Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Letters to Pope Gregory XI: St Catherine of Siena

Read these two letters that St Catherine of Siena wrote to Pope Gregory XI carefully and see how they may apply today in the Church. The Church in her time also had a serious problem with the hierarchy, including the pope. Food for thought.



In the Name of Jesus Christ crucified and of sweet Mary:

To you, most reverend and beloved father in Christ Jesus, your unworthy, poor, miserable daughter Catherine, servant and slave of the servants of Jesus Christ, writes in His precious Blood; with desire to see you a fruitful tree, full of sweet and mellow fruits, and planted in fruitful earth--for if it were out of the earth the tree would dry up and bear no fruit--that is, in the earth of true knowledge of yourself. For the soul that knows itself humbles itself, because it sees nothing to be proud of; and ripens the sweet fruit of very ardent charity, recognizing in itself the unmeasured goodness of God; and aware that it is not, it attributes all its being to Him who Is. Whence, then, it seems that the soul is constrained to love what God loves and to hate what He hates.

Oh, sweet and true knowledge, which dost carry with thee the knife of hate, and dost stretch out the hand of holy desire, to draw forth and kill with this hate the worm of self-love--a worm that spoils and gnaws the root of our tree so that it cannot bear any fruit of life, but dries up, and its verdure lasts not! For if a man loves himself, perverse pride, head and source of every ill, lives in him, whatever his rank may be, prelate or subject. If he is lover of himself alone--that is, if he loves himself for his own sake and not for God--he cannot do other than ill, and all virtue is dead in him. Such a one is like a woman who brings forth her sons dead. And so it really is; for he has not had the life of charity in himself, and has cared only for praise and self-glory, and not for the name of God. I say, then: if he is a prelate, he does ill, because to avoid falling into disfavour with his fellow-creatures--that is, through self-love--in which he is bound by self-indulgence--holy justice dies in him. For he sees his subjects commit faults and sins, and pretends not to see them and fails to correct them; or if he does correct them, he does it with such coldness and lukewarmness that he does not accomplish anything, but plasters vice over; and he is always afraid of giving displeasure or of getting into a quarrel. All this is because he loves himself. Sometimes men like this want to get along with purely peaceful means. I say that this is the very worst cruelty which can be shown. If a wound when necessary is not cauterized or cut out with steel, but simply covered with ointment, not only does it fail to heal, but it infects everything, and many a time death follows from it.

Monday, September 10, 2018

The Church's Members Need To Decide Why They Are Here

“Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire!” St. Catherine of Siena

Why did many of the Jews reject Christ while He walked this earth? They expected a politician that would free them from the Romans. They were focused on worldly affairs and not divine affairs. They did not want a savior, they wanted Jesus to adhere to their political ideology. Fast forward to our time. The Catholic Church as a body is in serious crisis at this moment. There is no need to compare our crisis with any of the past crises in the Church, we have ours now and it is a real one. It is this one that we must bear. The question we must ask ourselves is why we are here as the Body of Christ. As both laity and the hierarchy this is a question that needs answering.

First, we are not here as the Body of Christ to promote political ideologies which are now so popular. We hear ad nauseam about immigration, capital punishment, healthcare, and the environment for example. We are not here to promote a unified world saving ideology that seeks to align all religions as if they are all equal in nature and all leading to the same end, world harmony. The world has become the focus. We are trying to create our own heaven on earth using worldly means! This can only end in disaster. The bishops and the laity have largely been consumed with political and worldly ideologies.

Why are we really here as the Body of Christ?

I can sum this answer up in one paragraph. We are here for the salvation of souls, nothing less. This is the first and primary goal of all the members of the Church. Does this desired end have an effect on the world? Yes, but only in so far as we are holy men and women living the gospel and evangelizing. There is no need to focus on political ideologies when God will move men according to the Holy Spirit when they are in the state of grace. This also means politicians. We don't need worldly politicians, we need converted politicians that are in the state of grace and only then can effect society in a truly positive manner. Each and every person in their state of life is called to evangelize and live a life of virtue in a state of grace. This is made possible in the one true Church, the Catholic Church. It is made possible by the grace provided by God in His Sacraments, fortified by prayer and penance. The world can be no better place than if it is filled with grace filled men and women. There is no other possible answer than the conversion of souls. Everyone in the Church needs to decide if they are here for God or the world. If they truly want the world to a better place that first fosters a grace filled life with God, then they will choose God. If they want the world, then they can have what they have now, disorder, sin and chaos.

