Persuasive Essay for a Defense of the Use of the Death Penalty

Posted on by Standard 1

One of the most controversial topics of American law enforcement is the matter of the death penalty. Some of the American population is opposed to the death penalty for various reasons. Some believe that capital punishment is inhumane, or that it proves to be of too much cost for the state. The majority of Americans believe otherwise, backing up their opinions with reasonable arguments. The death penalty should not be abolished as it prevents vigilante justice, and typically costs less than the financial burden placed on the state by life sentences, and provides finality for a victim’s family.

The death penalty should not be abolished as it helps prevent vigilante justice. People naturally have an instinct for the need of restitution. Restitution is a necessary consequence to a crime, and should be administered by the state. The death penalty is the humane solution to the question of restitution for heinous crimes such as murder.(1) If the death penalty were abolished or not applied to criminals deserving of such, then citizens may take restitution into their own hands, making use of anarchy to attain their idea of justice. This could be worse than capital punishment itself, as the masses may use whatever means they see as fit, even torture, to achieve their desired result. Thus, the death penalty helps ensure a humane death for the criminal, and prevents a public uprising for the means of vigilante justice.

Another reason the death penalty should be upheld is that it prevents the unfair financial burden placed on the state by life-sentenced criminals who would expect the death penalty. If a criminal deserving of capital punishment is put to death instead of being imprisoned for life, the state saves itself the unnecessary, unjust burden of providing the resources needed for the criminal to serve his jail sentence. A sentence of life without parole will cost approximately $34,000 for an average of fifty years.(2) The costs of death row are typically less than those of life imprisonment, depending on the time elapsed between the trial and execution. With the death penalty being the less costly solution, why should the state pay for the living costs of an inmate sentenced for life? The death penalty makes for a better financial choice for the state, instead of life without parole.

A final reason the death penalty should be legal is that it provides relief and finality needed for a victim’s family and friends. Though the execution of a murderer does not bring a loved one back from the dead, it can help the family to begin accepting the loss.(3) The family is given a sense of security after the death of the killer, knowing that he or she cannot harm them anymore. Capital punishment can give the victim’s loved ones the feeling that justice has been served. Without the feeling of finality and security granted to a victim’s family by the death penalty, the victim’s friends and family may never be able to begin moving on from their tragic loss, possibly leaving them all in unfortunate mental circumstances.

In conclusion, the death penalty should be upheld because it deters vigilante justice, prevents the financial burden of providing for an inmate sentenced for life, and gives a victim’s family the closure it needs. The death penalty, being a deterrent for vigilantism is a good thing, with abolishment possibly resulting in an anarchic uprising. Furthermore, the state or community should not be made to pay for the living expense of a criminal who has harmed their society. The final positive aspect of capital punishment is the relief given to a victim’s suffering family. Due to all the reasons listed, the pro-death penalty position should be regarded as a perfectly sound argument.

— Pat

Source Cited

(1) Mooney, Carla. Is the Death Penalty Just? San Diego: Reference Point Press, 2015. (All Subsequent citations from this work)

 

 

Mother Teresa: A Saint Serving the Poor

Posted on by Standard 2

Mother Teresa2

St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta may be one of the greatest saints to have lived in modern times. She belonged to a working class family, and very well could have chosen to live a life filled with earthly pleasures for herself, but instead, Mother Teresa chose the path of poverty and selflessness. She gave her life to the work of serving the poor, not only those in Calcutta, but people throughout the world. Her main focus was the corporal welfare of the people of the world, especially those who were unwanted and forgotten. The public and the media sometimes criticized the reasons behind her charitable efforts, but Mother did not let this discourage her from her work. Mother Teresa recognized the fact that her missionary calling was for the glory of God and for love of neighbor, and she would not always please everyone. While fulfilling her vocation in life, Mother Teresa displayed trusting faith in God, a humble denial of self, and ardent charity towards her neighbor.

From the start of her religious life, Mother Teresa showed that she possessed a profound faith in God. Initially, Mother belonged to the order of the Loreto Sisters, but while on a retreat in September 1946, she experienced her second calling: to leave Loreto and devote her life to the service of the poor. In August 1948, after much contemplation, and making the needed arrangements to leave her convent in Loreto, she followed her calling to the streets of Calcutta with the intention of starting her own order, the Missionaries of Charity. These decisions, in reality, were a tremendous leap of faith for Mother Teresa; leaving her secure life as a Loreto Sister to begin a new religious order to serve the poor of Calcutta, entirely dependant on God’s Providence. Despite the odds being stacked against her, Mother Teresa always insisted that it was her calling from God to begin a new ministry, and she was determined to respond to and carry out her vocation.

For the first few months of her new ministry, Mother lived in the convent of the Sisters of the Poor, located in a small town outside Calcutta. During her time there, Mother did not receive any women who wished to join her order. Even though she found this discouraging, Mother kept faith in God, and did not despair. She believed that if this were truly her vocation, God would provide for her, and help her order grow. Her faith was rewarded when an Indian businessman donated Mother the second floor of his private building as a convent for her order. The following month, Mother’s new ministry received its first vocation, who, like Mother Teresa, was a former Sister of Loreto. Soon after, several new women joined the Missionaries of Charity, and the order became more popular, receiving a steady flow of vocations. Despite an unsure start of her new order, Mother’s vocation in Calcutta began to take shape, due to her unwavering faith in God.

Several years after establishing a stable apostolate in Calcutta, Mother felt that God wanted her to open houses to serve the poor in other cities. In 1960, the bishop of Calcutta permitted Mother Teresa to open her first home for the poor outside of Calcutta, located in Ranchi, a town in India’s tribal belt. Mother continued to establish houses in different parts of India, trusting that God would help them to succeed if they were meant to be. In the years following the establishment of the house in Ranchi, many more homes were opened across India, including the cities of Ambala, Bombay, Goa, and Darjeeling. Mother’s trusting faith in God amounted to the construction of nearly ninety homes in Asia by the 1980s, a number which increased to 168 by 1991. Mother not only had houses built in India, but also carried her work overseas. In 1965, the bishop of Venezuela allowed Mother to build a house for the poor in his diocese. Between 1968 and 1970, the Missionaries of Charity had apostolates established in the cities of Rome, London, Jordan, and also in the country of Australia. In the years following, Mother had even more homes built across many different nations, including the United States, Ireland, the Philippines, and even in the Soviet Union. These houses for the destitute and the dying are testaments to Mother Teresa’s strong faith in God, showing her intense trust that if God intended her work to succeed, He would provide for it and help it to grow, despite any odds.

