23:25 “The mind of Pope Benedict is not the arbiter of reality.”
If you don’t have two hours free to watch the whole thing this busy holiday week, take a look at the nine minutes I highlighted in the timestamps below.
23:25 “The mind of Pope Benedict is not the arbiter of reality.”
If you don’t have two hours free to watch the whole thing this busy holiday week, take a look at the nine minutes I highlighted in the timestamps below.
The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, describes the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, who, in his description of his window, claimed that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within the window, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences. According to Overton’s description, his window includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.
As the spectrum moves or expands, an idea at a given location may become more or less politically acceptable. Political commentator Joshua Treviño postulated that the degrees of acceptance of public ideas are roughly:
Overton Window expressed as a graph:
Now please keep in mind, this is an imperfect model in our case, because what we are searching for here is objective truth, not some proposed public policy. The truth has nothing to do with the popularity of an idea, much less its “political acceptability.”
The truth is the truth, whether or not it is popular.
But the point being made here, with regards to the idea of the Bergoglian Antipapacy being the blue line on this chart, is that we just passed Point “A” in the last 24 hours. Point “A” is when the idea takes off, and the chart hockey-sticks. Which means we are about to see a whole lot more focus – white hot light – on this question.
And as Rorate wrote, “Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.”
So I leave you with commentary from Br. Alexis Bugnolo at the “From Rome” blog. It should be noted that at least two admins at the “From Rome” blog have long suspected the Bergoglian Antipapacy, but more from the standpoint of the shenanigans of the 2013 Conclave rendering the election invalid, rather than Benedict’s failed partial abdication:
Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Bux publicly opined that the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI should be studied in regard to the question of what appears to be substantial error in the formula of resignation.
Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this doubt. There was a very noteworthy thesis — if I remember correctly — which was published in 2015 or 2014 by a canonist at Rome, which raised questions regarding the validity.
On June 19, 2016, Anne Barnhardt raised specifically the question of a doubt arising from canon 188, which cites substantial error as sufficient grounds to establish the grounds for a canonical determination of invalidity in any resignation. She did this following the remarkable comments by Pope Benedict’s personal Secretary on May 20th earlier, in which he claimed that Benedict still occupied the Papal Office.
Msgr. Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, in the United States, and a former member of Opus Dei, has also sustained this same doubt and others regarding the validity of the resignation. I understand that the Bishop has written many members of the Sacred Hierarchy and Curia about these matters urging action be taken (He suggests a public declaration by 12 pre-Bergoglian Cardinals).
According to Ann Barnhart, in the following year, Attorney Chris Ferrara and Mrs. Anne Kreitzer also sustained this same doubt.
There being a number of notable Catholics sustaining this doubt, and since Msgr. Bux called for an investigation of this matter, I will add here in Scholastic Form, the arguments in favor of sustaining it, in course of which will refute all substantial arguments against it.
Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?
And it seem that he did not.
1. Substantial error, in regard to an act of resignation, regards the vis verborum, or signification of the words, as they regard the form and matter of the act. But the act of renouncing a ministry regards one of the proper accidents of the office by which that ministry can be rightfully exercised. Therefore, if one renounces a ministry, he does not renounce the office. And if he believes to have renounced the office, by renouncing one of the ministries, he is in substantial error as to the signification of the words he has used. But in the text, Non Solum Propter, Benedict XVI renounces the ministrum petrinum which he received as Bishop of Rome, when he was elected. Therefore, to understand that act as a renunciation of the office is to be in substantial error as to the effect of the act. Therefore as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.
Do go read the whole thing HERE. He lists TWELVE MORE proofs after this one.
With PJMedia now picking up this story HERE, the Overton Window is about to enter hockey stick stage. Lest you think PJM is some mickey mouse click-bait operation, let me assure you, they are not. PJM rose to prominence during the 2016 election cycle as THE premier debunker of Fake News. Do a little research on them.
Here is a little taste of their reportage on the full text of the +Bux interview. Do click on the link and read the whole thing:
To address the current crisis, he suggested that an examination of the “juridical validity” of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation was in order to “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” The theologian consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints was implying that further study of the situation could reveal that Francis is not and has never been a valid pope, but is, in fact, an antipope who could be removed from the papacy, thus nullifying his “insurmountable” errors.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
Blessed Virgin Mary, Undoer of Knots, pray for us.
Problems such as, “How can a true Roman Pontiff seemingly be immune from the supernatural negative protection from error that the Catholic Church claims that every true Roman Pontiff enjoys?” Not to mention, if the Church, through her visible head on earth, is capable of promulgating error in the area of faith and morals, then the Church is not what she claims to be, but rather, a fraud.