Eating and drinking don't make friendships - such friendship even robbers and murderers have. But if we are friends, if we truly care for one another, let us help one another spiritually. . . Let us hinder those things that lead our friends away to hell. - St. John Chrysostom


Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Pascendi Gregis: Saint Pius X

This encyclical is extremely important for our time. It is critical now that Catholics be familiar with this document. You can listen by the video below, or click here to read.

Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense — with some modification when needful — should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life.

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Francis' and Cupich's Agenda: No! Faithful Catholics Are Not On Board! Go Down that Rabbit Hole!

“Where is the purity of the ministers of God’s Son? Reflect that just as you demand that the chalice you carry to the altar be clean and would reject it if it were dirty, so God, supreme eternal Truth, demands that your soul be pure and clean, without stain of deadly sin, especially the sin of impurity. ... These days we are seeing the exact opposite of the purity God requires! Not only are they not God’s temples carrying the fire of God’s word, but they have become stalls, lodging for pigs and other animals! They carry within the house of their souls the fire of anger, hatred, animosity, and ill will. For they harbor pigs, a filthiness that is incessantly rolling about within them like a pig in the mud. ... How bewildering to see Christ’s anointed ones giving themselves over to such wretchedness and immorality!” (Saint Catherine of Siena)




Today Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago casually dismissed the serious allegations made by Archbishop Vigano by saying, “The Pope has a bigger agenda,”... “He’s got to get on with other things—of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.” Can you believe the nerve of this man?

Rabbit hole he says? We have one of the most heinous scandals the modern Church has ever seen and he says rabbit hole? His agenda along with Francis is immigration and the environment? Think about this for a minute. Notice how nothing Cupich said has anything to do with the salvation of souls. It never is! Its all about the here and now. Its about immigration and the environment! To hell with preaching the Gospel and bringing the light of Christ to the world. To hell with worrying about destroying people's lives by the widespread sexual abuse problem in the Church. To hell with the salvation of souls! The environment is his and Francis' agenda. This mentality is surely one of the end results of buying into modernism.

Let me make this clear as I can to Cardinal Cupich. Catholics who are authentically trying to be true to the Gospel are not on board with this agenda. We do not put the environment above the salvation of human souls. We do not put the environment above the abuse of possibly thousands of souls which now have suffered at the hands of predator clergy in the Church. You should be worried about the environment of your own corrupt Church. Dear Cardinal, you also said, “It’s not just about the Catholic Church. Let’s look at all the agencies and institutions that deal with children on a day-to-day basis.” Let me also put this clearly. You have no business whatsoever talking about other agencies and institutions outside the Church that deal with children when your own Church has failed on the matter! Clean up your own house before you go looking to blame others. Make no mistake, its talk like this that makes me and many Catholics angry. To see you, a Cardinal talking like this in the midst of one of the largest scandals in the history of the modern Church is a scandal in itself. Its like throwing gasoline on the fire! Scandal upon scandal!

Again, no, we are no on board with this agenda. True Catholics are tired of your kind minimizing these heinous acts. We are tired of your worldly trivialities of watering down the Gospel, and neglecting the salvation of souls. Why have you in the past tried to keep faithful priests and seminarians from attending pro-life vigils! Yet you have the nerve to make the environment the focus of your agenda while thousands of innocents are killed each day from the atrocity of abortion? This is a disgrace and Catholics should be fed up by now with this chicanery. You have said, “The Church needs to be that community that is going to accompany people.” Accompany people to where? Hell? Where is your accompaniment of those struggling to conform their lives to Christ in the midst of a world that seeks to warp their souls and minds in the mire of sin? Instead you worry about the environment, which is here today and gone tomorrow when you take your final breath on this earth!

