Christianity exhorts its adherents to be charitable, but it is really charitable to affirm people in a belief system that tells them that hatred, contempt, and violence are blessed by the deity? The question is pertinent because recently in Nigeria and France, Catholic bishops have used the money donated by their own Catholic people to build mosques for Muslims. Charity, foolishness, or both? History will be the judge, but we can see right now a great deal of what is coming.
Gloria.tv reported Saturday that in France, “Tours Diocese donated money for the construction of a local mosque,” and that “Tours Bishop Vincent Jordy justified his donation on April 15 with the fact that for John Paul II’s 1996 visit to the city, the local Muslims made a symbolic donation which the diocese wanted to reciprocate. Riposte-Catholique.fr adds that in 2015, Auch Diocese – where John Paul II never visited – donated €5000 for a mosque.” Also, the amount of the Muslims’ “symbolic donation” was not reported, but it is not likely to have been enough to build a church, much less two churches.
Meanwhile, Bishop Stephen Mamza of the Catholic Diocese of Yola in Nigeria is building houses in Yola for people who have lost their homes due to jihad terror activity by the Islamic group Boko Haram, whose official name is People Committed to the Prophet’s Teachings for Proselytizing and Jihad. Since many of those displaced are Muslims whom Boko Haram didn’t think were Islamic enough, Bishop Mamza also built them a mosque.
In an interview in Nigeria’s Punch, Bishop Mamza explained that “at a certain stage we had over 3,000 people living on our church premises,” and “we thought of what we could do to improve their living standards.” Ultimately, with help from German backers, “we started last year in January the construction of 86 units of houses to be built for the 86 families still in our camp. On the housing estate, we built a church and a mosque and a school for the IDPs,” that is, Internally Displaced People.
Mamza maintained that building the mosque was a simple act of charity: “In the first place, when we played host to these IDPs, we did not discriminate against any one of them. We didn’t ask what religion the IDPs belong to; we didn’t ask for their church denomination; we just treated them as human beings who are in need of help, irrespective of their religion, denomination or tribe.” He explained that “if we were able to build houses for all of them, and also built a church for the Christians among them, then it is only a matter of justice and fairness that we also provide a space of worship for the few Muslims among them….I just felt that since we didn’t leave out the Muslims while providing food for the Christians or leave the Muslims out while building houses for the Christians, it is only just that we also build a mosque for the Muslims as we built a church for Christians.”
As good as this bishop’s intentions were, his gesture didn’t sit well with many Christians in a country where Islamic jihadis murdered a Catholic priest in March and burned a Catholic Church to the ground in February, and where jihadis killed 2200 Christians during 2020, an average of six every day. Would the mosque that Mamza built stop this jihad violence against Christians in Nigeria? Not likely. And so, Mamza recounted, “even from within, people did not see it as a good gesture, at all….Some of them even pointed out that the Boko Haram insurgents are Muslims and they have caused a lot of the havoc for us; they ask, ‘Why should we even go ahead and build a mosque for them?’ But I say, ‘Well, not all the Muslims are Boko Haram (members), not all of them (Muslims) are evil. Those that I know, that we have been living together and taking care of them for the past seven years, I know them to be good. So, there should be no reason why I should discriminate against them. I think that is the reason we built the mosque.’”
Of course that is true that not all Muslims are evil. It is odd, however, for a Christian entity to spend money on building a structure in which congregants will be taught that Jesus is not the Son of God and belief in the Trinity is “excess” (Qur’an 4:171, 19:35), and that Jesus was not crucified (Qur’an 4:157), and that those who believe in the divinity of Christ (that would include Bishop Mamza) are unbelievers (Qur’an 5:17), and that those who (like Bishop Mamza) believe that Jesus is God’s Son are accursed (Qur’an 9:30), and that Christians who do not accept Muhammad and the Qur’an must be fought against and subjugated under Islamic hegemony (Qur’an 9:29).