Denial of self was another virtue that played a significant part in Mother Teresa’s life. From the beginning of her work in Calcutta, Mother professed a deep vow of poverty, believing that if she was to serve the poor, she was to become poor herself. Mother said that in order to understand the poor, she and her Missionaries must “…live the life of the poor”. She felt that God intended her to share in the intense poverty of Calcutta, and in turn, she sacrificed many things she had enjoyed as a Sister of Loreto. Among these sacrifices was the giving up of the privilege of enjoying regular meals, a settled routine, and also regularly teaching children, which she especially enjoyed.

In addition to this, Mother limited herself and her Sisters to own only necessary belongings, which were few in themselves. Each Sister of Charity possessed no more than three habits, a crucifix which was pinned to their habit, a rosary, and a metal plate for meals. The Calcutta Motherhouse had no washing machines, generator, television, fax machine, oven, or toaster. Food was cooked over a charcoal fire, just as the poor in the streets cooked their food. Even with over three hundred Sisters living in the Calcutta Motherhouse, the building’s only source of water was drawn from one pump on the ground floor. The few modern appliances that the Calcutta Motherhouse did have, such as fans, were never used for the Missionaries of Charity, but only for patients and visitors. Having so few belongings reminded Mother and the Sisters of their purpose among the poor; to provide for their neighbor before thinking of themselves.

This strict denial of self was held in all aspects of Mother Teresa’s life, even concerning the time that the Missionaries rose from bed in the morning to the time that they retired at night. The Missionaries awoke at five in the morning, labored throughout the day, and ended their day at ten at night, giving them only about six or seven hours of sleep. Mother kept to this schedule so that she would be able to spend as much time possible laboring among the poor as the day would allow. Mother was often told by her doctors that she was working herself too hard, and needed to lighten her workload, and let herself enjoy some of life’s pleasures, but their advice was to no avail. Even several heart operations late in her life could not force Mother to slow down from work, or lessen the load. Mother Teresa never thought to accommodate her owns needs first, but was always solicitous to the comfort of her neighbor.

While Mother Teresa practiced both the virtues of faith and self denial during her life, the virtue she was best known for was her profound charity towards her neighbor. One of Mother’s main charitable focuses was the care of the dying. Shortly after the start of her missionary work in the city of Motijhil, Mother found a woman dying on the side of a street, seemingly invisible to passersby. She picked up the woman and took her to a nearby hospital, in order that she may die in peace and dignity. Mother said that it was then that she knew she must “…make a home for the dying, a resting place for people going to Heaven.” Soon after this incident, Calcutta officials offered to give Mother Teresa two large rooms of a building connected to a Hindu temple dedicated to the goddess Kali, patron of death and fertility. This became Mother’s first home for the dying, named “Nirmal Hriday” or “Place of the Immaculate Heart”. Mother would walk the streets in the company of her Sisters, searching for destitutes who were dying on the sides of the road, lying in garbage and dung piles, and bring them to Nirmal Hriday to care for and comfort them before they died. Mother treated all her patients with such sincere love and respect as if they were each individually Christ Himself.

Mother Teresa’s charity was evidenced through the care she gave to lepers. She felt great compassion for victims of leprosy, as they not only suffered physically, but also had to bear the spiritual and mental burden of being outcasts of society. Mother wished to do something about the lepers’ ailments, and gathered donations for medicines to treat them. In order to further tend to the slums’ lepers, Mother launched a mobile leprosy clinic in 1957. Missionary of Charity Sisters would drive the clinic through the streets, administering to any leper that they found, and also offer basic medical exams to anyone who asked. Soon after the start of the mobile leprosy clinic, the Indian government gifted the Missionaries of Charity thirty-six acres of land to be used as a leper colony. Mother named the colony “Shanti Nagar”, or “Place of Peace”. At Shanti Nagar, lepers were cared for, treated, and died peacefully surrounded by love.

Another example of Mother Teresa’s ardent charity is the loving care she provided children. When she first began her missionary work, starting in Motijhil, Mother established a school for boys and girls. Gathering children off the streets, she took them to a dirt yard and taught them basic hygiene, various songs, the alphabet, and arithmetic. Eventually, there were so many children attending Mother Teresa’s school that a classroom was needed. Using funds she collected, Mother rented two rooms of a building in town, which, in time, became a permanent schoolhouse. With over sixty children in attendance, this school was named “Nirmal Hriday”, the same name later given to the first House of the Dying. Mother Teresa’s charity was manifested in both the time and effort she applied to educating the children of Motijhil.

Alongside exercising the virtue of charity by educating children, Mother also showed compassion towards orphans by establishing orphanages in Calcutta and surrounding cities. With a large number of homeless, parentless, children roaming the Calcutta streets due to the slums’ mortality rate, Mother Teresa had good reason to open an orphanage. “Nirmala Shishu Bhavan” or “Children’s Home of the Immaculate Heart” first opened its doors to orphans in fall of 1955, under Mother’s direction. Mother’s first orphanage was soon filled with Calcutta’s orphans. With the help of the Bengali government, Mother Teresa soon had more buildings across India changed into orphanages. Mother Teresa truly did love and cherish the children of India, providing food, housing, and education for all.

St. Mother Teresa was truly a great Christian figure in the modern world, practicing many virtues, most noticeably faith, self denial, and charity. Even though she could have pursued a self centered goal in life, she chose to dedicate herself to serving the destitute. Her unwavering faith in God caused her to pursue a life of going to any length imaginable to follow her calling. The self denial that she practiced while serving the poor exhibited the fact that she was willing to give up modern comforts in order to better follow God’s will and serve the poor. Her charity effected countless people over the course of her ministry, inspiring others to have unconditional love for one another. The story of Mother Teresa, full of her love of God and neighbor, is a perfect model for Christians to imitate in our modern world.

