President Of Pontifical Academy For Life Blasphemes By Justifying Murder

Most of us veterans of the pro-life movement, particularly those of us who have gone "toe-to-toe" with deathscorts and other proabortion people will recognize a familiar ring to this phrase: "Personally I would not practice assisted suicide, but I understand that legal mediation can constitute the greatest common good that is concretely possible in the conditions in which we find ourselves."

Yes, it is another version of "personally I oppose abortion, but won't stand in the way of others to do so and won't judge their situations".  Maryland's former US representative Connie Morella used to chirp that pabulum regularly as she voted for every pro-abortion measure that came her way, and even co-sponsored (along with Chuck Schumer) the FACE act.

This nonsense was recently uttered by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia.  Recall several years ago, he commissioned a gay artist to paint a blasphemous mural in his cathedral church in the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia.  All the people in the picture, including Our Lord Himself, are portrayed as gays, in homo-erotic poses.  One of the people portrayed is an unmistakable depiction of Paglia himself, complete with zucchetto.

Early on in his papacy, Francis revamped the Pontifical Academy for Life by ejecting all the solidly pro-life membership of that body and replacing them with those of lesser qualifications.  Some of them have shown themselves to be pro-abortion.  This academy is chaired by Paglia.

Here is the full text, translated into English by Google.  There is quite a bit of error here to unpack.  Right in the first paragraph is a whopper: "There is a mutual learning relationship between believers and non-believers."  When it comes to matters of faith and morals, nothing could be further from the truth.  The Church possesses the fullness of truth through Divine Revelation.  To imply that there is some kind of equality between the revelations from God Himself versus what mere man can dredge up is to blaspheme against Divine Revelation.  Mind you, this is a bishop uttering this garbage.

He then says, "due to the maturation (?) of reflection on rights, the pope has modified the Catechism".  I've no doubt that Paglia alludes to Francis' mangling of the catechism with respect to capital punishment.  I stated years ago that the twisting of that teaching would lead to other matters being similarly mangled, and I am proven correct on that score.

Then he goes on to say, "it cannot be excluded that in our society a legal mediation is feasible which allows assisted suicide in the conditions specified by the Constitutional Court's judgment 242/2019".  Let's stop right there and unpack this.  It is never "feasible" to violate God's Fifth Commandment and commit murder.  No "constitutional court's judgment" trumps the Fifth Commandment nor Church law.  The term "assisted suicide" is just a cutesy little euphemism for murder.  The chair of the Pontifical Academy for Life, an archbishop, just committed gross blasphemy by saying murder is feasible. 

This Pontifical Academy for Life, once a respected body, has been rendered into an abysmal joke and a tool of Satan.  The same can be said for much of the establishment in Vatican City and many of the chanceries throughout the world.

More Clarity Regarding The Death Penalty

In regards to my post last week regarding the heretical "papal intentions for the month of September", I post this video for your consideration.  It is occasioned by the recent murder of a woman named Eliza Fletcher as she was jogging.

Again I emphasize that to call the death penalty "morally inadmissible" is to utter an objectively heretical statement as it runs counter to Church teaching.  We can debate its applicability to given situations.  That is something we can never do with abortion, since abortion is always the deliberate taking of innocent human life.

If we waver and state that Church teaching can be reversed with regard to capital punishment, we allow the erroneous notion that the Church's teachings can also be contradicted and mutated in other areas.  We see that Humanae Vitae is already in the Vatican crosshairs.

See the danger?

September's Poop Video - A Travesty Against God's Justice

H/T Canon 212

In September's Poop Video, Francis calls upon all Catholics to "pray for abolition of the death penalty".  Here it is now.  Below that I will explain why I believe this is supremely wrong and spiritually poisonous.

So much error.  So little time.  But I'll do my level best to unpack this crap.

I've written much about Francis' dalliance with heresy in calling for the abolition of the death penalty.  I need not rehash those writings in this post.  If the reader would like to dismiss my writings as simply the opinion of some "rigid rad-trad", go right ahead.  Will you say the same of previous popes, some of them canonized and beatified?  How about two prominent Doctors of the Church: Augustine and Aquinas?