Also, a hadith has Muhammad predicting that Jesus will return at the end of the world and break the cross, as it is an insult to Allah’s power to say that he would have allowed one of his prophets to be crucified: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary [Jesus] will shortly descend amongst you people [Muslims] as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya [a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government]. Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.’” (Bukhari 3.34.425)
So the gestures of these two bishops may be dangerous: the jihadis who attack his own people could be incited in the mosque he built. Now that may not matter to Bishops Mamza and Jordy. They are Christian clerics, and Christians are taught to “love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return” (Luke 6:35). Very well. Still, in building a house where essential doctrines of Christianity will be denied, and the congregation will be exhorted to fight against Christians, subjugate them under Sharia, and make them pay the jizya (Qur’an 9:29), are they being loving to their Christian flocks? Does they have any obligation of charity to the Christians, or only to the Muslims? After all, it is their own people who may bear the consequences of what is taught in the mosques built with Church funds.
This mosque-building by Catholics is a mistaken idea of what constitutes charity, not surprising amid the general confusion of our age, in which being nice is routinely conflated with being charitable, when there are numerous instances in which they are not the same thing.
But for Catholics, what the Pope would say carries immense weight. Given Pope Francis’ actions since he became Bishop of Rome, Bishops Jordy and Mamza may be on the fast track to a Red Hat. Click here to read above report at source…
If they don’t need to build Catholic churches in France or Nigeria, their financial charity would be welcome elsewhere in the Catholic world. No question about it. Speaking of questions…
RCA Victor emailed the above report, with the query: “Could it possibly get any crazier”?
Well, I was answering “no” to that question almost twenty years ago, so I’ll pass this time. Over to you!
From the YouTube platform…
The Vatican recently released new regulations for the celebration of Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. These guidelines limit when priests can celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (the pre-Vatican II Mass rite) and also aim to increase participation of the faithful in these Masses. How can we understand these changes in the light of the Second Vatican Council’s liturgical reforms? Dr. Massimo Faggioli of Villanova University joins “Inside the Vatican” host Colleen Dulle to put these changes into the larger context of liturgical reform since Vatican II.
Note (among many gaffes) that the long-term aim of this latest unconscionable attempt to banish the TLM is more or less clearly stated as erasing it from the memories of all those who favour it today. Indeed, we are described, contemptuously, as “fans of the old rite.” Then, laughably, the “disunity” which has emerged in recent years is blamed on the TLM, not the destructive novelties which were introduced after Vatican II. Talk about “upside down” – i.e. the diabolical disorientation foretold at Fatima in 1917.
Whatever – is this latest attempt to eradicate all memory of the traditional Latin Mass likely to succeed, where the multifarious previous efforts have failed? I’m in the “no way, get lost” camp. What about you?
From Flourish – official publication of the Archdiocese of Glasgow…
Is Glasgow set to host Pope’s plea for planet?
The future of the planet and the welfare of the world’s inhabitants – these are the issues facing world leaders as they come to Glasgow later this year for the UN Climate Change Conference known as COP26. And among them could be Pope Francis.
The Holy Father’s concern for ecological issues is well-known and he has devoted a whole encyclical to them – Laudato Si. It emerged last month that consideration was being given to a possible Papal presence at the talks which are scheduled for early November at the SEC.
The COP26 summit will bring world leaders including Presidents Biden and Macron together to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and is considered the most important such gathering in recent history due to the enormity of the issues being discussed.
Any papal visit would be short and would not involve public ceremonies or Masses, but rather a direct intervention by the Holy Father on the issue of climate change to the assembled.
The Pope has made these kinds of one day visits before when he flew to France to address the European Parliament in Strasbourg and to Switzer- land to mark the 70th anniversary of the World Council of Churches. Both of these were one-day round trips.
All countries signed up to the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change are entitled to attend the Glasgow event, including the Holy See, which has UN observer status. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State and most senior diplomat, has led the Holy See’s delegations at previous summits.
