A common trait of the Modernists of the last 50 years is the canonisation of V II, which was – they say – a true “outpouring of the Spirit” (Who had been clearly dozing up to then), leading the sheep to pastures new.
The Evil Clown is, obviously, the embodiment of this mentality, with the addition of abundant steroids. You would, therefore, think that Francis would leave Humanae Vitae alone.
This thinking has a fundamental flaw: it assumes that heretics operating within the Church have coherence and moral integrity. Both assumptions are clearly wrong.
The worship of V II is only acceptable inasmuch as it proposes and spreads heretical thinking. If it is even feebly orthodox it must be disposed of.
It is therefore not at all surprising that – as Roberto de Mattei revealed – the Evil Clown be now working on a “reinterpretation” of Humanae Vitae allowing for artificial contraception and, very possibly, who knows what else.
I can't wait for Cardinal Burke presenting new Dubias, obviously after having explained to us that the document meant to pervert Humanae Vitae upholds it. Don't wait for an answer from Francis, either. With opponents as weak and dumb as Burke & Co. he can go on undisturbed and proceed to Amoris Laetitia.
Prepare yourself for Conteaceptionis Laetitia and who knows what after that, courtesy of the immense cowardice of our Bishops and Cardinals.
Thanks, Cardinal Burke & Co. May the Lord give each and every one of you the just reward for your brilliant CINO, feebly meowed fake opposition to heresy.
But don't worry, dear reader. The Church of Francis isn't changing her teaching at all.
She is merely giving the faithful a heretical option in order to be more inclusive.
In a very small whiff of fresh air in the stench in which we are living, Pope Francis has said two or three things which really sound Catholic. Look at the Patheos crowd delighting in being able to tell themselves the Pope is orthodox, after having waited 12 hours for the broken clock to show the right time.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s as bad as that: Francis must only say a couple of words vaguely resembling Catholicism every couple of months, and the enthusiastic following of the blind is assured to him.
The words aren’t even so strong, not by any standard of even V II Popes. From what I could read he does not give strong warnings, merely some words of encouragement on abortion, and some very veiled words against so-called “same sex marriage”. There is no mention of murder of the unborn, no mention of dangers for the soul. And it’s clear this Pope mentions dangers for the soul anytime this is convenient to his agenda (mafiosi, capitalists, or even honest churchgoers who are “dead inside”).
I have read no mention of “culture of death”; no mention of hell, Satan, punishment. He praises a very weak Pope, and shows even in his “strongest” moments he can’t manage to be stronger than Pope Paul VI in his lack of decisiveness and incisiveness, basically having one encyclical to show for 13 years of disastrous Pontificate.
The mention of so-called same-sex marriage is so veiled it can’t even be safely attributed to the topic, in another show of blatant Jesuitism. Even those rare words of Catholic sanity (requested, I think, from the local clergy because of the recent confrontation about contraception) are a very poor show. But hey, the Pollyannas happily eat excrements every day. Give them tofu once, they’ ll think it’s tiramisu’.
Lastly, let me measure this Pope with his own, very famous words: if the contracepting and faggot-marrying Philipinos are in good faith, and seek the Lord, and follow their conscience, who is he to judge?
The man destroys the very basis of Catholicism. Then people praise him when he happens to say something resembling it. Which, for heaven’s sake, even Satan himself could and would do.
Cardinal Kasper is now everywhere, and I fear we will soon find him in our morning cereals.
The latest piece of dissent this unhinged man has now given to the world appeared on News.va, the news outlet of the Vatican.
Many are the dumb, or worse, statements in the interview; but I want to focus on the last issue, the Cardinal's evaluation of Humanae Vitae.
