading this post had me shaking my head at how someone ostensibly knowledgeable could write a piece that is filled with blatant misrepresentations of sedevacantism. Are such people culpably ignorant, or just being deceitful? I don't mean to sound uncharitable, but these are really the only two options and I don't know which one is better to believe. I commit no fallacy of the "false dilemma" (i.e., something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation) because if anyone did honest research on the topic, they would have to know what sedevacantists (True Catholics) believe in regard to the state of the papacy. It is certainly not reflected in Mr. Heschmeyer's post. I will break down his attempt to salvage the "papacy" of Bergoglio, and demonstrate where he is wrong. Anyone wishing to read his post in its entirety may find it here: http://shamelesspopery.com/sedevacantism-is-impossible-how-we-can-know-francis-is-pope/.

First point of "Shameless Popery" (hereinafter "SP"): A Validly Elected Pope Isn't an Antipope. 

SP contends, "...my point is that even if radical Traditionalists were right about Pope Francis being a heretic, he wouldn’t cease to be pope."  Starting with this false principle, SP then goes into a discussion of the Great Western Schism when there were multiple papal claimants and ends by declaring, "The common thread in all of these cases is that it turns on whether a particular man was validly elected to the Chair of Peter. A man isn’t declared an antipope simply because you think he’s wrong, or that he’s doing a bad job."

This is wrong on several grounds:

• A heretic is barred by Divine Law from obtaining the papacy. The pre-Vatican II canonists affirm that it is not canon law, but rather God's Law that prevents a heretic such as Bergoglio from obtaining the office of pope in the first place.

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

According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio was a heretic much prior to his alleged "election" in 2013. According to the Anti-Deformation League: "Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a close relationship with the Jewish community in Argentina. He has celebrated various Jewish holidays with the Argentinian Jewish community, including Chanukah where he lit a candle on the menorah, attended a Buenos Aires synagogue for Slichot, a pre-Rosh Hashana service, the Jewish New Year, as well as a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of violent Nazi attacks against Jews before World War II." (See https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-congratulates-new-pope-francis; Emphasis mine).

"Cardinal" Bergoglio also participated in an ecumenical service wherein a Protestant minister "laid hands on him" as a religious action: "...then-Cardinal Bergoglio—metropolitan archbishop of Buenos Aires, primate of the Catholic Church in Argentina, and president of the Argentinian Bishops’ Conference—is kneeling, head bowed, between Father Raniero Cantalamessa and Catholic Charismatic leader Matteo Calisi, with Evangelical Pastor Carlos Mraida extending his hand toward the cardinal’s head, as the people invoke the Holy Spirit over him." (See http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/05/francis-ecumenism-and-the-common-witness-to-christ/; Emphasis mine).

Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

Therefore, Traditionalists don't reject Bergoglio because he lost his office, but because he never could have obtained it in the first place! The Church does indeed teach loss of papal office through profession of heresy, but we need not even go down that path. Bergoglio was a heretic barred by Divine Law from ever becoming pope. Moreover, this is not a case of "Bergoglio acting badly," but one of a manifest heretic incapable of obtaining the office. The analogy to the Great Western Schism is therefore inapposite because none of the claimants were manifest heretics, so the only thing needed to do was try and determine which papal claimant had the valid election.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention the decree of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void."


Second point of SP: Being a Heretic Doesn’t Make the Pope an Antipope

It sure does. As St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."( Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232). This was the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians and canonists before Vatican II.

SP then rehashes the cases of Pope John XXII and Pope Honorius to "prove" that a heretic can be pope. Before I quote what was written, I want to qualify exactly what is required regarding heresy and the loss of papal office. The theologians are clear that if the pope, as a private teacher, becomes a manifest (or notorious) and contumacious (willfully disobedient) heretic, he then immediately falls from office by Divine Law without any ecclesiastical declaration. See if you can spot the problem with what SP writes regarding Popes John XXII and Honorius:

...Pope John XXII (1316-1334), who had a series of sermons in which he denied that Saints enjoy the Beatific Vision prior the Final Judgment. At the time, this was not formal heresy, inasmuch as the doctrine was dogmatically defined only by John’s successor, Benedict XII, in 1336. Theologians corrected the pope’s error, and John had the humility to retract his views. Being wrong on this doctrinal issue didn’t mean that John ceased to be pope. He was just a pope in error. (When sedevacantists refer to “Saint Thomas Aquinas,” they unwittingly concede this, for it was Pope John XXII who canonized Aquinas; if John wasn’t pope, Aquinas isn’t canonized). (Emphasis mine)

Pope John XXII was not denying anything yet a dogma, nor was he contumacious. According to a readily available source (The Catholic Encyclopedia online), "In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision." He therefore was not a heretic as the question was open for discussion among the theologians, and even if, ad arguendo, he was--he still lacked the qualification of being contumacious as he never claimed to be definitively teaching anything, and declared himself open to correction by the Magisterium when he preached his sermons and wrote on the topic prior to his election to the papacy.

As to Pope Honorius:
The second is Pope Honorius (625-638), who has the ignoble distinction of being the only pope that’s anathematized. As pope, Honorius permitted the spread of the Monothelite heresy...And guess what? Honorius didn’t cease to be pope. Leo didn’t declare his predecessor an antipope, or nullify all of his papal decrees on the grounds that they weren’t issued by the real pope, etc.

Honorius wrote several letters relating to the Monothelite heresy (i.e.,Christ had only one will, the Divine Will), for which he was later accused, variously, of being a heretic himself or allowing heresy to go unchecked. According to theologian Hurter, "the letters of Honorius were unknown until the death of the Pontiff and Sergius" [a bishop]. (Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae, 360; words in brackets mine). Since the letters were not made public until after his death, even if they were heretical, he would have been an "occult" (i.e., "secret") heretic, lacking the qualification of being "manifest" necessary for loss of office.

Third Point of SP: This Heretical Antipope Theory is Logically Impossible

Here SP attempts to refute the position of another blogger [Skojec] on the possibility of a future Council or pope declaring Bergoglio an antipope. The point ends by stating, "In this vision of history, none of these men [Roncalli to Bergoglio] were really popes, and had no more authority to appoint Cardinals than do you or me. So if Skojec was right, we would not only be left without a pope, but without any way of ever having a pope. In that case, there’s no possible future pope or future College of Cardinals capable of declaring Vatican II a false Council, because there’s no possibility of a future pope or College of Cardinals at all. There’s simply no more Church."

Wrong. According to theologian Dorsch: "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

The most probable way of restoring the papacy is an "imperfect General Council." Some pre-Vatican II theologians pondered such a Council in the absence of cardinals. Indeed, theologian Van Noort pondered it as late as 1956 (See Dogmatic Theology 2: 276).

 Theologian Cajetan wrote: "...by exception and by supplementary manner this power [electing a pope], corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism."  (See De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii)

Theologian Billot wrote: "When it would be necessary to  proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a...Council...Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need." (See De Ecclesia Christi).

Then again, we may be living in the end times when Christ will return. In any case, SP's contention is false.

Fourth Point of SP: Skojec’s [a blogger who's "flirting" with sedevacantism] Proposal Flirts with Heresy

SP quotes the Ecumenical Council of Constance which condemned heretic Jan Hus' proposition:
"20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it." This is correct--a wicked [morally corrupt] pope remains pope. No Traditionalist denies this fact. We are not talking about being evil, but being heretical. SP is talking about apples when we talk about oranges.

Fifth point of SP: If We Can’t Be Sure Who (If Anyone) is Pope, Catholicism is Chaos

"...[what] sedevacantists [teach] would mean that a validly-elected pope could, at any moment, teach heresy and secretly cease to be pope."  The Church teaches no such thing as demonstrated above. The heresy must be manifest and contumacious.

Conclusion

What I wrote in this week's post is not something new. The position of the Church on heresy and loss of (or inability to gain) office is very clear. I am certainly not the first or the only person to make these facts public. Since the late 1990s, sedevacantism has been more and more vocal as it gains more converts to True Catholicism. Can Joe Heschmeyer be oblivious to all this information? The only thing our opponents can do is repeat misrepresentations (or even lies) and hope the unsuspecting will believe it to be so. I'll pray for Joe Heschmeyer that "...you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (St. John 8:32).