— Patrick Devens

Bibliography

Chawla, Navin. Mother Teresa: The Authorized Biography. Rockport, MA: Element Books.Inc, 1996

Conroy, Susan. Mother Teresa’s Lessons of Love & Secrets of Sanctity. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003.

Gonzalez-Balado, Jose Luis. Mother Teresa: In My Own Words. Liguori, Missouri: Liguori Publications, 1996.

Maasburg, Leo. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011.

O’Boyle, Donna-Marie Cooper. Mother Teresa and Me: Ten Years of Friendship. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2011.

Spink, Kathryn. Mother Teresa. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997.

Teresa, Mother. No Greater Love. Novato, CA: New World Library, 1997

Teresa, Mother. Where There is Love, There is God. New York: Doubleday Religion, 2010.

Walters, Kerry. St. Teresa of Calcutta: Missionary, Mother, Mystic. Cincinnati, OH: Franciscan Media, 2016.

 

Ask Father October 2017 — fsspjoliet

Posted on by Standard 3

FSSP-logo

Question 1:

Is it a violation of Christian Charity to condemn the evil actions of evil men and (to) point out their errors as St. John the Baptist did, for which he lost his head? And is one simply held strictly to (the) “Judge not, lest ye be judged” standard set by the Lord (in) Mt 7:1-3?

Answer:

We are commanded, both in Matthew and basic Church teaching, to refrain from judging the “interior” of another, i.e., what’s in his mind, heart and soul. That’s where it ends. One is not merely permitted but compelled to judge the actions of another if said actions are intrinsically evil, particularly if said actions impinge on the individual making the judgment. This, of course, extends to family, organizations and to society at large. Some examples: peddling drugs to school children; child abuse; stealing; seduction of minors; homosexuality and its promotion, be it by laymen or bishops. Of course, since the philosophical maxim is “Action follows being,” the usual conclusion is that if a person is doing something evil, he must be evil himself. This, of course, must be avoided. However, to complicate matters, what confounds things today is that, very often, an intrinsic evil is regarded as a good, for example, homosexuality. But, the bottom line is that we must also act to protect ourselves and our families, and, to the extent possible, organizations, and society. Such actions, on our part must also be governed by reason, law and prudence.

Comment to your anecdotal comment: Yes. To quote you, very often, “all manner of evil is dismissed by the evocation of this favorite scripture to the exclusion of any mention of what obedience is owed to God in justice.” It is unfortunate that those who form these correct judgments in response to evil are themselves the focus of the judgment of others (but this scenario is, obviously, ok to society, liberals, advocates of the particular evil, etc.; it’s fine to judge the whistle-blower or the person who acts rightly), are usually ostracized and are themselves accused of being divisive when it is the evil action of the other that is truly the divisive element. A classical example of this is “do I attend the wedding of my Catholic nephew who is marrying a protestant (or atheist, Jew, Moslem) in a civil or non-Catholic place and/or ceremony without his procuring the proper dispensations, etc.? Or, better, “should I attend the wedding of my nephew and his male partner?” In either scenario, it is usually the person who withholds consent and approval by not attending the wedding who is vilified and ostracized and accused of hate. What nonsense!

Question 2:

(from a child, forwarded by a parent)

If God was already infinitely happy, why did he create man? What was the purpose of creating man? Why did He want us to know, love and serve Him? Why did He want us to be with Him in heaven? Why did He need or want these things? What was the purpose?

Answer:

The child questioner is certainly quite intelligent and asks serious questions. Knowing why God created man should serve as an extended answer to the subsequent questions.

When considering such questions, it is always best to turn to the one I would consider the ultimate authority on philosophical and theological matters, St. Thomas Aquinas. Along with that, sometimes answers to questions like the one(s) posed are less than satisfactory. However, such questions should also be considered in the light of Faith. Faith (paraphrasing St. Thomas) is the assent of the intellect to a revealed truth. We have Faith in something that is completely true, but which cannot be proven, at least in this life. If something is proven, then faith in it is no longer necessary. That’s why there is no “Faith,” per se, in Heaven. We won’t need faith anymore, because we see God face to face. We will know and have our proof.

In his Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas tells us that, in God, there are two “operations.” St. Thomas, in the Summa Theologica, also tells us that God IS His Operation. But, with regard to the operations themselves, “There are, however, two sorts of operation, as Aristotle teaches in Metaphysics: one that remains in the agent and is a perfection of it, as the act of sensing, understanding, and willing; another that passes over into an external thing, and is a perfection of the thing made as a result of that operation, the acts of heating, cutting and building, for example.

Now, both kinds of operation belong to God: the former, in that He understands, wills, rejoices and loves (my comment – this, of course is the most important; remember, love goes out from the one or One loving; the real reason for creation); the latter, in that He brings things into being, preserves then, and governs them. But, since the former operation is a perfection of the operator, the latter a perfection of the thing made, and since the agent is naturally prior to the thing made, and is the cause of it, it follows that the first of these types of operation is the ground of the second, and naturally precedes it, as a cause precedes its effect.”

God doesn’t need us; indeed He never needed us. God wanted us. That, pretty much, is why He created us. That’s a simple, basic reason. Academic stuff precedes this statement. But I end with something else:

EWTN gives us some really good stuff about this which is a digest of the Catechism and Magisterial Teaching. I quote it here.

Why did God make us?

God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

(a) By creating the world God did not increase His own happiness, since He was infinitely happy from all eternity, but He did manifest His glory externally by sharing His goodness. All creatures by their very existence show forth the glory of God, for all depend on God for their existence.

(b) God created man to manifest His glory in a special way. He gave man an intellect and a will that he might know, praise, and love his Creator. In the service of God man finds his true, though imperfect, happiness in this life. Perfect happiness has been promised in the next life as a reward for the merits man acquires here on earth. Thus the happiness of man is also a purpose of creation.

(c) The happiness of heaven consists in the direct vision, love, and enjoyment of God. This reward so far exceeds man’s nature that without the supernatural help of God it could not possibly be attained. In heaven God gives us the light of glory, which enables us to see Him face to face. During our life on earth God gives us His grace, which enables us to live a supernatural life and to perform the actions that can earn this reward.