The Cardinal is, as always, rather blunt. One must put the Pope in the contest of his times, which was obviously different from the context of our times (truth is, in his mind, evidently overrated). The attitude one should have is that Pope Paul describes an “ideal”; but hey, ideals are not what they used to be, and nowadays we do things differently. We register the “ideal”, follow our conscience, and contracept (or murder the baby; or divorce and remarry; or support sodomites; or do whatever our conscience says). Not only is this convenient, but we feel so modern…
The Cardinal is promoting a new religion. For the followers of this religion Christianity is the “ideal”, but the moral compass is given by the conscience of the individual. A Kasperian is, therefore, one whose religion is as near to Christianity as his conscience, shaped by his circumstances, allows. Moral imperatives have disappeared, absolute truth must yield to conscience, and three second of reflection are enough to understand that to go against one's conscience can't be bad, and is in fact moral, provided we have this “ideal” – which we have just chosen not to follow – somewhere in the back of our mind.
The Cardinal even has the gall to say that the Pope stated the truth, but one must respect people's conscience. Truth is true, but my conscience trumps it; and going against truth is suddenly “pastoral”.
What a double-tongued old heretical b@st@rd this one is.
Kasperianity is a new religion. It is inspired from the Devil. It is, also, rather energetically supported by The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH), a man with the guts of calling Kasper's theology “serene” and “profound”.
Take care with whom you choose to side, Christ or Kasper.
You might otherwise, one day, look rather foolish. Infinitely so.
The Catholic News Agency has an interesting letter written from Archbishop Chaput (then of Denver) concerning Humanae Vitae. The letter was written in 1998 on occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the encyclical letter, but has lost nothing of its beauty. It is very long, but it is easy to read, well argued, and extremely clear in its content at all times. Blessedly, it is also devoid of those continuous references to V II documents so dear to modern Vaticanese.
Archbishop Chaput repeats (and explains very clearly) the arguments brought by Paul VI against contraception, but he adds a new observation: the rather cold theological character of the encyclical letter did not help its diffusion or acceptance among the Catholic masses. It is true Chaput is able to write with admirable clarity, but I allow myself to see the reason for the failure of Humanae Vitae to stem the tide of contraception in the following elements:
a) weakness from the top. To write is one thing, to bite an altogether different one. Paul VI probably thought it was brave enough to issue the encyclical in the first place. I cannot imagine the idea of aggressively following up on the letter and demanding that it be upheld by his bishop and priests ever entered his mind.
b) On the contrary, Humanae Vitae gave rise to a widespread dissent within the Church.
Therefore, the letter was not vocally defended from the Vatican, and either ignored or outright opposed by the majority of the clergy. With these premises, it would have failed to be a success even if it had been written in the most beautiful and lyrical language.
When we talk about Humanae Vitae, we should not forget the encyclical was and is largely ignored because the Church as a whole failed – with the culpable inaction of Paul VI, who could see very well what was happening but lacked the courage to oppose the trend – to stand for it in the first place.
If the Church now begins to aggressively – and I mean saying it loud and clear, rather than always hiding behind the dratted pastoral sensitivity – defend the message of Humanae Vitae, in a couple of decades much will be done, as the Sixty-Eighters go to meet their maker (or not, as the case may be) and a new generation can be raised with the right values.
As we all know, heterodoxy lurks from all corners. We find it among bishops (look at the United Kingdom, and seek no further); among priests (the last “strange” homily was from that Jesuit from Wimbledon saying on the lines of “hell is a way of saying that we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves with second class choices”); we find it among politicians a’ la Nancy Pelosi and – obviously – we find it among journalists a’ la BBC.
Now how would a progressive, heterodox journalist describe the notorious excerpt? “A change in Church teaching” would be a way; a “softening” would be another; a third one might be a show of “compassion”. Let us see why this is wrong.
1) Church Teaching doesn’t change. Circumstances are always changing, but moral categories never change. We live and die in a world confronting us with exactly the same moral choices of St. Thomas Aquinas’ time. If this wasn’t the case, we’d need a new Gospel and a new Christ. We need no new Gospel and no new Christ; the Truth has been transmitted to us and it is valid for all times and for all (ever changing) circumstances.
Right is right even if no one is right and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong. There is no way on the planet the use of a condom should be considered any differently in 2010 than in Humanae Vitae’s time (sodomy had already been invented; sexually transmitted diseases too) or, come to that, in Romans’ times. We are dealing with moral categories here, not with technological advancements.
