Bishop Kissy-Face: "Refusal To Use Condoms Contradicts Demands Of Charity"

Remember!  He is now head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Here is prima facie evidence of him proclaiming heresy against Catholic morality.  To insinuate that the refusal to commit an act that is inherently sinful "contradicts charity" speaks of fundamental rebellion against Sacred Tradition and the God Who authored it. 

In a 2006 article, written as vice-dean of the Catholic University of Argentina theology faculty, #PopeFrancis’s new doctrinal chief, Archbishop Víctor Fernández, argued that a woman’s “inflexible refusal to use condoms” could, in some cases, contradict the demands of charity.

In a 2006 article, written as vice-dean of the Catholic University of Argentina theology faculty, #PopeFrancis’s new doctrinal chief, Archbishop Víctor Fernández, argued that a woman’s “inflexible refusal to use condoms” could, in some cases, contradict the demands of charity. 👇 pic.twitter.com/C8Thtq9pjx

— Diane Montagna (@dianemontagna) July 7, 2023

H/T - Canon 212 

Yikes! More Papal Bombs From A Plane Interview!

I'm beginning to wonder about the composition of the air that is pumped into the plane cabin while Pope Francis jets around, for gaffes and errors abound each time.  These occurred today as he was en route from Africa to Rome and gave yet another debacle interview.

He took the occasion to rail against "fundamentalist Catholics".  Let's look at the word "fundamental", shall we?  From the Oxford dictionary we see that the word can be either noun or adjective.  The "noun" definition is: "a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based".  The "adjective" definition is: "forming a necessary base or core; of central importance".   Merriam-Webster defines "fundamental" as "serving as an original or generating source; serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function".

I'm not sure just why the pope is using the word "fundamentalist" as a de facto insult.  He means it to be condescending - but is it really?  Using the definitions of the dictionaries as stated above, the "fundamentalist Catholic" hearkens back to the Teachings of Jesus Christ and the mission that He gave to the Church: to save souls.  The "fundamentalist Catholic" understands that God's laws of life and morality must be obeyed and that no measure of "social justice" can ever supplant these basic tenants.  The "fundamentalist Catholic" understands the inherent immorality and atheism that underlies socialism and will eschew any social novelties that only serve to make socialism more palatable to the public.  He/she will cut through any obfuscation of Catholic doctrine, no matter how artfully constructed such obfuscation might be and no matter how camouflaged it may be with items that may be good or pleasing in themselves.

He erroneously equated "fundamentalist Catholics" with "fundamentalist muslims".  Consider that the latter go back to the basics of their doctrines, that is, the Quran.  Therein lies their fundamental precepts for jihad, for "killing the infidel", etc.  The fundamentals of Catholicism and the fundamentals of Islam are by no means equivalent.  Ironically the muslims understand that point more clearly than does the Vicar of Christ.

Then the topic of condoms was broached, particularly as a strategy for dealing with AIDS.  Here the pope's brain-train really jumped the rails.  His thoughts seem to be an indecipherable mish-mash of ideas grasped out of thin air with no unifying principle.  All in all, he seemed to forget that one may not do evil that good may come of it.  Condoms block the sexual act from their procreative purpose; the use of them is always inherently evil.  That's one key reason why his "healing on the Sabbath" quote doesn't logically follow, for healing as the Lord did is not inherently evil.

But he immediately says that is a "small wound", with the "serious wounds" being the whole litany of "social gospel" topics: arms trade, environment, etc.  Now we can see why the pope railed against the "fundamental Catholics" for they understand that contraceptive sex - and sex outside of marriage - unleashes untold evils that really do dwarf "arms trades" and others in terms of destructive effects.

He also spoke of the UN climate conference that is getting underway in Paris.  He said it is most likely humanity's last chance to thwart global environmental disaster, stating that the world was "at the limits of suicide".  He complained about "retreating glaciers", when in fact the opposite is occurring!

However, there are serious environmental concerns revealed during this interview, but as mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the real environmental crisis is inside the planes in which the pope gives these horrendous interviews.

Condoms Put To Good Use!

Well, whaddya know?  They're good for something, after all!

Keep Them On!

They're better than condoms - and approved by the Church!  Click here if you can't see embedded video.