You have also said in the past, “The voice of conscience – the voice of God,”... “could very well affirm the necessity of living at some distance from the Church’s understanding of the ideal.” My question to you, where did Jesus Christ refer to the commandments as ideals? This is a noxious error that tries to justify malformed consciences into living sinful lives, rather than trying to accompany them into the arms of a loving God. Do you not believe in the power of God's grace to transform a sinner into a saint? This is God's agenda! His agenda is to transform sinners into saints. It is apparently an agenda contrary to the worldly agenda you just stated, which makes man god, and tells man that Christ's teachings are merely ideals that can be dispensed with as a "necessity"! Can man ever view living at a distance from Christ and his grace, falsely conflating "conscience" with the voice of God? The voice of God would never encourage a man to live at a distance from Christ's commandments or as you call them, "ideals." Your real job as a bishop and a prince of the Church is to properly inform men of the teachings of Jesus Christ so that their conscience will be in conformity to God's will This includes following His commandments. You know the "Commandments that teach us all that we are to do to please God - all of which is summed up in loving God above all things and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God" (Catechism of Pius X)



In charity I say again, faithful Catholics are no longer going along with the madcap agendas of those who seek to trivialize the faith and continue to put souls at risk of damnation. We are not going along with a bishop or a pope who continues to malnourish the faithful with their false, trivial ideals and seek to protect those in the clergy who are preying on seminarians and the laity. We are not going along with the old silent treatment, where you hope all of this is just forgotten! I say with Saint Catherine of Siena who said the following regarding the problematic clergy of her time regarding misguided self love. I also call all good Cardinals of the Church not to be silent, and do go down that "rabbit hole" that Cupich desperately wants to cover over with another worldly agenda.

Oh how dangerous this love is, whether in those in authority or in those subject to them! Those in authority who love selfishly do not correct the sins of their subject, because those who love themselves for their own sake fall into slavish fear and so do not reprove. For if the loved themselves for God's sake, they would not fear with this slavish fear. They would with courageous heart reprove sin and not be silent or pretend not to see. I don't want you to have this sort of love! I beg you to act in such a way that First Truth's hard word of reproach will not be said of you: "Cursed are you who were silent!" Oime! No more silence! Shout out with a hundred thousand tongues! I am seeing the world going to ruin because people are not speaking out! I am seeing Christ's bride made pallid, her color drained, because her blood is being sucked from behind her back. (Saint Catherine, From Letter T16)

Monday, August 27, 2018

Francis Scandal: Will the Good Cardinals Speak?



As the entire Catholic world is now aware, Pope Francis himself has now been named as an accomplice in the sex scandals of the Church. As soon as the 11 page letter of Vigano came out I read through it a total of three times. Most of the names mentioned should come as no surprise to those of us who have been following church news for the past decade. The same old charlatans who have committed the same heretical shenanigans over the years are all named in Archbishop Vigano's 11 page letter. The first thing I did was call a good friend of mine who was in the Vatican for many years. I asked him if this Vigano was a credible man. He answered unhesitatingly "yes." He also told me that this could be a huge grace providing the good Cardinals grow a backbone and speak out.

Despite now several people claiming that Vigano was an honorable man, the same liberal "Catholics" are circling their wagons to defend Francis and those surrounding him. For example, I found John Allen Jr's statement today to be nothing less than buffoonery. He wrote, "The letter contains charges of some form of wrongdoing or questionable behavior against no fewer than 32 senior churchmen, and in most cases Viagnò himself acknowledges that his comments are based on no more than supposition and/or connecting the dots. When anyone hurls around accusations quite so lightly, it’s difficult to know how seriously any one ought to be taken." In reading the letter, if Allen was reading the same one that I read, one could hardly say that these accusations were "hurled" lightly. We all know that this same ring of bishops have been a problem for decades. We also know that Vigano took this letter very seriously based on his introduction. Also, is Allen not smart enough to realize that the nuncio dealt with all of these men for many years? Allen also goes right after the man's character rather than dealing with what he said. This is typical of the left as they never, ever address the argument, they attack the man. I think we need real men with brains and honor in journalism, not hacks like Allen who put their agenda above truth. You will see more liberals circling their wagons as the week presses on.