Speaking to diplomats in the Vatican earlier this year, the Holy Father explicitly highlighted the importance of the Glasgow summit. He said he hoped that “the next United Nations Climate Change Conference to take place in Glasgow next November, will lead to effective agreement in addressing the consequences of climate change. Now is the time to act, for we are already feeling the effects of prolonged inaction.”
A Bishops’ Conference working group, chaired by Bishop Bill Nolan of Galloway has been in place since last year to plan for the event. Already a series of preparations are underway:
• A Mass for visiting delegates will be at St Aloysius on Sunday, November 7 at 3pm
• Schools across Scotland will study and put into action the insights of Laudato Si through special events and there will also be a “season of creation” theme in September.
• The Bishops of Scotland plan a pastoral letter to sensitize people in late spring ahead of the UN Conference.
Mgr Hugh Bradley, Archdiocesan Administrator, said: “We would love to have the Holy Father in Glasgow, even if only for a few hours, and we hope and pray that we may have a new Archbishop in place to welcome him to the Dear Green place. Click here to read above report at source…
It will be unconscionable if – prior to the Mass to be provided for those attending the Climate Change Conference – the Bishops of Scotland do not make clear that Canon Law #915 is invoked, and that, therefore, no-one who is a known public supporter of abortion (or in any other way causing public scandal) may approach for Holy Communion. Is this likely, thinkest thou, or will the Bishops weakly ignore the issue? Joe Biden makes no secret of his support for abortion right up to and after birth – infanticide. The Bishops cannot remain silent on this – they must act in plenty of time to avoid the danger of sacrilege. Their duty is to avoid causing offence to God – not to President Biden.
And what about the UN choosing Glasgow for a conference on climate change? If a visit to Scotland in November doesn’t cure them of worrying about global warming, nothing will 😀
Some weeks ago, a reader from a far-flung part of the world, emailed to ask for my help in responding to critics of the SSPX . It surprises me that there are still Catholics out there who are living through the utter chaos in both the Church and the world, and yet do not recognise the role of the SSPX in the Church at this time.
The above short video gives a very basic background to the work of the Society, and hopefully bloggers will be able to offer answers (in the comments below) to those critics who, astonishingly, continue to see the SSPX as somehow a “problem”. This thread, then, is offered as (I hope) a useful response to that “far-flung” correspondent, who is probably thinking that I’ve forgotten all about her request. I mean, would I? 😀
Below, two short videos which explain why Catholics should not attend the new Mass.
Part I …
Part 2 …
Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco is crystal clear in the above interview about the nature of abortion; it is not a divinely revealed Catholic teaching – which is why atheists, agnostics and people of non-Christian religions and philosophies across the world oppose it. Abortion is an evil because it goes against the natural moral law, created by God with the Church guarding and promoting it. That is the Church’s role in the moral sphere; the Church doesn’t invent morals, but merely protects the moral law. The Archbishop explains this fact simply and clearly – excellent.
However, his response to the question about reception of Holy Communion was disappointing. The interviewer prepared the ground for a weak answer by emphasising the pastoral role of a priest to first speak with the person engaged in public sin (a given, of course), and seek to lead them away from that position. However, once it is clear that a person – especially such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi who holds an important public office in the United States Government – is unwilling to end the scandal caused by her very public promotion of the evil of abortion, then Canon Law requires that they do not approach for Holy Communion: Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Canon # 915.
This clearly applies, also, to Joe Biden. So, why are these prominent American lawmakers being allowed to cause this dreadful scandal, while at the same time presenting themselves as “devout Catholics”? And why is Archbishop Cordileone clearly reluctant to apply Canon 915 to Nancy Pelosi, who lives and moves and spreads her errors in his archdiocese?
The Archbishop-Elect of Dublin, Dermot Farrell, gave an interview to the Irish Times soon after his appointment had been announced by the Holy See. (Click here for a transcript of the interview.)
The new archbishop declares himself in favour of women deacons and married priests. He does not find in the Scriptures an argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood. He calls the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality merely technical. He also says he has no problem with the private blessing of rings for divorced and remarrying couples and for homosexual couples (though he finds public blessings problematic because people often misconstrue them as actual marriages).