The headline is from the interview with Monsignor Nicola Bux conducted by Aldo Maria Valli and posted to his site on October 13, HERE and reported by Edward Pentin HERE and further by Ann Barnhardt yesterday HERE.
Most of the interview is a long dialogue about the troubles, i.e. that the man who claims to be pope is a full blown heretic, and that this is highly problematic, because no one can judge the pope. But then, just as it seems the problem is intractable, and Monsignor Bux sighs as he laments the “many practical, theological and juridical difficulties to the question of the judgment of the heretical pope,” he then abruptly pivots and drops a bomb:
“Perhaps – and I say this from a practical point of view – it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation”
This should be nominated for the understatement of this young century. Yes, friends, it WOULD be easier. Because the plain words and actions of Benedict himself, and those close to him, are sitting there in the light of day for anyone to examine. It’s not hard. And it would also be more practical, as he says, because the invalid resignation renders the entire Bergoglian Antipapacy null. No need for corrections or formal charges or trials. IT NEVER EVEN HAPPENED. Jorge the Heretic is not, never was, and never will be pope, and Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is now, and has been, the one, true, living Supreme Pontiff since his election 19 April 2005.
Perhaps – and I say this from a practical point of view – it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, i.e. whether it is full or partial (“halfway”), as someone has said, or doubtful, since the idea of a sort of collegiate papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel dictate. Jesus did not say, in fact,tibi dabo claves … “turning to Peter and Andrew”, but he only told Peter! That’s why I say that perhaps a thorough study of renunciation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.
Bravo! Perhaps the good Monsignor can go enlist some cardinals. Too bad the Dubia brothers, now down to two living members, went out of their way to affirm Bergoglio as true pope before they went on to call out his heresy. The same is true of the 2017 Correctio.
That’s why I say that perhaps a thorough study of renunciation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us. It was written: “There will also come a time of the most difficult trials for the Church. Cardinals will oppose cardinals and bishops to bishops. Satan will put himself in their midst. Also in Rome there will be great changes “(Saverio Gaeta, Fatima, the whole truth, 2017, p. 129). And this great change, with Pope Francis, we can see in a palpable way, given the clear intention to mark a line of discontinuity or break with the previous pontificates. This discontinuity – a revolution – generates heresies, schisms and controversies of various kinds…
All it takes is a handful or even one cardinal to take a stand on this. Can we get just one?
As stated in an earlier post, embracing reality means forcing oneself to accept what is true. Wisdom is attained by conforming the rational intellect to objective reality. This is literally the opposite of Modernism and the “new paradigm”, which seeks to conform reality to whatever the mind wants it to be. We have before us a data set that very clearly points to a singular reality, and that reality is being suppressed. It’s being suppressed by fear: Fear of losing human respect, loss of title, loss of income, loss of clicks, loss of “Likes”.
SOULS ARE AT STAKE, yet those who could and should act, first among them Pope Benedict himself, but also cardinals and bishops, as well as laity in the Catholic media, PREFER TO DO NOTHING. I pray you change course and expose the truth. I pray you take action; cite Canon 188 in declaring the abdication invalid, based on the weight of the evidence. Your reward awaits you, either way.
Resources to share far and wide:
Barnhardt tour de force, Vocem Alienorum (Voice of a Stranger): HERE
Count me in: Moral Certitude and the invalid abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, still reigning: HERE
Reading Benedict through Meisner through Ganswein: HERE
FAQ: Did Benedict reveal his intent to bifurcate the papacy in the actual Declaratio? HERE
Pope Benedict adds more evidence that he doesn’t consider himself retired, nor does he think it possible: HERE
Antonio Socci: Benedict “confirms” his imaginary Expanded Petrine Ministry via the “inner continuity between the two pontificates” from the Big Letter: HERE
Painfully detailed linguistic breakdown of the “inner continuity” comment: HERE
Fake pope kisses real pope’s Fisherman’s Ring: HERE
Why does Benedict insist on still being addressed as “His Holiness”? Ganswein responds, “He considers this title corresponds to reality.” HERE
De Mattei: “Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but…he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope…Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope…” HERE
Yes, Cardinal Rabbit Hole, they are taking it very seriously, as is clearly visible to anyone with eyes to see. Any and all transparency must be stopped. So on the very morning of the first day of the USCCB meeting dedicated entirely to the abuse crisis and with concrete ballot measures, Rome blocks the whole thing.
Specifically, it was the Congregation for Bishops that delivered the order.
Anyone wanna guess the only two American bishops in the Congregation for Bishops?
++Cupich and ++Wuerl.
Boys and girls, get ready. The real filth that still lies beneath is so, so bad, that the optics of this mess actually look much better than the truth we might eventually find out.
