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.


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?

Friday, August 3, 2018

How to Spot a Modernist!: My Top 4 Indicators

And thus Modernism has reached its goal. It set out to reconcile Catholicity with the spirit of the age, and it has done so with a vengeance. ('Modernism and Modern Thought' by Father Bampton SJ)

If it is not clear by now, let me clarify for you. The Church in our time has been overrun by modernists. This includes a large number of priests, bishops, theologians and yes laypeople. Due to poor formation, even many well-meaning priests, bishops and theologians frequently fall into modernist errors. Most Catholics at this time in the Church are unaware of anything the Church taught or said before 1962. When is the last time you have seen a theologian refer to the Canons of Trent? Have you heard any modern theologians refer to the encyclicals of Pius X like 'Pascendi'? The only theological works cited by modern popes, bishops, priests and theologians are those written after the 1960s, specifically the documents of Vatican II. You would think the Church didn't exist before the Second Vatican Council. As we know much of the theology that has been passed on to us since this time has been ramshackle at best and downright heretical at its worst.

All of the popes for the better part of 100 years, until the reign of Pope John XXIII who incorrectly prophesized a sunny and warm horizon for the Church, warned us about the noxious errors of modernism. No one listened! In this day and age we need to avoid modernists at all costs, and refute their errors when we are given the opportunity. Modernism is easy to spot if you know what to look for. There are many, but let me give you my top 4 indicators of what to look for to spot a modernist. If you have others feel free to comment in the combox.

1. Aggiornamento /Updating- They think the Church needs to constantly update her teachings to adapt to the modern culture. They do not believe that old theological definitions are immutable, and thus they always need to be updated. If you hear someone speak in such terms, you can bet your bottom dollar you are reading or listening to modernist. Pope Pius X warned us about this. The Jesuit priest Fr. Bampton writing in 1913 sums this up well, “To the Catholic, Dogma is something fixed, precise, something stable and immutable; to the Modernist, Dogma is "a tentative and provisional formula.” When you hear someone saying that dogmatic definitions are to be avoided, that they are inadequate and must be replaced by an “encounter”, look out. Theological definitions are how we come to understand God and are able to have a relationship with Him, they are not obstructions. This is how God communicates to us on an intellectual level, so that we can exercise our freewill to love Him as He has revealed Himself to us. This idea that we need to constantly update theology and liturgy is the first indicator that you should look for.

2. Development of Doctrine- They proclaim a perverted idea of “The development of doctrine.” Anyone using this term should be scrutinized closely, because most have no clue as to what it really means. Yes, there can be a legitimate development of doctrine. One that comes to mind is the deeper understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist over time, leading to the defining of Transubstantiation at Trent. So we came to understand more fully how the person of Christ is present in the Eucharist. Notice the substantial teaching of the Church never changed, it just brought us to a deeper understanding of the immutable reality of Jesus Christ being truly present. A false notion of the development of doctrine would be Francis’ recent attempt to hornswoggle us with his new teaching on capital punishment. More specifically his new theological position that the death penalty is an assault on human dignity. This is obviously something that is opposed to 2000 years of Catholic teaching. Most Catholics however have no idea, since the bishops over the past 40 years have done nothing but attack the death penalty largely based on the deceptive scheme known as “The seamless garment.” If you have read the CDF letter that accompanied Francis’ Catechism change, you can clearly see through the modernist smokescreen of a supposed legitimate development of doctrine. A change is not a development, a development is understanding an immutable truth more fully. Something cannot be against human dignity today, while it was a perfectly moral and just action the day before. Is it possible for Johnny to add his two apples to Mary’s two and have five apples today, when yesterday we had four when Johnny and Mary each brought two apples? I think not. This is my second indicator of a modernist, they proclaim that a change is really just a development.