2) The one with the “softening” is also funny. It implies that the Church’s teaching about the use of condom is, well, wrong somehow. That it should be “improved”. Poor little sodomites, to whom the Church, which tells them not to commit sodomy in the first place, also makes it impossible to enjoy sodomy in the proper way…..how cruel is that! Don’t ya feel for them, mate? Such a thinking can earn one some kudos in a homo bar or in a BBC studio, but is certainly not Christian. The Church says hard words when she is confronted with harsh situations, with hardened sinners, with abominations, with serious danger to one’s soul. Not only is this the charitable thing to do, but it is the most practical advice. Condoms will never eliminate the risk of infection, chastity will. Condoms will never be conducive to eternal salvation, chastity will. There’ s nothing hard in telling the truth, and nothing to be softened. Truth will make you free and will, possibly, lead you to a long and healthy life instead of a painful agony of spiritual and physical self-destruction.
3) Third one is the one with the compassion. To allow a sodomite to commit such an abomination would be “compassionate”; to suggest the best way to multiply the number of his unspeakably lurid (in all senses) acts would be “compassionate”; to satisfy the desire of the sinner to sin with as few conscience pangs as possible would be “compassionate”.
What has become of us. When the moral instance gives way to the consideration for the comfort of the sinner, we have a clear case of false compassion. When not the sinner as human being is being helped, but the sinner is helped on his way to sin, we have false compassion. When “compassion” is not seen as eliminating the sin from the sinner, but the danger from the sin, we have false compassion. When the physical health of the sinner (through the use of condoms) is considered more important than his spiritual health (through chastity), we have false compassion.
Really. What has become of us.
On Catholic Exchange, Judie brown has a very interesting piece about the relationship between contraception and legalisation of homosexuality. She has the following arguments:
1) Contraception links sex to pleasure and thus opens the way for pleasure irrespective of his finality. Therefore, contraception is at the root of the increase of acceptance of homosexuality.
2) That most Catholic couples in the US use contraceptives doesn’t make their use less wrong; it merely exposes the inability of the clergy to convey Catholic values.
3) We might have had a different situation today, if the Church has preached the Truth about homosexuality (and contraception) instead of shutting up.
On 1) This is very profound. Homosexuality is a perversion, not a weakness and people don’t become perverts because you don’t insist on the way to have intercourse in the proper way. Still, it can be argued that the reduction of sex to pleasure has led to a higher acceptance of all those who see in sex only a way of seeking pleasure. This mentality will in itself not cause an increase in homosexuality, but probably an increase in its acceptance. The decline of the taboo of homosexuality (sins crying to heaven for vengeance? What’s this?) has certainly also played a massive role.
On 2) I found the remark absolutely spot on. It is time to repeat again and again that the Bishops must start doing their job again. Here in Blighty, I can’t name a single Bishop who wouldn’t deserve immediate dismissal. In the US the situation is probably better, but one wonders how much (one answers: not much).
On 3) I think the lady really hits the bull’s eye. Contraception is not unavoidable. Abortion is not unavoidable. Mickey Mouse “marriages” are not unavoidable. They have all come to pass because the Clergy were sleeping or more probably, cowardly looking for ways of being popular. That so many people nowadays see as “normal” what Christianity (and not only Christianity: ask the pre-Christian Romans!) always saw as a grave perversion says it all about the scale of the dereliction of duty from the Western clergy. Note that where the Clergy do their work, this problem is virtually non-existent (Africa, Asia).
The bottom line is that at the beginning of everything is Bishops doing their job and taking care that their priests do the same. Sound teaching attacks the secular mentality in all its mistakes and allows a more complete view of Christian Doctrine and of one’s own life, which in turn better equips Christians for the right reaction to secular challenges.
If the proper thinking about contraception had been hammered in the head of the faithful since Humanae Vitae, we would probably not be here today talking about Proposition 8.