(d) The happiness of the blessed in heaven varies according to the merits of their lives on earth. All in heaven are perfectly happy, but one person may have a greater degree of happiness than another because he has more capacity for happiness, by another because he has more capacity for happiness, by reason of a more virtuous life on earth.

via Ask Father October 2017 — fsspjoliet

The Principal Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II (Part 4)

Posted on by Standard Reply

(i) The liturgical services of Protestants engender the life of grace and aptly give access to the communion of salvation.

“The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation.” (Decree on Oecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)

Comment is scarcely needed. In relation to the words, “these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace”, we simply ask the following questions:

i. Given that the liturgy in Protestant services, and of course the general body of Protestant belief, teaches that all that is required for the forgiveness of sins is the “general confession”, how can it be imagined that this can engender a life of grace? Most Protestants, after all, do not go to confession and do not even claim that their ministers can give absolution. And since Protestant ministers cannot give absolution, the only possible means of entering the state of grace would be by an act of perfect contrition. And the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that an act of perfect contrition (which Protestants neither know they ought to make nor know how to make) is very difficult even for Catholics to make.10 If it is exceedingly difficult for instructed Catholics, notwithstanding the fact that they know what is necessary, what chance can Protestants have (even in the rare cases when they are invincibly ignorant in their theological errors and sufficiently respectful of tradition to possess supernatural faith) when they are under the illusion that no effort is required at all?

 

ii. Given that the overwhelming majority of “brethren divided from us” belong to sects which have no priesthood, Mass or absolution, and whose principal worship is objectively sacrilegious, how can it be alleged that their liturgical actions can be of the slightest benefit whatever to those who participate in them? (It should be noted that the actual graces received by a non-Catholic who is still in good faith in his errors, when he goes to church and prays, are not engendered by the liturgical charade enacted there, but result purely from God’s acceptance of his interior dispositions.)


As for the claim that the various liturgical actions of the separated bodies that St. Peter calls “sects of perdition” (2 Peter 2:1) can aptly give access to the communion of salvation – its unorthodoxy is too blatant to require analysis. Only for a tiny minority of cases can there be any appearance of truth in it – namely validly baptised infants and a few Eastern dissidents who may receive valid Holy Communion in good faith. By grossly exceeding these narrow limits and turning the exception into a general rule applicable, in some measure, even to Protestants, the Council has abandoned any pretence to be Catholic! And above all, the word “aptly” should be noted; for if a few ignorant but devout Greek peasants are able to receive the salutary effects of Holy Communion – on account of their being innocently unaware that their reception of it is grossly illicit and objectively displeasing to God, since they receive it at the hands, not of His servants, but of His enemies – one thing that is quite certain is that this is anything but an apt way to go about working out one’s salvation.

Theological censure: we are not certain what censure is applicable, but evidently the passage is at least ERRONEOUS, and, insofar as the text implies that invalid sacrilegious rituals can directly confer sanctifying grace, we think it inescapably HERETICAL.

(j) The Church has a high regard for doctrines which differ from her own.

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.” (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, paragraph 2)

Putting aside the scandalous reference to life, conduct and precepts, let us concentrate on the statement that the Church has “a high regard” for the “doctrines” of false religions, not only those doctrines which, fortuitously, may be true, but even those which “differ…from her own teaching.” Now since the teaching of the Catholic Church is true, it is a logical necessity that any doctrine which differs from it must be false. The Fathers of Vatican II, therefore, have firmly declared that the Church “has a high regard” for false doctrines. Of course, this is perfectly true of the Conciliar Sect; but the attitude of the Catholic Church towards false doctrines has always been the same as that of her Divine founder: unrestrained loathing.

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

(k) Theological meetings and discussions on an equal footing between Catholics and non-Catholics are commendable.

“Catholics who already have a proper grounding need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and cultural background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems – where each can treat with the other on an equal footing, providing that those who take part in them under the guidance of the authorities are truly competent.” (Decree on Oecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 9)

Whatever anyone may say in attempting to defend the orthodoxy of this heretical doctrine, it is an inescapable fact that, by entering into a discussion with anyone else on an equal footing, one renounces any claim to authority superior to the authority of the other party. Otherwise the footing simply would not be equal. Consider: how can the Church recommend Catholics, even the most competent, to engage in theological discussion with Protestants unless the Protestants are open-minded and ready to acknowledge that their religious opinions are at least doubtful and to change them if they discover clear evidence to the contrary? And yet, for a Catholic to enter into dialogue with such a Protestant on an equal footing, it would be necessary for the Catholic to have the same attitude towards his own religious convictions – in other words, to regard them as provisional opinions rather than Divinely guaranteed, unshakeably certain, and something he would gladly die a thousand deaths rather than call into doubt the minutest detail of any of them for a fleeting instant.

Hence the Council encourages Catholics to conceal the Divine obligation of all persons to acknowledge the Catholic Faith, to conceal the impossibility for any Catholic – without horrendous mortal sin – of questioning the tiniest detail of his Faith, and to conceal the necessity for all heretics to submit to the Church. It encourages Catholics to evince the attitude that theological issues disputed between Catholics and non-Catholics are a matter of open debate: opinion versus opinion. There is no other way of reading those words of the Council. And the behaviour commended by Vatican II was expressly condemned in Pope Pius IX’s Mortalium Animos:

“Though it is easy to find many non-Catholics preaching often of brotherly communion in Christ Jesus, you will find none to whose minds it would occur to submit themselves and obey the Vicar of Christ, either as teacher or as ruler of the Church. Meanwhile, they affirm that they would gladly treat with the Roman church though upon the basis of equality of rights and as equals. If they could so treat, they do not seem to doubt but that an agreement might be entered into through which they would not be compelled to give up those opinions which are thus far the cause of their having wandered outside the one true fold of Christ.