3. Biblical Chicanery- A majority of them think that Jesus’ words and miracles are only stories based on approximations of early Christian communities. They often dismiss miracles with naturalistic explanations. For example, they will propose that Jesus did not really multiply the loaves and fish, it was only community sharing, and that was the real miracle. They will say that Jesus didn’t really say there was a narrow gate and there are few that enter. They propose that it was something made up later, and if He did say something like this, it was only a threat discourse. He said it just to scare everyone into paying attention to Him. He would never advocate eternal damnation. In other words, many of them read the Bible in a naturalistic, secular manner, rather than in the constant Tradition of the Church. Some do so in a more nuanced manner, others in a very open manner. For example, if you hear someone tell you that Adam and Eve are not literal figures, that they are only mythological figures in Scripture to depict a theological lesson, then you are dealing with a modernist. A true Catholic would say that Adam and Eve were real people to which original sin came into the world, through real concrete sinful act. So my third indicator is looking for people who play fast and loose with the Sacred Scriptures.

4.    Resistance to Thomism- Modernists do one of two things with St. Thomas Aquinas. They either despise him, or they try and hijack him. Modernists do not like true Thomistic theology. It is because it is based on reality and immutable truths. So they defer to modernist theologians of our time that are rooted in false philosophical principles such as those of Kant and Heidegger for example. Watch out for those who mock Thomism. If they say Thomism is dry and outdated and closed in on itself you should see a this as a red flag. On the other hand, if they are smart enough to realize that bashing St. Thomas is a dead giveaway to their modernist tendencies, they will try and hijack him. They will cherry pick something out of the Summa and twist it to mean something that St. Thomas would never have imagined. Amoris Laetitia comes to mind in which some theologians foolishly claimed it was completely "Thomistic". This incorrect use of Thomas is usually accompanied by some proclamation of a "development of doctrine". Look for the two of them served up on a theological cold plate side by side.

There are several other indicators that I could list, but I think these are the top four that are easy to spot. The key is to listen closely to what they say, and what they avoid saying.

In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. Aeterni Patris). And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our Predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and ordain that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their observance, and let this apply also to the Superiors of religious institutions. Further let Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment. (St. Pius X, Pascendi)

The Papal Posse Address Francis and the Death Penalty

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Game Changer by Francis? Death Penalty Now Officially Condemned?

Today August the 2nd, will go down in history as the day Pope Francis tried to bind the Church to a false teaching, which says that the death penalty is no longer admissible as a legitimate form of punishment. Of course we know that a Pope cannot change this teaching since it goes against the perennial teaching of the Church as well as the natural law. Many Popes before him such as Pius XII have taught emphatically that it is and always will be a legitimate form of punishment. It is interesting that this change only uses one source as a foot note, which is his address concerning the "new evangelization" on  11 October 2017. Notice he cannot come up with anything throughout Church history to substantiate this heretical teaching, so he quotes himself from less a year ago. Hardly a robust foundation for this theological proposal. This change was also accompanied by a formal letter to all bishops by Cardinal Ladaria. 

Up until this point Francis' theologically problematic statements have been arguably communicated in a non-binding manner or ambiguously. That is, he said them in interviews or informal letters, or in a manner that could be manipulated easily. This however seems to be a game changer.  I am interested to hear the opinion of reputable Thomistic theologians on this one. Does this not change the game when a Pope tries to bind Catholics to a heresy using a vehicle such as the Catechism? Granted every word in the Catechism is not infallible, but to my knowledge there has never been an outright heretical teaching in a Catechism such as this one. This teaching actually concerns the moral action of what a Catholic can and cannot support. As we know there is nothing intrinsically evil, or anything against human dignity concerning the proper use of Capital Punishment. Going through the CDF Francis has now actually changed Catechism #2267 to clearly and unambiguously outlaw the legitimacy of the death penalty. Leaving aside the poor wording of the 1997 text, below is the text from the 1997 Catechism, and below it is the new heretical Francis 2018 version. The question is, is any upstanding Cardinals or bishops going to stand up and do anything about this? Are they all going to sit back and let this happen? What happens when a Pope tries to actually bind the faithful to a heresy? These days are strange indeed! I will update this post as more theological opinions come out on this. See below for links. 

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
New Francis Version
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.
[1] 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.
[01209-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]
Dr Peter Kwasniewski's thoughts.

Dr. Ed Feser's Response

More by Ed Feser

Cardinal Dulles' Dubia

Thomistica: Responses

Pope Pius XII, Pray For Us!