The Depressing Truth About The Pill

From the Spectator…

sadsilhouettedepressedwomanThe Pill has been linked to depression. Why isn’t this more of a scandal?

Because it is a sin to suggest that oral contraceptives may not be the greatest gift ever given to womankind

A study came out last week that should have caused great alarm. For 13 years, researchers at the University of Copenhagen studied more than a million women between the ages of 15 and 34 who were taking a type of drug — one that is popular in all developed countries. Taking this drug, the researchers found, correlated with an increase in the risk of depression. The correlation was particularly strong in adolescent girls, who showed an 80 per cent higher chance of being diagnosed with depression.

Usually when a story about women’s health and depression breaks, a phalanx of activists and campaigners pop up all over the media to ‘raise awareness’ of the issue. Last week, however, barely a peep — the papers carried the story and a few online sites ran delicately objective surveys of women on the pill, but there were few howls of outrage.  Read more here

Comment:

Perhaps the many Catholic women who have, sadly, opted to defy God’s natural moral law and take these dangerous pills will realise the error of their ways,  repent, and turn away from this sin once and for all.  Or are they more likely to continue on, with reckless disregard for their health – both mental and physical

 

USA: Will Donald Trump Hillary?

animatedflagusaThe Church has established Catholic principles of voting and we  have always been exhorted to use our vote carefully, but definitely to vote.  Click here to read a very good article on this subject.

However, note the following editorial update, September 2016:  

“…In the past 9 years since this article was penned by Fr. Peter Scott, the political landscape of the United States has degraded at an alarming rate. Democrats who claimed to uphold the sanctity of marriage at the time this article was written have now all but unanimously changed course. Even Republicans who, for the most part, could be counted on to provide basic Christian values, have begun to embrace these sins against nature, and many are supporting abortion under certain circumstances. It is in this current climate that we wish to explicitly clarify what Fr. Scott implied above – in a political contest or election where both / all candidates support objectively evil legislation, abstaining from the voting process, or leaving sections of a ballot blank, would be perfectly acceptable and even encouraged.

Comment:

How might an American Catholic use his/her vote in the forthcoming national Election, to avoid displeasing God?

WILL Donald Trump Hillary, or will the notoriously pro-abortion-up-to-birth Mrs Clinton trump Donald?

Is it unthinkable that any Catholic would vote for Hillary Clinton?  Indeed, is it possible for a conscientious Catholic to support either candidate?   

donaldtrumphillaryclinton

Church Militant aka Soldiers of Christ…

Featured Image

Catholics protest at Tim Kaine’s parish: If priest won’t ‘instruct parishioners’ on Church teaching, we will

RICHMOND, Virginia, August 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Roughly a dozen pro-life activists protested Sunday outside of pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine’s Catholic parish. 

“Sen. Kaine has failed in his duty as a Catholic public servant to defend the preborn and Fr. Arsenault has failed in his duty as pastor to admonish Sen. Kaine and to instruct the rest of his congregation on the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of human life,” Virginia pro-life activist Maggie Egger told LifeSiteNews in an email.

“I, along with a group of Catholics from various parishes around the Diocese of Richmond, went to St. Elizabeth’s yesterday to do what Sen. Kaine and Fr. Arsenault will not: defend our preborn brethren by exposing abortion as the decapitation and dismemberment of tiny human beings, instruct the parishioners of St. Elizabeth’s on the teachings of the Church, and inform them that Sen. Kaine publicly supports the decapitation and dismemberment of tiny human beings under the guise of being ‘personally pro-life,’” Egger said.

Kaine’s parish, St. Elizabeth Catholic Church, gave him a standing ovation at Mass after he became Hillary Clinton’s running mate. His pastor, Father Jim Arsenault, praised Kaine in an NPR interview.

“I know that he’s definitely against capital punishment and works to help defend those who are on death row,” Arsenault said. “The church has a teaching with regard to we’re pro-life, and we believe in that seamless garment of life. We respect sometimes lawmakers make difficult decisions.” Arsenault was commenting on how as governor of Virginia, Kaine oversaw several executions. The priest told NPR that he thought the issues most important to Kaine were women’s pay and “social justice issues.”

Frances Bouton, one of the event’s organizers, told LifeSiteNews that the protest didn’t disrupt Mass and the pro-life activists felt St. Elizabeth’s was an appropriate venue to protest given it was where Kaine was praised so heavily after becoming the Democratic vice presidential candidate. She said the protestors waited until the 9 a.m. Mass had begun and latecomers had arrived before setting up outside the church.