“On such conditions it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot in any way participate in their meetings, and that Catholics cannot in any away adhere to or grant aid to such efforts…”

The Holy Father also taught that: “… one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realise them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

Vatican II asserts that meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems and where each can treat with the other on an equal footing – are “most valuable”. Pope Pius XI says that they may not be entertained and that the theories, which would defend such meetings as good, are equivalent to apostasy.

Theological censure: HERETICAL AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL FAITH.

(l) Christians and non-Christians together search for truth and moral answers.

“Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships.” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 16)

The first question posed by this passage is what meaning is to be attributed to the word “Christians” in it. Does it simply mean Catholics? That is not to be supposed, for Vatican II elsewhere (erroneously) attributed to baptised heretics and schismatics a strict right to the appellation “Christian”. Does it mean Catholics and baptised non-Catholics considered as a promiscuous grouping? If so, it is surely sufficiently heretical in itself to suggest that it is possible to generalise as though Catholics and heretics were, at least approximately, in the same position “in the search for truth”. Perhaps the least deplorable interpretation is to suppose that the Fathers wished to refer predominantly to Catholics and secondarily to non-Catholic “Christians”. But, even at its best, this statement remains an outrageous travesty of reality. With regard to all those truths which it is necessary for men to know, Catholics are not involved in any “search”, whether in common with heretics or pagans or anyone else, but are rather set utterly aside from everyone else by their confident possession of the infallible truth.

Nor is it possible to “save” the orthodoxy of this passage by arguing that there remain some truths for which Catholics continue to search (for instance, concerning abstruse theological niceties) while there are others for which non-Catholics search (concerning fundamentals, the answers to which can alone be found in the Catholic Church). For that is merely to assert that Catholics are engaged in one search for truth, while non-Catholics are (or should be) engaged in another and quite separate search. There is not the slightest question of Catholics being “joined to other men” in seeking truth, for the same reason that an Olympic runner is unlikely to handcuff himself to a cripple or paralytic in his endeavour to break a speed record and that a forward-thinking farmer does not normally yoke a pair of tortoises in front of his tractor to assist in ploughing his land more rapidly and efficiently!

The worst scandal of this false doctrine consists in the disastrous impression it is liable to give to non-Christian readers, implying once again that the Catholic Faith is a matter of opinion and that Catholics are still hunting, open-mindedly, for religious truth just as benighted pagans are.

Theological censure: here we think it is necessary to have recourse to a qualification used to brand a proposition which, in its natural and obvious sense, is heretical, even if it is vague and woolly enough to permit those who are determined to close their eyes to reality, such as Mr. Michael Davies, to convince themselves that it is patient of an orthodox interpretation – SAVOURING OF HERESY.

(m) The Church must dialogue with atheists to establish order in the world.

“Although the Church altogether rejects atheism, she nevertheless sincerely proclaims that all men, those who believe as well as those who do not, should help to establish right order in this world, where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without a dialogue that is sincere and prudent.” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 21)

The only chance for right order to be established in the world is of course for the world to become Catholic. As Our Lord said would happen (e.g. in John 15:18), the world has always hated the Catholic Church; and it always will hate the true Catholic Church until it joins it. Our Lord made it clear that He did not even pray for “the world” (John 17:9), and St. Paul said, in 2 Timothy 3:12: “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” Moreover, Our Lord instructed his Apostles and their dependants to preach to unbelievers, not to engage in dialogue with them. The Catholic Church teaches that right order in the world is absolutely impossible until the entire world submits to the Church, and that purporting to help establish right order, peace, etc., while remaining in open rebellion against the kingship of Christ is simply a contradiction in terms. In support of this, we quote from Pope Pius XI‘s first encyclical, Ubi Arcano Dei:

“Because they have separated themselves miserably from God and Jesus Christ, men have fallen from their former happiness into a slime of evils. For this same reason, all the projects they invent to remedy the losses and save that which remains of the ruins, are stricken with an almost absolute sterility.”

And here is Pope Pius XII in his first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus:

“Many, doubtless, in thus abandoning the commandments of Jesus Christ,…had not the wit to see that any human effort to substitute for Christ’s law some base model of it, must prove altogether empty and unfruitful; ‘vanity was the end of their designs’ (Romans 1:21). When faith in God and in our Divine Redeemer grows weak and numb, when the illumination that comes from the universal principles of uprightness and honour is clouded in men’s minds, what does it mean? It means that the only possible foundation of peace and permanency has been undermined, the foundation upon which the ordering of our actions and opinions, public and private, must rest. If we lose that, nothing can breed or preserve prosperity in a commonwealth.”

And here is much the same teaching presented in different words in Dom Guéranger’s The Liturgical Year (volume 14, last Sunday in October, feast of Christ the King11):

“Today we sadly behold ‘a world undone’, largely paganised in principles and outlook, and, in recent years, in one country even glorying in the name ‘pagan’. At the best, governments mostly ignore God; and at the worst, openly fight against Him as we of today are witnessing in the Old World and in the New. Even the statesmen’s well-meant efforts to find a remedy for present ills and above all, to secure world peace, prove futile because, whereas peace is from Christ, and possible only in the kingdom of Christ, His Name is never mentioned throughout their deliberations or their documents.”

That is the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, summarised in the axiom “pax Christi in regno Christi” – the peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ. It is a direct reflection of Christ’s unambiguous pronouncements and warnings that “the world”, which hated Him, would hate His Church. The Church has always held that there are two kingdoms in the world, the kingdom of God, which is the Catholic Church, and the kingdom consisting of all the rest, which is ruled by Satan; and not only do they exist in irreconcilable enmity with each other, but the latter cannot even live at peace among themselves, let alone at peace with the Catholic Church. (It is difficult enough for Catholic nations to live at peace with each other, as the history of the Middle Ages shows.)

Finally on this subject, lest we be accused of reading more into those words of Gaudium et Spes than is warranted, it is perhaps worth noting that Paul VI left not the slightest doubt about his own interpretation of them – an interpretation entirely irreconcilable with Catholic teaching – in his famous speech at the atheistic United Nations in 1965, when he blasphemously described that Masonic organisation as “the last hope of the peoples of the Earth for concord and peace.”

Theological censure: once again, in our opinion, SAVOURING OF HERESY.

(n) The Church needs the help of non-believers.