Amid so many other troubles, the Irish Church appears to be headed for more rocky days.
Farrell’s treatment of Church teaching and practice regarding homosexuality, for example, is dismissive: “It’s a technical description. People misconstrue that then because it is technical theological language.” He considers amending this technical language, because “I think Pope Francis has discussed that (removal). It came up at the last Synod.”
Really? Farrell is referring to this teaching of the Catechism: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357)
In common parlance, calling language in a document “technical” can mean that it is unintelligible or is commonly misunderstood by the uninitiated, and is there to serve some arcane or legalistic purpose. Its removal is desirable but may be difficult to do if sticklers, purists, or legalists object. Better just to ignore it and treat it as a dead letter, as in “Technically speaking that is true, but. . .”
To describe the clear, unchanging, and unchangeable teaching of the Church on the inherent immorality of homosexual acts as technical language that could, and even should, be dispensed with is plainly a rejection of that teaching.
The rejection of homosexual activity, and the homosexual lifestyle, by faithful Catholics, however, is not a misconstruing of “technical” language found in the Catechism. Those who want the Church to embrace and bless the homosexual lifestyle object to the language of the Catechism not because it is misconstrued by clueless people who think it means that no one should engage in homosexual acts because, being intrinsically disordered, they are immoral. Rather, they object because the language is easily and correctly understood to mean just that. The problem for them is not the allegedly confusing words used, but rather the clear meaning of those words.
Archbishop Farrell, in response to a question about blessing rings for divorced and remarried couples and for same-sex couples, says:
The difficulty with blessings is that they are very often misconstrued as marriage. Priests have given these blessings in the past. I remember one colleague of mine. I had said to him – he used to have this ceremony of the blessing of rings – I said to him I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings if you’re doing that here in the house but if you go out into the public domain, in a church, and bless rings as you see it. . .they turned up with 200 people and they saw it as a marriage. Sometimes people use that phraseology. . .you’re into confusion there. It can be misconstrued as “yes, the priest married us.” Blessings are always going to be misconstrued and that’s where the difficulty arises because once you start blessing things like that people are going to construe that as a marriage. We can’t have that sort of situation in the Church because it creates all sorts of problems in terms of our own teaching and these teachings of the church have been constant.
Leaving aside the question of blessing the rings of divorced and remarried couples, what exactly are we to understand is the meaning of blessing the wedding rings of same-sex couples, whether in private or in public? Is it a misconstrual to consider that the priest who does such a blessing approves of the relationship that the homosexual couple has entered into (which is a counterfeit, pseudo-marriage), and asks God’s favor and approval upon that relationship as symbolized by the rings?
The Modern Catholic Dictionary defines a blessing thus: “In liturgical language a blessing is a ritual ceremony by which an authorized cleric in major orders sanctifies persons or things to divine service, or invokes divine favor on what he blesses.” The dictionary’s entry on rings states: “Conferring the ring is an integral part of the marriage ceremony to signify the mutual love of husband and wife, and wearing the ring symbolizes their pledge of marital fidelity.”
The main problem with blessing wedding rings of a same-sex couple is not that people will become confused and think that the priest was actually marrying them. No, the main problem is that a priest who does such an unholy act is giving the impression that God will favour what He has condemned. Same-sex “marriages” are not marriages in any way, shape, or form. It’s a gravely sinful relationship in which two men or two women pledge to sodomize each other. No blessing should ever be invoked by a priest upon this unnatural relationship nor upon the pirated symbols of the holy estate of marriage.