Most of the people at the Mass saw the anti-Kaine signs outside St. Elizabeth’s when Mass was over, Bouton said, but none of them spoke to the protestors.

“We understand that the priest had told his parishioners … not to talk to the media. We don’t know whether that also included … us,” she said.

“There were some people who stood at the top of the stairs and spent time reading our signs” after Mass, Bouton said. “Some of them took a long time to read the signs.”

The protestors’ message to St. Elizabeth’s was “by honoring Tim Kaine you are supporting all that he supports,” Bouton said.

Kaine touts his Catholic faith and Jesuit education but supports abortion and same-sex “marriage.” As governor of Virginia, Kaine opposed partial-birth abortion and authorized the state’s “Choose Life” license plate option. Nevertheless, “I don’t think ultimately we ought to be criminalizing abortion,” he said at the time, and maintained his support for abortion as governor.

But once he became a U.S. Senator, the role of Kaine’s “personally pro-life” views in his politics became nonexistent.

Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 percent rating for his time in the Senate, when he has supported the abortion giant. NARAL Pro-Choice America also gives him a 100 percent for his time in the Senate. Kaine co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill to undermine pro-life laws across the country.

Upon announcing Kaine as Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential candidate, the Clinton campaign immediately said Kaine had decided to support taxpayer-funded abortion in order to assume that role. Several days later, Kaine denied doing so

Kaine said he has become “comfortable with the notion that I can have my personal views but I’m going to support the president of the United States — and I will.”

“In this Jubilee Year of Mercy, Catholics and people of good will are called to perform acts of mercy,” the protestors said in a press release. “In the Catholic Church, we are given specific corporal and spiritual works of mercy — seven of each.  The corporal works include feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and burying the dead.  But it is two spiritual works of mercy [that] we hope to perform in front of St. Elizabeth’s Church — admonishing the sinner and instructing the ignorant.”

There are a lot of “low-information Catholics” who “just haven’t been [properly] catechized,” Bouton said, and when “they don’t see bishops” calling out pro-abortion politicians, they are led to believe one can separate faith and public actions as a politician. “In this particular circumstance,” it’s a scandal that Kaine’s priest is praising him, Bouton said, and this can lead to further confusion.

Richmond Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo has said Catholics have a duty to determine their worthiness to receive Holy Communion “through an upright and informed conscience.” He has not ordered priests in his diocese to stop admitting Kaine to Holy Communion.

Canon 915 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law instructs that those “persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

“No parishioners talked to us … a few took pictures,” Egger said. “And when Fr. Arsenault was asked a question on his way past us to the rectory, he wouldn’t even look up at us.”  Click here to read the original Lifesitenews report with more photos of the group…

Comment:

WOW!  Now, those are Catholics, Confirmed Soldiers of Christ! 

Shouldn’t we be doing this sort of thing in Scotland and the wider UK? We’ve tried the letter-writing, we’ve tried petitions to enforce Canon 915, we’ve done the hand-wringing all round; nothing has worked. Would direct action make any difference – didn’t seem to make any difference to the priest in the above parish or his parishioners, let alone the bishop. Dead consciences. Still, it is, is it not, the sort of “in your face” militancy that just might hit home on our turf, if only because the clergy and hierarchy hate adverse publicity.  To be exposed as negligent, with “Canon 915” screaming forth from posters, just might have an impact.  Certainly, on the few occasions when we have publicly gathered a few faithful to protest (e.g. when St Patrick’s church in Glasgow was handed over to Buddhists for a concert) we felt that, at least, we had alerted those with open minds and hearts to the scandalous nature of the event.

Time to do more of this, perhaps close to elections – to name and shame the pro-abortion “Catholic” MPs/MSPs?  

Ideally, of course, it shouldn’t be left to us; we would be happy to follow the lead of the pro-life groups but they tend not to like this sort of thing.  A tad distasteful, although not half as distasteful as the sight of a murdered baby in a stainless steel dish, or the sight of the “Catholic” legislators responsible lining up in the Communion queue on Sundays.

So, ought we to consider following the example of these American cousins of ours? What thinkest thou, folks?