Going back to the letter. That these bishops were named was not in my eyes so surprising. What was surprising was the boldness of Vignano to actually implicate Francis directly in the scandal of Cardinal McCarrick. It is no secret that Francis dislikes the more conservative bishops such as Archbishop Chaput. It is also very clear who Francis loves to surround himself with, such as the heretic Cardinal Kasper, the rebel Cardinal Marx, and the scandal ridden Cardinal Maradiaga to name a few. It is sadly no exaggeration to call Francis and his trusted circle which includes the likes of Forte, Baldisseri, Maradiaga, McCarrick the Legion of Doom. At the very least these men have caused massive confusion on Church teaching concerning grave moral acts such as Communion for the divorced and remarried, the death penalty and homosexuality to name a few. At its worst we have heresy. His bishop appointments have been horrific with with the likes of Bishop Cupich, who absolutely loathes anything that presents itself as being anything akin to Catholic tradition. Looking closely at who Francis surrounds himself with as his closest, most trusted men has always been a huge concern for me. I have written about several times before. To be clear, I am not judging Francis' motives here, but judging his actions objectively. His past actions clearly fit into the narrative that Vigano paints in his letter.

What I also did not know was that Pope Benedict XVI sanctioned Cardinal McCarrick, and that Francis seems to have abrogated this sanction allowing McCarrick to roam free. This was news to me and to everyone I spoke to about it. This entire circle of corruption demands more answers. If indeed Pope Benedict XVI was trying to root out the homosexual predators, which it seems he was to some extent, this makes his resignation once again come into question. We also should remember the 300 page document that he had put together before he resigned which supposedly pointed out a huge homosexual problem in the Church. What happened to it? Why was nothing mentioned of it once Francis took office? Also, if Benedict was working to try and reign in this horrific problem, why did he resign? Did he really resign out of his own freewill? Perhaps, but let us consider this resignation further.

I will use an example to make my point. If I am working at a company and my boss makes my life so miserable that I cannot stand to work there anymore because the abuse is so bad, and I leave for another job, not because I did not like my job, but because of the abuse, is my choice to leave fully free of coercion? In other words, someone can ask me, "did you leave your job freely or did they blackmail you?" I would respond that they I was not blackmailed and left on my own accord. They may even ask me if I was "forced" to leave. I would probably answer, "no." Upon closer inspection however if I were pressed, I would have to admit that I left not because of the job, but because of the abuse of my boss. If it wasn't for this abuse I would not have left. So, I am simply asking the same question about Pope Benedict's resignation. Was there any significant coercion at all by those surrounding him in the Vatican that was the main reason he resigned? Would this coercion constitute an illicit resignation? I don't have the answer, but I would like to know more.

Moving on, we are hearing again about possible collusion in the election of Francis. I am no canon law expert so I will not elaborate much here. However, using the guidelines set by Pope John Paul II, did the collaboration of these Cardinals before the election, which seems to have happened to at least some extent, make Francis' election invalid? Would this along with a coerced resignation by Pope Benedict XVI make Francis an anti-pope and Benedict still holding the true office? I am clearly in no position to make such judgments, but all of these events together have created a very unique time in the history of the Church. Stranger things have happened in the Church regarding the papacy.

Cdls Danneels & Ex-Cdl McCarrick campaigned for Bergoglio to be Pope, as did ++Maradiaga on eve of Conclave, phoning up various cardinals from the Honduran embassy in Rome. Despite their pasts, all 3 prelates have since been special advisors of Francis or rehabilitated by him


Finally, what are we to make of the Francis' refusal to answer a simple question on the airplane ride back from Ireland regarding the accusation of Vigano? If it were me and someone made a false accusation of this gravity I surely would not have answered like he did. Does this make anyone else scratch their heads?

What do I hope to see in the coming days?

I pray that we will see Cardinals coming forward on this scandal. We have already seen Cardinal Burke support Vigano, as well as Bishop Joseph Strickland, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and to some extent, Bishop Thomas Olmstead. This is a good start, but what we need are more Cardinals with a backbone to make public statements and start investigations on Francis and the sex scandals, the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Francis. Without the Cardinals this dies out and goes nowhere fast! Pray that by the end of this week we see movement from the Cardinals.




https://twitter.com/EdwardPentin/status/1034129674824241152

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Our Lady's Assumption


The Assumption- Titian

In a word, it is certain that no creature can obtain for us miserable sinners so many mercies as this good advocate, who is honored by God with this privilege, not only as his beloved handmaid, but also as his true mother. (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary)

Over the years I have leaned more and more on the Blessed Mother of God to bring me closer to her son, Jesus. The Rosary has been a daily devotion for many years now and I believe this devotion has brought me great consolation. For example, I believe Our Lady brought me to Poland through this devotion for a spiritually enriching pilgrimage. I personally honor the Blessed Mother under several of her titles including Guadalupe, Fatima, Good Success, Lourdes and Czestochowa to name a few.