“Nowadays, when things change so rapidly, and thought patterns differ so widely, the Church needs to step up this exchange [i.e. ‘exchange between the Church and different cultures’] by calling upon the help of the people who are living in the world, who are expert in its [the world’s] organisations and its forms of training, and who understand its mentality, in the case of believers and unbelievers alike.” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 44)

What has been said in relation to (m) above is sufficient to refute this doctrine also. Quite plainly, while unbelievers are in the most urgent and desperate need of all that the Church has to offer them, the Church herself needs absolutely nothing from them. Her mission is to preach the truth and offer the means of sanctification to all men, not to act as an intercultural swap-shop; and her Divine founder, by means of the essentially immutable constitution with which He endowed her and the unceasing inspiration and protection of the Holy Ghost whom He sent to her at Pentecost, has supplied her with all that she can possibly need to accomplish her mission. The suggestion that, for any purpose whatsoever, the Church can have need of the assistance of a group of persons qualified, not by theological erudition or holiness, but only by familiarity with the ways and spirit of the world – of which it is written that “the whole world is seated in wickedness” (1 John 5:19) – and including unbelievers among their number, can merit only one possible qualification…

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

(o) Catholic missionaries should co-operate with heretical “missionaries”.

“In collaboration with the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity it [the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith] will seek ways and means for attaining and organising fraternal co-operation and harmonious relations with the missionary undertakings of other Christian communities, so that as far as possible the scandal of division may be removed.” (Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity Ad Gentes Divinitus, paragraph 29)

Catholic missionaries are men sent by God through His holy Church to preach the truth to those who are ignorant of it, so that, if they are of good will, they may embrace the Gospel by an act of supernatural faith, which is the necessary foundation of the process of justification. Protestant “missionaries”, by contrast, are diabolically-inspired upstarts, not envoys of God but His enemies, brazenly claiming to make known His truth while in fact distorting it according to their prejudices and bringing those foolish enough to accept their doctrines, not light, but an even deeper degree of darkness, so that we may most fittingly apply to a pagan “converted” by Protestant “missionaries” Our Lord’s words that “the last state of that man is made worse than the first.” (Matthew 12:45) Hence it is that the great Jesuit Scripture commentator, Father Cornelius a Lapide writes:

“…it is never lawful to be glad to see heresy preached and propagated, even among the heathens; for though they announce Christ, yet, at the same time, they also announce many heresies…and these heresies are more pernicious than paganism itself; so that it is far better for the heathens not to receive any truth or doctrine from heretics, than to receive it mixed with so many perverse errors…” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians 1:18; our emphasis)

And in the light of this, can it be credited that a council calling itself Catholic should recommend “fraternal co-operation” between Catholic missionaries and their deadliest adversaries and opponents? Can anyone with a grain of Catholic faith left in his soul seriously imagine that it is lawful to accomplish God’s work by acting in tandem with those who are determined to frustrate it? Can anyone seriously advise, for the advancement of any project whatever, that it should be accomplished, not by those who understand the nature of the work and its value, and yearn to see it achieved, but by a promiscuous alliance of those who favour the project with those who oppose it, those who understand it and those who are quite blind to its nature?

We think sufficient answer is given to these questions by the words of St. Paul:
“Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

Theological censure: since it is couched as a statement of intention rather than a doctrinal affirmation it is perhaps not possible to attach a censure directly to the words quoted. The position, however, of anyone who believes such a policy to be commendable is obviously HERETICAL.

(p) Deficiencies in the formulation of Church teaching should be put right.

“Consequently, if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in Church discipline, or even in the way that Church teaching has been formulated – to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself – these should be set right at the opportune moment and in the proper way.” (Decree on Oecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 6)

This passage is a good example of how the heretical council Vatican II follows the example of other heretics by subtly concealing its poison and appearing to defend the very truth which it simultaneously denies. The notion that deficiencies may exist in the formulation of Church teaching represents a despicable attack on the holiness and Divine protection guaranteed to the Church by her Divine Founder. Nor is anything achieved by the disingenuous evasion that doctrinal formulation is “to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself;” for the deposit of faith was communicated by God to men in the shape of words, spoken or written, and has ever been communicated by Holy Church to her children in the same manner, through the voices and pens of her missionaries, pastors and Doctors. It would therefore be quite impossible for there to be deficiencies in the formulation of Catholic teaching without there being a deficiency in the Church’s custody and proclamation of the deposit of faith itself. Hence it is that the Holy Ghost preserves the pronouncements of the Church from error – not necessarily by direct inspiration of the most perfect words possible to communicate His meaning, as took place in the case of Holy Writ, but at least by ensuring that no word is ever used in such official formulation which could be considered defective. And hence Pope St. Agatho (678-681) wrote that: “Nothing of the things appointed [definita] ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.” (Epistle to the Emperor, quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Mirari Vos of 15th August 1832)

And of course no escape from the heterodoxy of the contrary teaching of Vatican II can be based on the subtle technique of using the conditional, “If…there have been deficiencies…in the way that Church teaching has been formulated…”; for the simple reason that even to entertain the hypothesis shows that it is believed to be possible that there could be such deficiencies, and to give instructions on how to respond to such an eventuality shows it even to be likely.

Theological censure: in the most natural implication of the words…HERETICAL.

(q) Other heresies of Vatican II, and a heresy in the Good Friday proper of the Novus Ordo Missae.

The foregoing list is not exhaustive, partly because we have never wanted to undertake the time-consuming, laborious and morally dangerous task of attentively reading all the documents of the Council with a view to locating every affront to the Catholic Faith contained therein. We think it worth mentioning here, however, that the decree Unitatis Redintegratio on oecumenism and the declaration Nostra Aetate on non-Christian religions, together with the more celebrated declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty, form a special category, since the heresies they contain are not incidental but constitute their very raison d’être. In other words, each of those documents not only contains isolated outrages against Catholic truth, but was conceived as an onslaught against some Catholic doctrine. Nostra Aetate sets out to undermine the cornerstone of Christian doctrine that “there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved [than] by the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth” (Acts 4:10,12). Unitatis Redintegratio endeavours to rend the seamless garment of Christ and make his faithful bride the Church a whore by denying that “a man that is a heretic…is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement” (Titus 3:10,11). And Dignitatis Humanae, of course, is directed against the social kingship of Christ, the duty of the state to embrace the one true religion and foster it while curbing the public expressions of all false religions, echoing the blasphemous cry of the Jews, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15); “We will not have this Man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14).