Vatican Cancels US Bishops’ Vote on Sex-Abuse Reform Measures HERE
The instruction to delay consideration of a new ‘Code of Conduct’ for bishops, creation of a lay-led investigative body came directly from the Holy See, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo told USCCB meeting.
BALTIMORE — Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, has told the American bishops that they will not vote on two key proposals that had been expected to form the basis for the Church’s response to the sexual-abuse crisis.
The news came at the beginning of the U.S. bishops’ conference fall general assembly, meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12-14.
The instruction to delay consideration of a new “Code of Conduct” for bishops and the creation of a lay-led body to investigate bishops accused of misconduct came directly from the Holy See, Cardinal DiNardo told a visibly surprised conference hall.
Cardinal DiNardo said that the Holy See insisted that consideration of the new measures be delayed until the conclusion of a special meeting called by Pope Francis for February. That meeting, which will include the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences, will address the global sex-abuse crisis.
Apologizing for the last-minute change to the conference’s schedule, he said he had only been told of the decision by Rome late yesterday.
Ahead of the bishops’ meeting, two documents had been circulated: a draft “Standards of Conduct” for bishops and a proposal to create a new special investigative commission to handle accusations made against bishops.
These proposals had been considered to be the bishops’ best chance to produce a substantive result during the meeting and signal to the American faithful that they were taking firm action in the face of a series of scandals that have rocked the Church in the United States over recent months.
Speaking before the conference session had even been called to order, Cardinal DiNardo told the bishops he was clearly “disappointed” with Rome’s decision. The cardinal said that, despite the unexpected intervention by Rome, he was hopeful that the Vatican meeting would prove fruitful and that its deliberations would help improve the American bishops’ eventual measures.
While Cardinal DiNardo was still speaking, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago intervened from the floor, expressing his support for the Pope.
“It is clear the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously,” Cardinal Cupich said.
At the same time, he suggested that the work that had gone into preparing the two proposals should not go to waste.
Cardinal Cupich suggested that if the conference could not take a binding vote, they should instead continue with their discussions and conclude with resolution ballots on the two measures. This, he said, would help best equip Cardinal DiNardo to present the thoughts of the American bishops during the February meeting, where he will represent the U.S. bishops’ conference.
“We need to be very clear with [Cardinal DiNardo] where we stand and be clear with our people where we stand,” Cardinal Cupich said.
While acknowledging that the February meeting was important, he noted that responding to the abuse crisis “is something we cannot delay — there is an urgency here.”
Cardinal Cupich went on to propose moving forward the American bishops’ next meeting, currently scheduled for June 2019. Instead, he suggested, the bishops should reconvene in March in order to act as soon as possible after the February session in Rome.
Ed Condon is the Washington editor for Catholic News Agency.
“The final battle between God and Satan will be about marriage and the family.” – Sister Lucia of Fatima, in her letter to Cardinal Caffarra
This is Part Two of my essay on the evil of contraception, and why any approval of contraception has direct and inevitable rational corollaries, including the approval and acceptance of sodomy, add why heterosexual contracepted sex (the marital act frustrated) is on the same moral plane as sodomy – that’s right, you might even say it is a form of participation in sodomy. And since 99% of the population is using contraception, the sodomites have a rational argument against those 99% if they dare to condemn sodomitical acts: If contraception is okay, then sodomy must also be okay. See how that works?
If you don’t believe me, keep reading.
Love is Love, you know. NOWADAYS, it has nothing to do with fecundity, generativity, eh? Again this is a direct quote from Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, the new Dean of the recently destroyed John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, currently “studying” the matter at hand. If you can’t see where this is going, if you can’t already see that this principle can and will be applied to “gay marriage”, and to fornication and sodomy in general, start by going back and reading part one of this essay HERE.
The thing that makes human beings unique among creation is the rational soul. An honest human can take an honest look at Natural Law and deduce reality. That’s why the prohibition against contraception survived universally amongst all Christian sects for 1900 years, until modernism took over and reason went out the window. Once the procreative aspect of the marital act is separated and removed from the act itself, the partners are participating in an act that is closer in nature to sodomy, than it is to the generative marital act itself. Here is how I explained in Part One of this essay:
We begin with exploring nature. What is the nature of nature? The root of nature can be found in John 1:3, “All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made.” The natural law is nothing more than observing the nature of things, including things like body parts and human actions, and determining truth through deductive reasoning. Let’s take the “reproductive system”. The name itself is fairly descriptive of of the nature of it, wouldn’t you say? What is it’s purpose? What is it ordered toward? What is it to be used for? Is it not the transmission of life? Do we observe that it is the only system in the human body which is unable to complete its function without a complementary partner? If we forcefully block the very purpose of the organs, if we aren’t at least passively open to the possibility of new life, or if we engage in acts (the ends of which) by their nature cannot possibly generate new life, then we go against nature, and hence we go against God who created nature (cf John 1:3). Any use of the reproductive system whereby the transmission of life is either deliberately thwarted or made physically impossible is mortally sinful.