Crackers in Kraków – World Youth Day

From the Fatima Center website…

By the time you read this column, World Youth Day 2016 will have commenced in Kraków. Another WYD, another massive waste of time and resources by a supposedly ecologically sensitive pontiff, who will expend tens of millions of dollars of Peter’s Pence on the huge “carbon footprint” of this useless, jet-set junket. The cheering mob will have its fun, including campouts of both sexes together and blaring rock music.  There will, of course, be the “papal Mass” replete with “sacred music” that will include a pop score (with electric guitar and drum set) and preening performers, hamming it up in front of the cameras with their out-of-control vibratos.  (See, for example, John Vennari’s report on WYD 2013.) 

wydkrakow

And no WYD would be complete without frenzied idolization of the person of the Pope — the ultimate celebrity. And Francis will soak it all up just the way his predecessor, John Paul II, did.  Indeed, John Paul was the very inventor of “the Catholic Woodstock.”  Here I am reminded of this description of John Paul II’s reaction to the crowd at World Youth Day 2000, which I cited some thirteen years ago in The Great Façade (p. 289):

As Pope John Paul II looked out at the vast throng of joyful youth, hearing their shouts of “Viva il Papa” and “Giovanni Paulo” and “JP II, we love you!” ringing in the air — everywhere they gathered with the Holy Father — no wonder he wiped tears from his eyes, swayed with the young as they sang, waved his arms in the air, and let a glorious smile break through, again and again. Here he saw, before his very eyes, the fulfillment of the words of Vatican II to the young, in its blossoming and growth [since the first World Youth Day, over 15 years ago].

What I wrote then applies with equal force today: “An ephemeral outpouring of mass sentiment from a boisterous crowd is ‘the fulfillment of the words of Vatican II.’  The crowd sways.  The Pope sways with them.  All is well. The phenomenon of feelings is the triumph of Vatican II. All empirical evidence of the actual condition of the Church is ignored in favor of a phenomenal event.”

The phrase “bread and circuses” — Panem et Circenses— originated with the poet Juvenal, writing his satires around 100 A.D., when the Roman Empire, seemingly at its height, was already rotting from within: “the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:bread and circuses.”  WYD and other mass papal events are the bread and circuses of the collapsing Novus Ordo Empire — distractions that hide the underlying reality of decay.

The “spirit of Vatican II” supposedly manifested at the World Youth Days is actually a delusion of grandeur preceding a great fall.   It is a delusion in the form of what the imaginary “renewal” of the Church really involves: the triumph of the love of novelty over the zealous guarding of Tradition, of emotionalism over right reason, of mere enthusiasm over sober piety, of boundless tolerance over the divine intolerance of sin and error, of the profane over the sacred in worship, and now, with Francis, of false “mercy” over the truth that makes us free.

Mourn indeed over what the Church’s deluded leaders have done to her. But rejoice as well at the certainty of her ultimate deliverance from their hands.  Take consolation in the immortal words of Saint Athanasius at a time (during the Arian heresy of the 4th century) when almost the whole Church, from the Pope on down, was similarly afflicted by temporary insanity:

May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith….

You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

The triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will mean the fall of the Novus Ordo Empire of worthless novelty.  The signs of its final collapse are already obvious.  Its end cannot be long in coming, even if many of us may not live to see it.  Source

Comment

Personally, I think these World Youth Days are always totally crackers, because the young people who’ve been interviewed at past events have made clear that they’re not at all accepting of the teaching of the Church on the same moral issues that the rest of the world rejects. I doubt if Polish youth are much different from their peers across the globe.  Thus, in my humble opinion, there doesn’t seem to be any point in having these days for youth, especially since the youngsters attending are not being taken forward in the Faith.  On the contrary, they’ve been encouraged to question and challenge Christ’s Church by the very person – Pope Francis – who should be warning them of the spiritual danger of rejecting divinely revealed truths on religion and morals. It’s been crackers all over the world, but now it’s crackers in Kraków. I’m bracing myself for more papal “advice” to the young in the next few days. What about you?  

Will UK Leaving EU Lead To Restoration Of The Reign of Christ The King?

Blogger, Westminster Fly offers the following prayer, in the light of the EU LEAVE vote, predominately in England: 

Prayer to Royal St Joseph for the restoration of England, Mary’s Dowry

St Joseph, advocate of the dying and the sinner, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

St Joseph, advocate of the dying and the sinner, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

Royal St Joseph, chosen by God the Father to be His Son’s earthly Father. Look down upon England, Mary’s Dowry. See the House of Nazareth is broken.

Do not look upon this poor sinner and turn away, but through your most powerful intercession, take your heavenly tools and rebuild your Spouse’s House and give it back to Her more resplendent than it was before.