Why does the Church put such an emphasis on her Feast of the Assumption? Although the Church has believed and celebrated the Assumption, also known as the Dormition of the Mother of God since the earliest years, it was only solemnly defined in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. "We pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory."  It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Church. The first being that she is the Mother of God, second, she is a perpetual virgin, that is before, during, and after the birth of Christ. Third she was immaculately conceived without sin, and finally that she was assumed into heaven. Why is this feast important for us to believe?

For one, it is a foreshadowing of what awaits us in eternal life. Although we do not have a glorified body after we die, Mary does have her glorified body in heaven, like we will someday. Pope Pius XII wrote regarding the general law that we must wait for our bodies n heaven until the final judgement, "God wished that the Blessed Virgin Mary be exempt from this general law. For she, by a completely singular privilege, conquered sin in her Immaculate Conception, and thus was not liable to that law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, nor did she have to wait for the end of time for the redemption of her body." So as we live out our days on earth we hope for the same as Our Mother enjoys now.

Secondly, we know must conquer our own sin with the help of God's grace. What is the best way to accomplish this feat? It is through the Blessed Virgin who awaits us to ask for her help. She being the best of mothers is always waiting and willing to help us. So we learn that she is in a glorified state in heaven waiting as our intercessor. St. Alphonsus Liguori once said, "Whoever asks and wishes to obtain graces without the intercession of Mary, attempts to fly without wings..." Knowing that Our Blessed Mother listens for our petitions in heaven also brings us hope in the promises of Christ. She is the mediatrix of all grace, and so we see great graces coming to us that bring us closer to her son. No one can really call themselves Christian in the true sense without a devotion to our mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her Assumption lets us know how highly God holds her in relation to man's salvation, and also lets us know that we should also regard her as such. Let us honor her day today and ask for her petitions as we participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass today. Happy feast day to Our Lady!

Consecrate yourself to Our Lady today!

Solemn Act of Consecration by St Kolbe

O Immaculate, Queen of heaven and earth, Refuge of sinners and our most loving Mother, God has willed to entrust the entire order of mercy to You, I, an unworthy sinner, cast myself at Your feet, humbly imploring You to take me with all that I am and have, wholly to Yourself as Your possession and property. Please make of me, of all my powers of soul and body, of my whole life, death, and eternity, whatever pleases You. If it pleases You, use all that I am and have without reserve, wholly to accomplish what has been said of You: “She will crush your head”, and “You alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world.” Let me be a fit instrument in Your immaculate and most merciful hands for introducing and increasing Your glory to the maximum in all the many strayed and indifferent souls, and thus help extend as far as possible the blessed Kingdom of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. For, wherever You enter, You obtain the grace of conversion and sanctification, since it is through Your hands that all graces come to us from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

V. Allow me to praise You, O most holy Virgin.

R. Give me strength against Your enemies.


Friday, August 10, 2018

Akin and Co. Redefine Punishment to Fit Catechism Change



It is amazing to see how far a pop apologist will go to defend the in-defensible. As we know Francis just changed the Catechism concerning the use of the death penalty. The new Catechism entry is now saying that Capital Punishment is no longer able to be used because it is an attack against human dignity. The passage reads,

 The death penalty
“2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. 
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. 
Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. 
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
The accompanying letter sent out by Cardinal Ladaria tries to tell us that this change is in perfect alignment with past magisterial statements. Ladaria wrote,

“a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.” This refers to the fact that in the past the state’s penal sanctions were understood principally as administering justice (including divine justice) to wrongdoers, but today the Church understands them principally as seeking to protect society and (hopefully) rehabilitate the offender."
In light of this Jimmy Akin and others have bought into Ladaria's redefining of punishment saying that it is not primarily used for administering justice, which as we know cannot be changed by its very nature. Even the Catechism says it cannot, and conflicts with Ladaria's explanation. If we read earlier in the Catechism in 2266, which everyone seems to have forgotten, it says clearly that punishment's primary aim is redressing the disorder caused by the offense.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

As we know the death penalty, otherwise known as Capital Punsishment has always and can only be used to redress the crime caused by the past action of the criminal, which is the administration of justice. It can only be used for that purpose, since the guilty party will not live to see rehabilitation. The Church has sanctioned such a punishment for that purpose and thus it cannot be against the dignity of the human person. Ladaria's use of the phrase "to protect society" like the Catechism's use is ambiguous, since an act of justice can also be seen as protecting society, and not merely a physical protection from a possible aggressor.