Now let’s move on to the teaching of Humanae Vitae and the intrinsic evil of contraception. The heart of the matter is the teaching in PP#11-14, which we will examine point by point. But first I must warn you that HV does contain error, in that it elevates the unitive aspect of the marital act to the same level of importance as the procreative aspect. That’s false, and a topic for another day (you can find an excellent annotated essay HERE).
Paramount to understanding the document and also our current situation as it relates to Amoris Laetitia is Paragraph #3 of HV, which outlines the three main fallacies offered for consideration by the modernists in setting up this debate. Remember as you read this paragraph, this is NOT the teaching of HV, rather this is setting up what HV is about to refute. Paragraph #3 lays out the common arguments of the heretics in favor of contraception, in most convincing form. It is a strong possibility that Pope Paul VI Montini wrote Paragraph #3 to be the actual teaching of the HV, but then when Cardinal Ottaviani intervened, he flipped it by using Paragraph #3 as the set up, which then he (Ottaviani) utterly destroys each point later in the document, in true Thomistic style. These same false arguments are being presented yet again, 50 years later, as shown in the tweets posted above. Here is HV Paragraph #3 in its entirety:
3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort? Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
Here is a summary of the three false premises laid out (in order to be refuted) in Paragraph #3 of HV:
Does any of this sound remotely familiar? Fast Forward 50 years:
“…Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases” Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.
Amoris Laetitia #302-303, “Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment”
This passage from AL appears in a section dealing with people living in “irregular” unions, or so it would seem. But the faulty logic being employed here can easily be applied, and certainly will be applied, to any “concrete situation” in which approval of objective mortal sin is the intended result of the discernment process. Not only are these sinful actions acceptable, according to this logic, but they are actually a fruit of God’s grace, and it is God himself who asking for the sin to be committed! This is so diabolical as to defy belief.
Antipope Bergoglio laid the groundwork for applying this “logic” to the question of contraception less than a year into his “papacy”, in the run-up to the two Fake Synods on the Family:
Pope Francis has shown great appreciation for Bl. Paul VI and for “Humanae Vitae” several times, such as in an interview March 5, 2014 with the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera, ahead of two synods on the family. Asked if the Church was going to take up again the theme of birth control, the Pope responded: that “all of this depends on how ‘Humanae Vitae’ is interpreted. Paul VI himself, at the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete situations.”…
“The question,” Pope Francis concluded, “is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and making pastoral (ministry) take into account the situations and that which it is possible for people to do. Also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.” HERE
Now let us contrast this with the authentic teaching of Humanae Vitae paragraphs 11-14. Although I will highlight some (emphasis mine), I won’t provide much commentary, as the words speak for themselves.
11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.” It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason. (nice touch)
13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
Lastly, no exposition of HV is complete without examining the hauntingly prophetic Paragraph #17, which explores the consequences of ignoring the teachings contained therein. This is the paragraph that is so clearly divinely inspired, it seems to me. At the very least, it is the result of profound insight into the human condition, the tsunami of the “sexual revolution” then taking place, and the inevitable collapse of the family we are now experiencing.
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the “principle of totality” enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII.
Dear brethren, please get yourselves on the right side of this. Spend a lot of time in prayer. Pray for the grace to conform your mind to objective reality. Amend your life. The sense of freedom that comes from realizing that what you previously thought was “freedom” was actually slavery is truly breathtaking.
That is, those of us destined never to be approved as an official media outlet of the Vatican antichurch. Deo Gratias.
At that time, Pilate therefore went into the hall again and called Jesus and said to him: “Art thou the king of the Jews?” Jesus answered:”Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or have others told it thee of me?”Pilate answered: “Am I a Jew? Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me. What hast thou done?” Jesus answered: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.” Pilate therefore said to him: “Art thou a king then?” Jesus answered: “Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
Gospel, Feast of Christ the King (St. John 18:33-37)
Truth. The enemy of our enemies. This is war.
Having received the food of immortality, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that we who are proud to fight under the banner of Christ the King, may one day reign in the eternally with Him in heaven. Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.
Postcommunion, Feast of Christ the King
Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart.
Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy sacred Heart.
Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to Thy Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.
Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.
Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.
Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: “Praise be to the divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to it be glory and honor for ever.” Amen.
*On the Feast of Christ the King, a plenary indulgence is granted on the usual conditions if the prayer is recited publicly. The Act of Consecration was recited at the conclusion of the Leonine Prayers after all Masses today at Mater Misericordiae FSSP parish, Phoenix. Thank you, Father Passo.