For more, go to http://www.iheartpants.org/

Catholic Standard Botches Teaching On Condoms

In today's edition of the Catholic Standard, we see a Catholic News Service article, written about the Pope's recent remarks, that itself errs regarding contraception within marriage.  Yes, it was written by the CNS, but the Standard should have been responsible enough to edit out the error or decline publishing the piece.  Hence they're just as responsible for this promulgation of error.

The erroneous teaching is encapsulated in this paragraph:
"For years, in fact, Vatican officials and theologians have studied the morality of condom use to reduce the risk of AIDS. The Vatican has never proclaimed a "ban" on condom use in AIDS prevention; on the contrary, some Vatican theologians and officials have argued that for married couples in which one partner is HIV-infected, use of condoms could be a moral responsibility."

That's not correct.  Within the context of marriage, condoms can never be used as they will frustrate the procreative aspect of the marital act, regardless of the intent of the spouses.  What is correct to say is that the Church says nothing about the use of condoms outside of marriage, because outside of marriage between one man and one woman, sexual relations are already immoral.

The above quote is attributed to unnamed "Vatican officials and theologians".  Both CNS and the Standard should have taken the extra step to remind readers that such opinions are at serious variance with the Magisterium.  Perhaps they were merely taking cue from Cardinal McCarrick who, in May 2009, similarly and equally erroneously condoned such condom usage.

Breaking - Pope To Canonize Darth Vader

Of course the headline is ludicrous.  Equally ludicrous is the notion that the Holy Father has ever given the green light to condom usage.  Read this analogy from Inside Catholic.

For a more in-depth analysis at what might have contributed to the unnecessary (and mainstream-media-contrived) hubbub, please read this piece by Father Joseph Fessio, as posted by my colleague Last Papist Standing.  He delves into some of the translation issues.  During that interview, the Pope was apparently speaking in his native German.  Then it was translated into Italian and then English.  He also delves into matters of moral philosophy.  That is an area in which my knowledge is quite weak, and I daresay that is the case for even many good Catholics today (back when schools actually taught the Faith and didn't play with "gender-blind housing", Catholics actually knew their faith, but that is its own rant).

Some of my friends are quite flummoxed over this matter.  I think this is a result of being so hurt and frustrated at the very real betrayals inflicted by so many of our bishops.  However, I beg you all to calm your frayed nerves and read these posts.  Janet Smith did an excellent job; I linked to her last Sunday and I suggest another look at that.

More On Condom Flap

As I posted a few days ago, the Holy Father, in an interview, remarked that a male prostitute's usage of condoms might be a sign of some awakening sense of awareness of the harm of his lifestyle.  Naturally, the mainstream media, dominated by atheistic progressives, glommed onto this tiny excerpt from his interview and distorted its meaning, to extrapolate from it the notion that the Holy Father favors condom use in the act of sodomy.  Common sense rules against such extrapolation of meaning.  In all fairness to the mainstream media, though, some well-meaning Catholics have been likewise hoodwinked.  Author Randy Engel appears to be one of those so deceived.  My friend at Les Femmes published Engel's statement, so I need not reproduce it here.  I will quote the opening sentence, "Having woken this morning, as if from a bad dream, to the reality of Benedict XVI's remarks in favor of condom use for male prostitutes engaging in sodomy,"   Where, oh where, in that interview did the Holy Father ever say that he's "in favor of condom use"?  I can't find it either.  He simply stated a possibility of what said usage might signify in the mind of the hypothetical male prostitute. 

To take that simple statement and misinterpret that as approval of condom usage is, quite frankly, ridiculous.  I realize there's lament that this statement is fodder for misinterpretation.  However, in the eyes of the mainstream media, anything the Holy Father says is fair game for misconstruing.  So what???  That's where we of the alternative media come in!  The mainstream media, in making these wild-eyed statements, have effectively slandered the Holy Father.  No big surprise there, as such is par for the course with them.  But - will we fall into the same trap by believing the Holy Father is making allowances for condom usage?  Read the interview again, because the context clearly indicates that he isn't!

I'd like now to profide some additional input from some other.  Here is Judie Brown's statement.  The article that I cited yesterday, published by Renew America, was by HLI America's executive director, Jenn Giroux.  Today Michael Voris of the Vortex weighed in.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

The Pseudo-Condom Conundrum

All the liberal press and progressive media are in a state of ecstatic elation over what they think is a major capitulation on the part of the Holy Father regarding the usage of condoms.  As is to be suspected, some remarks of his were clearly taken out of context (perhaps deliberately) so that the libertines of our culture could further justify their perverted lusts.  They're all atwitter over alleged acknowledgement of the use of condoms by male prostitutes.