It is also notorious that the dogmatic constitution on the Church known from its opening words as Lumen Gentium was conceived primarily to introduce a heretical doctrine of episcopal “collegiality” never before heard of in the history of the Church. In this case, however, the protests of the “conservative” Fathers led to such radical revisions that the doctrine as promulgated may be no worse than tendentious. Until Bishop de Castro Mayer spotted the ploy, it had been the intention of those who drafted the original text so far to magnify the authority of the bishops acting in unison that this supposed authority would be incompatible with the dogma that the authority of the pope over the entire Church is not only immediate and absolute, but also plenary.

Finally, to close this list we think it worth making mention of one heresy that was not included in the Vatican II documents but appeared in the text of the Novus Ordo promulgated by Paul VI in the wake of the Council. It occurs in the proper of the Good Friday liturgy, on which day Novus Ordo celebrants and participants ask God to grant that the Jews “may grow/continue in faithfulness to His Covenant” (“in sui foederis fidelitate proficere“). The unmistakable implication is that the Jews are already, at least to some extent, faithful to God’s covenant. But in fact this is not so, because the Old Covenant required the Jews to acknowledge the Messias, Jesus Christ, and when they rejected Him it was irrevocably breached and abrogated in perpetuity. Hence even their external observance of the Mosaic ceremonies cannot be considered “faithful”, since it is de fide that the Mosaic law has been abrogated. And, needless to say, the Jews are certainly no more faithful to the New Covenant than they have been to the Old!

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

Original source: http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

Vegas

Posted on by Standard 1

Neo's avatarnebraskaenergyobserver

That’s from the White House moment of silence for the victims in Las Vegas. You can find a video of it if you want. It’s moving and appropriate. The video has a close-up near the end where Melania looks like she is about to cry, where the President looks sad and determined. Both are appropriate. Far more so than most of the reactions around the country or the world. As usual, I was watching British news yesterday morning, and the instant, insistent, and arrogant drumbeat for gun control angered me nearly as much as the massacre itself. It will be a long time before (if ever) I tune in again. From what I read the American media, and a good many politicians weren’t any better. It’s a time to mourn the dead, succour the wounded, and attempt to comfort the bereaved, then it will be time to see if we can…

View original post 234 more words

Signatories more than double on filial correction to Pope Francis

Posted on by Standard Reply

SS-Peter-and-Paul-154x300

ROME, September 27, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The “Filial Correction” of Pope Francis issued by Catholic clergy and scholars has been top news in Catholic and secular media outlets — including the AP, BBC, CNN, Fox News, Drudge Report, Huffington Post, and Daily Mail.

This correction, charging him with permitting the spread of seven heresies, at least by omission, about “marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments,” has clearly been making a massive worldwide impact.

Nevertheless, some articles, such as that which appeared in the National Catholic Reporter, have suggested that the correction is nothing important, made by “really marginal figures” of little standing.

“Since I have given my own life to the priesthood exclusively for the salvation of souls, I had to add my name to the Correctio.”

The director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke, also seemed to downplay the document’s importance. On Monday, he responded to reports in the Italian press that the Vatican had blocked access to the website of the “filial correction” on its computers.

“You can’t really imagine we would do this [block the website] for a letter with 60 names,” he joked to the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.

Even senior officials at the Vatican believe a response is not warranted, the National Catholic Register’s Edward Pentin reported on September 26, partly because they say it has been signed by only a relatively small number of Catholics they consider not to be major names.

Nevertheless, this story is evolving fast. In the first 72 hours since the correction was made public, the number of signatories has more than doubled, rising from 62 to 146. The rate doesn’t seem to be slowing down.

LifeSite spoke to Father Andrew Pinsent, Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University, who has been one of the latest signatories and who is currently lecturing at venues across Latin America.

“I signed the Correctio Filialis De Haeresibus Propagatis, not due to a lack of filial respect for the Holy Father, but because of the gravity of the situation,” Fr. Pinsent told LifeSiteNews.

Although the number of initial signatures of the original document was quite modest, it must be understood in terms of the wider context of what is happening in the Church.

“The Correctio is a next step, consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ (Matt 18:15-17) and St. Paul confronting St. Peter (Gal 2:11), that follows a series of unanswered petitions since 2015,” Fr. Pinsent said.

He added: “These petitions have included one with nearly 800,000 signatures from 178 countries and including 202 prelates prior to the ludicrously manipulated ‘Synod on the Family’; the appeal of the 45 scholars, prelates, and clergy to the College of Cardinals to repudiate what are widely perceived as erroneous propositions in Amoris Laetitia; the dubia of the four cardinals, whom the Pope did not even have the courtesy to meet; and the statement of the confraternities representing thousands of priests worldwide.”

Commenting on what’s at stake, Fr. Pinsent said: “As Prof. Josef Seifert, friend of St. Pope John Paul II, warned recently, before being sacked for making this warning, we are facing the risk of the total destruction of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.”

“I add that the contradictions now being introduced deny reason, which is contrary to the heart of Catholic theology, the examples of great saint scholars like St. Thomas Aquinas, and the consistent teaching of our two most recent popes. Such divisions of faith and reason are catastrophic for the Church’s mission of the salvation to souls.”

“Since I have given my own life to the priesthood exclusively for the salvation of souls, I had to add my name to the Correctio.”

The story is evolving in other ways as well. The original correction did not include any bishops in full communion with the Church, a fact that has also been cited as a reason to dismiss its importance. Nevertheless, as LifeSite reported on Monday, Bishop emeritus Rene Henry Gracida, 94, of Corpus Christi, Texas, has also added his name to the signatories.

Bishop Gracida was known to be a close friend of Mother Angelica and an effective communicator of the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.

New Signatories of the Filial Correction

The list of original signatories is at the bottom here.