The only way Ladaria and the pop-apologists get away with buying into this change is by redefining the primary aim of punishment. Punishment by its very nature must always look to the past first to redress the crime, and then secondarily to the possible rehabilitation of the criminal and protection from possible future aggression by the criminal. It cannot work any other way, otherwise you might as well start punishing people for something they may or may not do in the future, which of course is non-sense. Sorry, thinking Catholics who actually follow the consistent teaching of the Church, grounded in solid scholastic philosophy would never buy into this. This cannot hold water and is a huge theological strikeout.

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Saint Dominic: Icon of Truth and the Rosary



Saint Dominic has done great things for me! He has found me two jobs and given me numerous opportunities for spiritual growth. I am also in the Dominican third order as a result of him, which is also very spiritually rewarding. The Dominicans have traditionally been known as defenders of truth. Starting with its founder, Saint Dominic Guzman, truth and the conversion of sinners has been the focus of the order. Dominic is known for his famous encounters with the Albigensians who were spreading heresy throughout France. He could not stand by silently while people were being led away from the Catholic faith, so he started to travel on foot to refute the heresy and bring people back into the Church. He would spend hours using his wisdom talking with the Albigensians, resulting in converting many back to the faith. His boldness to speak the truth should inspire us.

We also have the Most Holy Rosary as a result of St. Dominic. It was the Blessed Mother herself who gave us the Rosary through him. Sr. Lucia once said "My impression is that the Rosary is of greatest value not only according to the words of Our Lady at Fatima, but according to the effects of the Rosary one sees throughout history. My impression is that Our Lady wanted to give ordinary people, who might not know how to pray, this simple method of getting closer to God.". Saint Dominic is an icon of truth and the instrument of the Most Holy Rosary. We should model St. Dominic by praying the Rosary daily and by preaching the truth when we are given the opportunity. Happy feast day of St. Dominic!


Monday, August 6, 2018

Catechism of Trent VS New Catechism: Death Penalty Inadmissible?



I hear the neo-Catholics saying that the current Catechism is infallible therefore anyone who goes against Francis' new condemnation of Capital Punishment is going against a doctrine of the Church. However, they paint themselves in a corner. If the new Catechism cannot err, that means that the old Catechism of Trent cannot err. Notice one clearly says the death penalty is a legitimate, "lawful" punishment in lieu of the crime committed. The other says that this long held idea is no longer admissible. 

In case you are one of those who may be wringing their hands over the meaning of "inadmissible" it means simply, "not able to be allowed or considered". The Latin in case you were wondering is "non posse admitti." This means, "not to be able to be admitted." No beating around the bush here, it means you can't do it! I don't care if that word has not been used before, it means what it means! All of this microscopic examination of the term cannot change what it means. More importantly, why can't it be done according to Francis?, "because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." This would make the act never permissible, or as he has worded it, never admissible, inadmissible. Again, we know this cannot be otherwise the Roman Catechism of Trent would have been teaching a heresy by saying that it was a legitimate act supported by the Church and Sacred Scripture. Could the Church have been supporting acts against human dignity for 2000 years? If you believe that,... 

Catechism of Trent
Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

New Francis Catechism

The death penalty
“2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. 
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.
Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

So what are we to make of these two contradictions? Simply put, the Trent Catechism bases its teaching on the perennial teaching of the Church substantiated by things like Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers, Councils and the like. The Trent Catechism does this clearly. This new entry by Francis does not base its teaching on anything other than Francis himself and his perceived idea of a "development of doctrine" which contradicts perennial Church teaching. See the source provided by Francis, himself. "FRANCIS, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5." Which one seems more credible?