Cockroaches Do Hate The Light

I wrote last week about the horrid "guidance" that Cardinal Wuerl gave to his priests and seminarians regarding Amoralis Lamentia - see here and here.  As you can see from the links, Church Militant picked up on it, too.  Usually the chancery ignores what we write, although I know for a fact that my postings are monitored.

In his own blog, Cardinal Wuerl doubled down on the errors of Amoralis Lamentia.  I cannot say the errors belong to Wuerl alone, for those errors are promulgated by many - including Pope Francis himself.  He speaks of "a small number of clergy and media supporters"..."challenging the integrity of..Amoris Laetitia".  I've no doubt that with this "small number of clergy" crack, that he's taking a swipe at Cardinal Burke and the other three cardinals for issuing their dubia.  Reminder - in issuing their dubia, the four cardinals seek not to undermine any papal teaching but to clarify it.  There are a number of bishops who now claim that those in adulterous situations can receive Holy Communion without bringing their lives into conformity with the clear, timeless teachings of Jesus Christ.

Notice how he speaks of "the determining role of individual conscience when assessing personal culpability before God and therefore before his Church."  Wrong.  An individual's conscience never trumps God's Holy Will as revealed through His Teachings in the Catholic Church.  If an individual commits sin while being aware that Jesus Christs forbids such actions, he/she is culpable, personal proclivities and inclinations notwithstanding.  He/she is bound by Canon 916 not to approach the Communion rail.  If the sin is manifest and grave, the minister of Holy Communion is bound by Canon 915 to deny that person Holy Communion, lest he be party to sacrilege.

Regrettably, the Vicar of Christ has advocated for such sacrilege to occur.  Recall the instruction that he gave to priests from his native Argentina.  A few days ago the pope joined the bandwagon, accusing us of (wait for it!)  "obeying all the commandments, all of them..this paralyzes you too".  Hmm.. I seem to recall in the Gospel of John where Jesus says, "he who loves me will obey my commandments".  But according to the pope, obedience will make us "forget so many graces received..it doesn't allow you to go forward".  Go forward?  Forward - to where?  Reminder - disobedience to God's commands - any of them - will cause the sinner to lose grace.

Cardinal Muller has rebuked such confusion.  He railed against those who use AL to "justify situations against the will of God".   He added, "adultery is always a mortal sin and the bishops who create confusion about this must study the doctrine of the Church".  He didn't mention the pope by name, but his meaning is clear.  I suspect there may soon be some personnel shake-ups at the CDF very soon.

We faithful Catholics need to pray and to educate ourselves regarding our Faith.  We certainly will get no solid education from too many of our chanceries.

So What If Abortion Ends Life?

Ladies and gentlemen, the pro-abortion advocates are no longer bothering with "pro-choice" and denying that the fetus really is a baby.  With the advent of 4-d ultrasound, how can they?  The title of my post is the title of an article that appears in "Salon".  It is written by Mary Elizabeth Williams

"Sacrificed for circumstances" - Still murder

Read it, for it clearly illustrates the complete arrogance and death of conscience that will occur to anyone who espouses the pro-baby-murder canard.  For instance, as she says of the relationship between mother and unborn child, "She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."  Those of us who have some recollection of history (and it is not the liberal who's been brainwashed by humanistic-driven public education) will recall that in the days of the ancient Roman empire, when a mother was in labor, there was a pan of water placed nearby.  If the child just born didn't suit the father for some reason, the infant was immediately drowned.  I daresay that most (even "pro-choice") would instinctively recoil in horror at the thought.  But how are the beliefs of that ancient Roman father any different from those voiced by Williams?  They aren't.  So in Williams' warped world-view, the little person can be ripped from limb to limb because he/she is not deemed "right for her (mother's) circumstances".

I won't pick apart the entire article lest this blog post become its own article.  She ends hers by acknowledging her "conviction that the fetus is indeed a life - a life worth sacrificing".  No, my dear.  One sacrifices only what is their own.  You do not own that baby; he/she is not your property.  Therefore, in that last sentence, "sacrifice" is more aptly rendered "murder".  That comes at an eternal price - namely the torments of hell.  Somehow I don't think hell would be right for anyone's "circumstances".