Archbishop Farrell says: “I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings.” If that’s true, what he does have is a more fundamental difficulty: God has warned shepherds who mislead their flocks into paths of sin and error that they will be held accountable. Let us pray that the new Archbishop of Dublin will forswear his comments and reaffirm the Church’s actual teaching and practice. Click here to read at source
There’s really nothing left for me to say – except pray for poor Ireland. As if it’s not due a break. From my trip to Dublin at the time of the abortion referendum I have one memory which will be forever fixed in my mind and it is this: handing out our leaflets and engaging with the few members of the public who didn’t tell us to blankety blank off, I met one woman who expressed herself heart-broken about the state of the Church in Ireland, that it had come to this – a referendum on murdering the unborn. She told me that she had daughters who were going to vote in favour of legalising abortion, and her tears fell. My heart went out to her. Catholics have been very badly served by the clergy in Ireland. And after the abortion and then the same-sex “marriage” votes, the Pope is still not satisfied; the people of Ireland need yet another bad bishop – and one who is not afraid to publicly display his fake Catholicism.
As I intimated at the beginning of this short comment – there’s really nothing left for me to say. Over to you…
Martin Luther King, as pointed out in the above video, quotes Catholic teaching on unjust laws to legitimise the civil uprisings in the USA against the segregation of black people from the rest of the population. King points out that those who invoke this right to disobey unjust civil laws must be prepared to take the consequences – such as imprisonment. Thus, it is made clear that the motive for such civil disobedience is conscience, not malice.
At this time, when we are prohibited from the worship of God in our churches because of “the virus”, what should Catholics do – pressure priests for “secret” Masses or openly attend churches, bearing in mind that the priest is the person most likely to have to pay the consequences. We’re hearing of a Scots priest who has been handed a hefty fine for allowing parishioners to attend his Mass recently. Such is the confusion around us that I’m not clear in my own mind whether or not members of the congregation are also liable to fines – informed contributors please enlighten me on that score. It’s not the virus of which people are afraid when it comes to assessing the restrictions, it’s the fines and the fear of losing hearth and home which is forcing compliance. My entirely unsolicited and unqualified legal advice to anyone found breaking a “Covid law” is, in any case, to refuse to pay fines and let the matter go to court in due course. I’ll pray for you 😀
It should go without saying (but I’d better say it anyway) that if you happen to know of any underground Sacraments which you suspect may be on offer, you must not say so on this thread, or anywhere else on this blog for that matter. This thread is to discuss the principles of law and our obligation (or not) to obey all laws – even perceived unjust laws. Do the current Covid laws, especially the prohibition on attending churches, fit the definition of an unjust law, according to the thinking of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine…
IS is true that “an unjust law is no law at all” ?
Priests with this quality of unapologetically speaking out clearly and fearlessly are gold-dust. Let’s pray for more and more to preach boldly like Fr Gigliotti.
The problem is that seminary lecturers have pumped socialist ideas into the heads of young students for the priesthood over a period of many years now, to the point where they think like secular people on just about every level. It is, therefore, going to take a special grace to enable most priests so see the truth and embrace the courage to preach it. Otherwise, Catholics for generations to come will be malformed in the Faith, and unable to tell the difference between good and evil – which is what we are witnessing in these times.
During the 20th century, notably in the “swinging sixties”, we were led into a mindset where everything was relative, right or wrong depending on one’s own point of view, and that has led, inevitably, to a society where nihilism rules: we don’t know right from wrong, good from evil.
As we are finding ourselves subject to Communist tyrannical rule, we need priests to wake up to the reality of the danger to the world of a Biden administration. They don’t call the President of the USA “leader of the free world” for nothing. We have been depending on President Trump to keep the forces of Communism at arm’s length. Now, with Biden supporting the objectives of Communist China, we are, humanly speaking, lost. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
We are grateful for access to the American TV news channel, Newsmax TV, where one of my favourite presenters is Chris Salcedo. He is a consummate professional, and not afraid to express his Catholic Faith, as we see in the above video. God bless him!
Martin Blackshaw, aka blogger Athanasius writes…
Dear Bishops of Scotland,
As we reach the tenth month of a relatively harmless Chinese Flu pandemic, the global governmental response to which will surely one day be recorded for posterity as the greatest crime ever perpetrated against humanity, I thought I would take the opportunity at the beginning of this year dedicated to St. Joseph to once again upbraid you for abandoning Christ’s flock to the wolves.