Leo Darroch President, Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce 2007 – 2013

Dott. Mauro Faverzani Editor of the Magazine “Radici Cristiane” (Italy)

H.E. Mgr Rene Henry Gracida D.D. Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas

Fr Pio Idowu BA (Phil.) Religious

Fr Luis Eduardo Rodríguez Rodríguez Parish Priest, Parroquia del Espíritu Santo y N.S. de La Antigua Diocese de Los Teques, Venezuela

Wolfram Schrems BA (Theol.), BA (Phil.) Catechist for adults, contributor for Catholic and secular websites, works in the pro-life-field, Vienna (Austria)

Fr Luiz Antonio de Aguiar

Portugal

Dr. Antonio Aragoni MA (Religious Science)

Dr. Riccardo Calzavara Professor

Dr. Riccardo Cavalli Professor

Dr. Andrea Martini, MA (Education Science)

Fr Michel Morille France

Fr Andrew Pinsent BA, MA, DPhil, PhB, STB, Phl, PhD Director of the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion, Oxford Priest of the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton

Fr Cyrille Perret France

Patrick Tomeny, Jr, MD, MPH, DABA

Prof. Leonardo Schwinden Professor of Philosophy, Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil

Gianpaolo De Vita PhD (Phil.) University of Salerno

Dr. Salvatore Giuseppe Alessi BA (Phil.), BA (Theol.)

Economist, Italy

Fr Enrique Eduardo Alsamora Spain

Dr. Winfried Aymans Professor em. of Canon Law, University of Munich

Fr William Barrocas

Dr. Johannes Bronish PhD (Phil.)

Dr. Richard Belleville PhD Formerly Chairman of Philosophy Department, Anna Maria College, Paxton (MA)

Fr Alejo Benitez Spain

Fr Felix-Maximilian-Marie Bogoridi-Liven France

Fr Giorgio Bellei Italy

Sister M. Blaise Chukwu Religious

Dr. Nicola Bonora Professor

Fr Nathaniel Brazil

Dr. Isobel Camp PhD Professor of Philosophy at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum (Rome)

Fr José Miguel Marqués Campo Spain

Prof. Neri Capponi Former Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, Judge of the Tuscany Ecclesiastical Matromonial Court

Dr. Fabiano Caso, Phd (Phil.) Phd (Theol.) BA (Theoretic Phil.) Psychoanalyst, Italy

Fr Jose Chamakalayil

Dr. Francisco Fernández de la Cigoña Journalist and Writer, Spain

Dr. Balázs Déri University Professor

Dr. Angelo Elli MA (Phil.) Italy

Dr. Manuel Fantoni PhD Italy

Fr Marazsi Ferenc 

Fr Thomas Agustin Gazpocnetti Lic. Phil.

Dr. Rossana Giannelli MA (Phil.) Italy

Fr Alvaro Salvador Gutiérrez Félix Spain

Dr. Christian Hecht Phd (Phil.), BA (Theol.)

Fr John Houston

Dr. Ignacio María Gallo Ingrao Professor of Philosophy

Fr Czeslaw Kolosa

Fr Eduardo Guzmán López STL Parish Priest, Spain

Michael Theodor van Laack BA (Theol.)

Dr. Moisés Gomes de Lima Professor

Fr Andrea Mancinella Diocese of Albano

Fr Antonio Mancini Italy

Dr. Jose Marquez Lic. Canon Law

Fr Peter Masik PhD Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Bratislava

Dr. Martin Mayer PhD (Theol.)

Fr Fabiano Montanaro Defensor Vinculi by the Rota Romana, Rome

Dr. Arroyo Moreno Lic. Phil. Professor em. at the University Panamerica and University Anahuac, Spain

Dr. Renata Negri Professor, Italy

Prof. Hermes Rodrigues Nery Bioethicist, Journalist and Writer, Director of Movimento Legislação e Vida, Brazil

Don Sergio Pistacchi Italy

Dr. Alejandro Bermudez Rosell Jornalist, Director of Aci Prensa

Dr. Lucrecia Rego de Planas University Professor, Mathematician, Master in Religious Science and Humanities, Doctor in Interdisciplinary Research

Fr Bernard Pellabeuf France

Fr Eros Pellizzari Italy

Thomas Pfeifer BA (Phil.)

Fr Vidko Podrzaj Priest of the Chapel of Our Lady of Good Success

Dr. José Arturo Quarracino Philosopher, Spain

Dr. Kevin Regan MD, MA (Theol.), BA (theol.)

Fr Robert Repenning

Fr Jasson Rodas

Fr Darrell Roman

Fr Giovanni Romani Italy

Fr Humberto Jordán Sánchez Vázquez Diocesan Priest

Dr. Alvear Sanìn Editor, Writer, Columnist

Dr. Mauro Scaringi MA (Phil.) RE Professor, Italy

Dr. Nikolaus Staubach PhD Professor at the University of Münster

Rev. Prof. Alberto Strumia MA (Physics), STD Professor at the Theological Faculty of Emilia-Romagna (Bologna)

Fr Tam Tran

Dr. Andreas Trutzel BA (Theol.)

Dr. Beata Vertessy Professor, Hungary

Fr Marcelo Villegas Spain

Dr. Giorgio Zauli Professor, Writer, Italy

Dr. Hubert Windisch Professor em.

Dr. Paul Winske Professor, Germany

Fr Ernst-Werner Wolff Germany

Article link: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/signatories-more-than-double-on-filial-correction-to-pope-francis

Fr. Bell: “The really alarming weakness in the Church’s present state”

Posted on by Standard Reply

Θεόφιλος's avatarDover Beach

Fr. Bernard Iddings Bell“The really alarming weakness in the Church’s present state is due to the slowness of the moral revival among the rank and file of the members. Despite protesting minorities, notwithstanding occasional leadership, the great mass of Christian people remain complacent, unaware both that the position of the Church in contemporary society is humiliating and that the cause of that humiliation is their own timid compromise with a secularism inconsistent with tenets the holding and advancement of which are the Church’s chief reason for being.”

Fr. Bernard Iddings Bell, The Atlantic Monthly, 1942

View original post