Restore to the Mother of God what is rightfully Hers, so England may once again be a light to the Nations, where Christ the King reigns over us, and His Mother is seated at His right Hand as Our Immaculate Queen.

Christ The King2

Christ The King


Glory Be. O Christ the King, reign over us. Glory Be. O Mary, Immaculate Queen, intercede for us. Glory Be. O Royal St Joseph, hear us through our Guardian Angel. Amen.  

                                                                                                 With ecclesiastical approval.

 

 

Comment:

In his resignation announcement this morning, David Cameron, UK Prime Minister, listed his promotion of same-sex marriage legislation among the achievements of his Government.  

Is it likely, then, that his successor will be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of [Catholic] England, Mary’s Dowry – i.e.  the restoration of the reign of Christ The King –  or will life continue much as before in an independent England/UK? 

Amoris Laetitia Must Be Withdrawn

ChrisFerrara

Christopher Ferrara

Below, an Open Letter to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, written by The Remnant columnist Christopher Ferrara  He concludes: “Is it enough to call, as you do, for “an authentic interpretation of AL by the Apostolic See” that would reaffirm Familiaris consortio 84 and the bi-millennial sacramental discipline it defends? Is it not perfectly clear that such an authentic interpretation is precisely what AL was devised to preclude, and that therefore it will never be forthcoming during this pontificate (barring a miraculous turn of events)? And, finally, is it not also perfectly clear that the problems with AL go far beyond the ecclesial status of the divorced and “remarried” to an attack on the very foundations of the objective moral order, rhetorically reduced to a set of rules from which an actor may be excused in “certain cases”?  End of extract.

Amen to that Christopher. It seems to me that it is not enough for Pope Francis to provide some sort of “clarification” of Amoris Laetitia. It should be scrapped. Withdrawn. Immediately if not sooner.  Note, too, Mr Ferrara’s criticism of the rest of the hierarchy who have largely remained silent in the wake of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation.  Is he right – should more bishops follow the example of Bishop Schneider in be speaking out? Remember, we know that our very own Archbishop Philip Tartaglia expressed disquiet after the Synod “Part One” when he indicated that he may not BE archbishop if the 2015 synod continued in the same vein. Yet, he has remained silent following the publication of the post-synodal Exhortation, which, by any Catholic measure, is deeply flawed, to say the least.  Anyway, read the Open Letter below and then share your thoughts… 

Open Letter to Bishop Athanasius Schneider…

Your Excellency:

To your everlasting credit, but to the Church’s everlasting shame, you alone among the entire Catholic episcopacy have protested publicly and forthrightly against the many statements in Amoris Laetitia (AL), particularly in Chapter 8, which appear to derogate from the negative precepts of the natural law, including those against divorce, adultery and fornication. By the divine will, these precepts, as Your Excellency writes, “are universally valid… oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance” and “forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception” because they concern “kinds of behaviour which can never, in any situation, be a proper response.”

 Yet there is no question that AL was written ambiguously, but with relentless consistency, precisely to create the impression of “exceptions” to absolute moral precepts which the document tendentiously describes throughout its text as merely “general rules (2, 300, 304)”, a “general principle,” “rules (3, 35, 288)”, “a set of rules” (49, 201, 305)”, “a rule (300, 301, 304)”, “the rule (301 & note 348)”, “a general rule (301)” and “a general law or rule (301).”

Bishop Schneider

Bishop Schneider

As Your Excellency has doubtless discerned, AL’s reduction of the moral law to a “general rule” is the rhetorical device by which “exceptions” to the rule are introduced in “certain cases” involving what AL euphemistically describes as an “irregular union” or “irregular situations” (78, 298, 301, 305 & note 351)—meaning, of course, those who “are divorced and remarried, or simply living together (297)” in a state of continuing public adultery or simple fornication.

At the same time it reduces the moral law to a “set of rules” to which there can be practical exceptions—as with any mere rule—AL also demotes the indissolubility of marriage from its divinely ordained status as the universally binding, exceptionless moral foundation for conjugal relations to merely an “ideal (36), “a demanding ideal (38),” “the ideal (298, 303)”, “this ideal (292)”, “the ideal of growing old together (39),” “the Christian ideal (119, 297)”, “a struggle to achieve an ideal (148)”, “the ideal of marriage (157)”, “the high ideal (200)”, “the beautiful ideal (230)”, “the full ideal (307)”, “the fuller ideal (307)”, and “the evangelical ideal (308).”