You may recall that I wrote to you in July 2020 demonstrating, with sound statistical evidence, the falsehood of the official narrative regarding this virus, which the UK government had already downgraded to “non-life threatening” on March 19, the same day it mandated the closure of our churches with your approval on the very feast of St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church.
Despite the detailed information I provided at that time, together with a reminder that the Church’s superior divine mission can never be made subject to secular interference, you have continued to impose the most unholy measures in the House of God in your zeal to appease the “Prince of this world”.
For four consecutive months last year you closed the churches completely to your flocks. Over the same period you compounded the scandal by complying with an evil law forbidding Sacramental visits to the dying, thereby abandoning many souls in the most important last hours or moments of their lives.
Since the easing of that failed lockdown you have continued to collaborate with the new government dictatorship in the suppression of people’s inalienable rights to freedom and the worship of God. In this regard you have limited Holy Mass to small groups, obliging the faithful to pre-book as though they were arranging a dental appointment and subjecting them to infantile admittance rules that have absolutely no precedent in Church history and no basis in established science – your unspoken “no mask = no Mass or Sacraments” rule standing out as singularly iniquitous before God.
If only this misplaced zeal were evident in defence of the rights of the Church and our Christian heritage when the secular authorities legislate against the divine and natural law or when Catholic politicians publicly trample the Church’s moral teaching and then present themselves unopposed for Holy Communion, the faithful would scarce have cause to doubt your fidelity to Christ, Our Lord.
This tragically not being the case, however, it is the duty of all subordinate Catholics to call you out for the hypocrites you are; men who strain on a gnat while swallowing a camel, prelates apparently devoid of supernatural faith whose episcopal agendas, like that of Pope Francis, are more aligned with the naturalist doctrines of Socialism than with the divine doctrine of Our Saviour, whose Kingdom is not of this world.
Reading through the three Encyclical letters of the present Pontiff, one is struck immediately by the dearth of references to the immortal soul and the supernatural life. Everything is about this world, i.e., the climate, migrants, the poor, injustice, the marginalised, a brotherhood of man, etc. It’s like reading the worldview of a Communist or a Freemason, not remotely in line with traditional Papal teaching.
Likewise your own mindset as most recently expressed in Bishop Nolan’s ‘Pastoral Letter for Day of Peace’, here
This disgraceful document similarly emphasises the “new humanism” of Vatican II, to quote Pope Paul VI at the conclusion of that fateful Council in 1962, the bitter fruits of which subsequently led him to lament “the smoke of Satan in the Church” – more specifically identified by an exultant Leo Cardinal Suenens as “The French Revolution in the Church”.
It is hardly surprising then that after almost 60 years of this conciliar destruction of the faith from within, we find you exhorting not to a restoration of all things in Christ, Our King, but to the embracing of the diabolic “Build Back Better” programme of a global Socialist elite presently engaged in the establishment of a New World Order of brutal totalitarianism that they variously describe as “The Great Reset” and “The New Normal”.
Well did Our Lady of Fatima warn of the global spread of the errors of Russia so long as the Pope and bishops of the world refuse to grant her request for a public and solemn consecration of that country to her Immaculate Heart. Well did Sister Lucy describe the subsequent unfolding of the Third Secret chastisement in the Church as “apostasy from the top down”. She also said (in an interview with an American historian in 1946) that Communism would spread to every country without exception; it is now here, aided and abetted by you bishops…
If ever the Scriptural warning that Lucifer often appears disguised as an angel of light were applicable, it is today in this “Build Back Better” doctrine of Socialism that promises a new humanity emerging from a programme of psychological warfare on the peoples of the nations, suppression of their inalienable rights and freedoms, destruction of their economies and a silencing of all legitimate opposition by means of media censure, arbitrary fines and police brutality.
Where is your outrage, you who champion Vatican II’s French revolutionary spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity? Why are you not speaking out forcefully against this diabolic assault on our way of life, against these criminal impositions in the name of a virus that has purportedly killed only 1.8 million of the estimated 70 million who die in this world every year?