Catholic World Report gives the complete context of the Pope's remarks, which were really a small part of an interview that he granted.  I'll quote below from Chapter 11 of "Light of the World", also found on Catholic World Report.

The Pope - "This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.  There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."
Seewald - "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"
The Pope - "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

My!  Isn't it enlightening to read things in their true context?  What I put in bold above is the tiny fraction that the progressives are blowing out of proportion.  He isn't justifying the use of condoms at all; he merely sees its use as an acknowledgement of the dangers of sodomy. 

As an analogous situation, I am reminded of a certain abortionist's story of how she left the lifestyle of an abortionist to become a committed Christian.  For her, the journey began slowly.  She was confronted with an underage girl who wanted an abortion at one of her mills.  At that time, grace was beginning to work in her and she was uneasy with this young lady patronizing her business.  She pulled the young girl into her office and told her that she didn't think abortion was in her best interests.  Everett did not allow that abortion to occur.  Now to be sure, this woman allowed other abortions to occur that day.  However, as she began taking these sorts of "first steps" about which the Pope spoke, the light shone ever more brightly and she left the abortion business altogether.  The one act of stopping the young girl's abortion was not a justification for the abortions that occurred.  The (now former) abortionist didn't practice virtue on that occasion; she refrained from sin and committing more damage.  It would have been no solution to continue in the abortion business.  What the Pope said is that condoms are no solution, but may be a manifestation of an awareness of the inherent harm of the gay lifestyle.

For more detailed clarification, and another analogy, see this article from Renew America.

Condoms to Prevent AIDS?

Remember several years ago when Cardinal McCarrick opined that the usage of condoms for that purpose may be permissable?  Read what Dr. William May has to say on the topic.

Catholic Media Stands Up to Knox, the Messiah's Anti-Catholic Lackey

Harry Knox, who serves (using the word loosely) on Obama's faith-based advisory council, has shown himself to be quite the anti-Catholic bigot.  Here I must make clear that he rails against Catholics who adhere to the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals, especially in terms of the life issues; I'm sure that with Mr. Knox, "Catholics" such as Pelosi and Biden are acceptable.

 

When the Pope rightly stated that condoms would only exacerbate the AIDS situation, Knox, in his official capacity, opined that he was "hurting people in the name of Jesus".  Now can you just imagine the uproar if Knox had slandered a Moslem or Jew in that manner?  But hey, we're living in the NEW AGE!

 

The Saint Michael Society has started a petition to ask Obama to demand Knox's resignation, stating quite rightly that no bigot has any place in a Presidential administration.  On Hannity's America a few nights ago, Brent Bozell of Media Research Center and Tom Peters of American Papist commented on this matter.  Watch the video below.

 

In this discourse, Peters states quite correctly that "the last acceptable prejudice is anti-Catholicism".  He's quite right.  Now pardon my french here, but in this so-called "new age", we Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium are the Niggers of the New Age!  Others who might be so classified are others who hold pro-life and conservative values.

These next two statements of mine will probably not endear me to too many people, but say them I will.

1. I have made no secret of my displeasure regarding the Manhattan Declaration and the way it completely tap-dances around the matter of contraception.  Clearly there were those who, during the drafting of this thing, were actively militating against any mention of contraception.  In this isolated matter, could their attitudes have been that much different than those of Knox?
2. This "office of faith-based initiative", or whatever it's named, was the brainchild of President George W. Bush.  It was meant to bring faith-based charities together and to give them federal aid.  I immediately saw that there was no constitutional basis for it and made my opposition to it known quite loudly.  Some of my pro-life friends disagreed, saying that Bush had a good idea to help out Christian charities.  I again reiterated that the US Constitution did not permit such governmental meddling.  I also pointed out that under a relatively benign president (such as Bush) there might appear to be no problem, but an infrastructure was being established that had potential for grreat harm, should someone more malevolent assume the Presidental helm.  Well, guess what?  Those chickens have come home to roost.  I agree that Knox should leave that office.  But then the office should be permanently abolished because there is no constitutional basis for it.