Having reduced marriage to a mere ideal, AL dares to suggest that certain sexually immoral unions can “realize it in at least a partial and analogous way” and that they possess “constructive elements (298).” AL even goes so far as to declare that a “second union”—meaning a relationship Our Lord Himself condemned as adultery—can exhibit “proven fidelity, generous self giving, [and] Christian commitment… (298).” AL thus obscures, indeed seeks to eliminate, the sense of divine moral reprobation of the adulterous character of nonexistent “second marriages.”

Even the teaching of the very Pope that Francis canonized is subjected to a devious reductionism. In line with all of Tradition, John Paul II affirmed in Familiaris consortio that the divorced and “remarried” cannot be admitted to the sacraments without a commitment to abstain from further adulterous relations: “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples” (Familiaris Consortio, 84). 

Yet, as Your Excellency rightly objects, AL systematically omits any reference to John Paul’s affirmation of the Church’s constant teaching in this regard. Rather, AL relegates it to a footnote wherein an absolute moral imperative is falsely presented as the mere “possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers.” In the same footnote even this gross misrepresentation of the authentic Magisterium is undermined by the suggestion (based in turn on a flagrantly misleading quotation of Gaudium et spes) that “In such situations, many people… point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.’” As if “intimacy” were morally required to ensure “faithfulness” to a partner in adultery!

Finally, in a summary statement that should alone suffice to cover this tragic document with opprobrium until the end of time, AL declares that even those who know full well “the rule” and “the ideal” can nonetheless be justified in their deliberate decision not to conform their actions to the moral law, and that God Himself would approve of this disobedience to His Commandments in “the concrete complexity” of one’s situation:

Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response that can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. (303)

This statement, reflecting the entire tenor of the document, is obviously nothing less than a license for the “pastoral” exoneration of habitual public adultery or cohabitation based on the subjective self-assessment of objective mortal sinners. These people would then be admitted to the sacraments, without a prior amendment of life, in “certain cases,” following a local priest’s “pastoral discernment filled with merciful love, which is ever ready to understand, forgive, accompany, hope, and above all integrate (312)” people living in immoral sexual unions. (Cf. 305 & note 351).

Your Excellency notes with due alarm that in the wake of AL’s promulgation “There are bishops and priests who publicly and openly declare that AL represents a very clear opening-up to communion for the divorced and remarried, without requiring them to practice continence.” And, as you rightly observe: “It must be admitted that certain statements in AL could be used to justify an abusive practice that has already been going on for some time in various places and circumstances in the life of the Church.”

Indeed, Your Excellency’s conclusion is inescapable. Also inescapable are the consequences, which you yourself enumerate and we summarize here:

– the Sixth Commandment would no longer be universally binding; 

– the very words of Christ would not apply to everyone in every situation; 

– one could be allowed to receive Holy Communion with every intention of continuing to violate the Commandments; 

– observance of the Commandments would become merely theoretical, with people piously professing belief in the “theory” as they violate God’s law in practice; 

– all other forms of permanent and public disobedience to the Commandments could likewise be justified on account of “mitigating circumstances”; 

– the infallible moral teaching of the Magisterium would no longer be universally valid; 

– observance of the Sixth Commandment in Christian marriage would become a mere ideal attainable only by “a kind of elite”; 

– the very words of Christ enjoining an uncompromising obedience to the commandments of God—that is, the carrying of the Cross in this life— “would no longer be valid as absolute truth.”

Yet your fellow prelates now observe an all but universal silence in the face of this “catastrophe.” Only Your Excellency courageously declares before the world that “Admitting couples living in ‘irregular unions’ to Holy Communion and allowing them to practice acts that are reserved for spouses in a valid marriage would be tantamount to the usurpation of a power that does not belong to any human authority, because to do so would be a pretension to correct the Word of God himself.”

Among more than 5,000 bishops and more than 200 cardinals, Your Excellency stands alone in protesting publicly the unthinkable abuses to which this disgraceful document—utterly without precedent in the bi-millennial history of the papacy—undeniably lends itself. Even the few among your fellow prelates who have addressed the crisis AL has provoked have tried to deny its clear intendment, so evident in Chapter 8. They propose emasculating “interpretations” in “continuity with the Magisterium” amounting to virtually the opposite of what AL’s most problematic passages assert repeatedly in different ways.