Untold numbers around the globe are committing suicide in despair, countless thousands more are suffering mental health issues, incalculable numbers have seen their medical treatment for genuine life-threatening illnesses suspended, tens of millions are losing their employment, economies are collapsing, civil liberties are suspended, families are split and isolated, the elderly die alone and the worship of God is forbidden in the public domain while you, disciples of the “new humanism” of Vatican II, apostles of justice and peace, defenders of the poor and marginalised, remain conspicuously silent, your only utterances being to echo the fallacious “Build Back Better” doctrine of the Socialist despots responsible for such evil.
You of all people should know that the only way to “Build Back Better” in this troubled world is to restore all things in Christ, whose universal Kingship must be re-established everywhere, not least in the hearts of men, particularly men of the Church: For as Pius IX declared in Quas Primas: “…as long as individuals and states refuse to submit to the rule of Our Saviour, there is no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ…”
Alas, this is not the sound doctrine you preach by your indifferentist “common home” vision of a world in which all religions and none collaborate in the creation of some future mythical paradise on earth, as though this place were not after all a temporary exile and a valley of tears to be traversed in the hope of one day arriving at our true eternal home in heaven.
The faithful need to see an end to this destructive Vatican II experiment and the cowardice it has engendered in the Shepherds of Christ’s flock. Our Lord did not come into this world as a hippie to found a commune of earth worshippers and appeasers, He came to found His Catholic Church by His own precious blood for the salvation of souls, outside of which, declares the infallible dogma, there is no salvation.
Why do you no longer preach this divine truth, this certain reality? Is it because, like the ancient Latin Mass of the saints and martyrs, the kneeling to receive Our Lord on the tongue at Holy Communion, sermons on the four last things – death, judgment, heaven and Hell – and so many other holy traditional Catholic beliefs and practices handed down, it represents an inconvenient barrier to the new humanism of that so-called pastoral Council?
You need to open your spiritual eyes and see the devastation this new orientation of Vatican II has visited upon Our Lord’s holy Church, which you have helped reduce to ruins over many years and which you now subject to the demands of inferior secular authorities, turning the House of God, a House of Faith, into a house of Covid fear and forbiddance.
You are the successors of the Apostles called by Our Lord to preach fearlessly, as they did, against sin and irreligion, the real plague that threatens humanity, not wring your hands over a respiratory virus that hardly compares with past deadly pandemics, and certainly not to the extent that requires your approval of vaccines produced from or tested with the stem cell lines of aborted babies, however remote in time.
Abortion, as you well know, is “a sin crying to heaven for vengeance”, to quote John Paul II. It is therefore unconscionable that the present Church hierarchy should approve of vaccines produced or tested using the stem cell lines of murdered innocents, applying sophistry to undermine divine moral teaching that forbids the reaping of benefits from evil acts.
There is quite sufficient sophistry at work right now in those peddling the Covid-19 crisis that never was, your duty as disciples of the Lord is to expose this with the truth, not participate in it to the further detriment of the worship of God and the common good of humanity.
Having read your response to the Scottish government’s latest January lockdown, your timidity was once again on full public display. Instead of using the divine authority invested in you by God to command and demand an end to this unprecedented and inhumane abuse of government power, your letter is best described as pusillanimous and embarrassing. It has to stop, for you are called to be Shepherds of souls and on that alone you will be most rigorously judged by the divine Judge.
In this regard I am reminded of the words of one brave prelate who, when persecuted by his confreres for defending the faith handed down from the poison of the conciliar new humanism, was asked why he acted as he did. His response is sobering:
“When I stand before my judge and He asks me what I did with my priesthood, I do not want to hear those terrible words “you have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them”.
Sobering words indeed, and well worthy of your serious reflection, as are the following concluding statements:
“I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.” (St. John Chrysostom, Extract from St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12).
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” (St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325).
Click here to read Martin’s previous letter to the Scottish Bishops.