But as the eminent French theologian Father Claude Barthe observedimmediately after AL’s publication: “I honestly do not see how one could interpret Chapter 8 of the Exhortation in the sense of traditional doctrine. It would do violence to the text and wouldn’t respect the intention of the compilers…” Likewise, the renowned Catholic philosopher Robert Spaemann, an advisor to John Paul II and a friend of Benedict XVI, replied thuswhen asked if AL represents a breach with prior teaching: “That it is an issue of a breach emerges doubtlessly for every thinking person, who knows the respective texts.”

Others among your brethren, unwilling to deny the obvious, have seriously proposed that Francis has promulgated nothing more than inconsequential “personal reflections” he does not expect anyone to heed. But even this objection focuses on formalities such as tone and style, rather than admitting openly that AL cannot belong to the Magisterium for the simple reason that its assertions, given the meaning of words according to their ordinary signification, cannot be reconciled with the Church’s authentic teaching on marriage and sexual morality.

None of these timid objectors among the hierarchy seem willing to recognize the almost apocalyptic aspect of a papal document wherein the moral law is depicted as a “general rule,” Holy Matrimony is reduced to “an ideal,” and the sacred pastors of the Church are told that “a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives (305).” This is not the language of Our Lord and His Gospel, but rather a kind of demagogic incantation that seems to fulfill Saint Paul’s prophecy of a time when the people “will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables (2 Tim 4: 3-5).”

Aside from Your Excellency and a few courageous priests, only the laity have exhibited anything approaching the vigorous opposition which this scandalous “apostolic exhortation” demands from every member of the Church. In this regard, Your Excellency remarks on the parallel between our situation and the Arian crisis of the 4th century, when “almost the entire episcopate had become Arian or Semi-Arian.” Pope Liberius excommunicated your namesake St. Athanasius, and the Pope himself “signed one of the ambiguous formulations of Sirmium, in which the term ‘homoousios’ [of one substance] was eliminated.” You also note that “St. Hilary of Poitiers was the only bishop who dared to rebuke Pope Liberius severely for these ambiguous acts.”

The parallel with your own courageous witness against the “ambiguous formulations” of AL is lost on no one who has any sense of Catholic history. As you write: “Arguably, in our time, confusion is already spreading with regard to the sacramental discipline for divorced and remarried couples.” Hence, you conclude, the teaching of John Paul II in Familiaris consortio 84—totally suppressed in AL’s 256 pages, as it was throughout the years-long “synodal journey”— “may be seen, to some extent, as the ‘homoousios’ of our days’.”

In light of these considerations, however, we must in candor raise these questions for Your Excellency’s consideration: Is it enough to call, as you do, for “an authentic interpretation of AL by the Apostolic See” that would reaffirm Familiaris consortio 84 and the bi-millennial sacramental discipline it defends? Is it not perfectly clear that such an authentic interpretation is precisely what AL was devised to preclude, and that therefore it will never be forthcoming during this pontificate (barring a miraculous turn of events)? And, finally, is it not also perfectly clear that the problems with AL go far beyond the ecclesial status of the divorced and “remarried” to an attack on the very foundations of the objective moral order, rhetorically reduced to a set of rules from which an actor may be excused in “certain cases”?

For all these reasons, we implore Your Excellency to do everything in his power to persuade his brethren in the episcopacy—above all the cardinals, who are bound by oath to lay down their lives for defense of the Faith—to mount concerted and decisive public opposition to the destructive novelties of Amoris laetitia, explicitly identifying them as such, warning the faithful against them, and respectfully petitioning the Pope for their immediate correction or the total withdrawal of the catastrophic text.

As Prof. Spaemann has said: “Every cardinal, but also every bishop and priest, is called to defend, in their own field of expertise, the Catholic sacramental system and to profess it publicly. If the Pope is not willing to introduce corrections, it will be up to the next pontificate to put things back in place officially.” Meanwhile, however, we humbly submit to Your Excellency that this shameful silence of the hierarchs must end for the good of the Church and the welfare of souls. For as Sister Lucia of Fatima warned Cardinal Caffarra, one of the few staunch opponents of the progressive faction (and thus Francis himself) during the Synod: “the final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family.”

The final battle is surely underway. And woe to the shepherds who leave the sheep to defend themselves in its midst.
In Christo Rege,

Christopher A. Ferrara  Source – The Remnant Newspaper 

NOT a Catholic Truth discussion - no way!

NOT a Catholic Truth discussion – no way!