I believe this poop video schlock isn't just about the death penalty, per se.  In fact, Francis' animus towards the death penalty is simply a trial balloon, to see how much he can get away with completely twisting Church teaching to be just the opposite of what it's always been.  The death penalty is a relatively easy topic for him to use, since many Catholics are ambivalent towards capital punishment.  Their own feelings towards the matter obscures their perception of the larger picture of the totality of Church teaching.  If Francis can work his wiles with the death penalty, it would be so much easier to attack other areas of Church teaching.

And those attacks are starting.  Last month the Pontifical Academy for Life, led by homophile Archbishop Paglia, released a document called "Theological Ethics of Life: Scripture, Tradition, and Practical Challenges".  This tome calls into question the Church's teachings on contraception.  The question is, what will Francis do with this?  It appears that many of the PAL were not aware of this document.  So only a few concocted this thing in a rather secretive manner.

So this poop video appears to be an attempt to condition Catholics to passively accept more attacks on Church teaching, but maybe it's worse than that.

Not only is Francis announcing his attempt to mutilate the Teachings of the Church regarding the death penalty, that is, to commit heresy, but he is trying to con Catholics into formal cooperation with his sinful intentions.  For many Catholics who are ignorant of the tenets of their Faith, their personal culpability may be mitigated somewhat, but I doubt that it is fully erased for the heresy does exist and they would be giving their assent to it.

We now know there are proceedings underway to change the Church's teachings regarding the sinfulness of contraception.  If Francis succeeds into duping Catholics to go along with disregard for Church teaching regarding the death penalty, it's all the more easier to convince these same Catholics that "Church teaching can change" regarding contraception.  Of course we know from our 50+ years of history that the status of abortion will soon follow that of contraception.  Recall that last week, Francis confirmed and renewed Father James Martin's appointment as advisor for Vatican communications.  Recall also that after the Dobbs ruling, Martin released a tweet in which he said, "a one-minute-old zygote is not the same as a nine-month-old baby about to be born".  Yes, he did have the nerve to say that.  But maybe that's because he knows his higher-ups are of the same mind-set as he.

I certainly cannot join in prayer for that "intention".  Truth be told, I stopped praying "for the pope's intentions during my morning offerings.  Instead, I pray for his conversion to the One True Faith.

Cardinal Gregory To Join Forces With Dissident And Blasphemer Sr Helen Prejean To Whine About Capital Punishment

Yes, I said "blasphemer".  What else do you call someone who said that God the Father is a "monster, an ogre" for "demanding the death of a son (Jesus)"?  That and her other serious deviations from Church teaching are detailed here.  I would ask how Cardinal Gregory could dignify someone like that, but considering how he sang the praises of "Fortunate Families" during his first "theology on tap" session, I realize that he and Prejean are cut from the same cloth.

Anyway, this online gabfest is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, February 1st.  I'm sure it will be a real hoot.  It's a shame it isn't happening in the evening, for some insomniacs might find it helps them fall asleep.

When the time comes around for the "archdiocesan appeal", please consider that this is just one more reason not to give them a penny.

Prominent Jesuits Attempt To Obfuscate Clear Teaching Regarding Worthiness To Receive Holy Communion

Yes, the bishops are trying to fenagle some way to allow prominent pro-abortion Catholics to receive Holy Communion - politicians such as President Biden and Nancy Pelosi, for example.  Archbishop Gomez advised the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that they (US bishops) were planning to discuss the matter.  

These days, however, the CDF is headed by a Jesuit - Cardinal Luis Ladaria, to be specific.  He wrote back, stating that it would be "misleading" to present abortion and euthanasia as "the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest level of accountability on the part of Catholics".  Once again, by this current crowd infesting the Vatican, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is being slapped in the face as his clear directive "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles" is being directly contradicted.  In that, Benedict states that abortion and euthanasia are always grave sins, while in the third section, he states that those who differ on matters such as capital punishment can still consider themselves eligible to receive Holy Communion.  On those matters there may (and often are) legitimate difference of opinions - not so with abortion and euthanasia.

Ladaria suggests that unless the bishops are unanimous on their stance, these matters could be causes of "discord rather than unity".  Well, yes, dissent on matters of inherent evils and the absolute requirement to obey Canon 915 are problems, but not because they make visible the lack of obedience of Our Lord by some bishops.  Where evil exists, not only will there be disunite, but in these situations, disunity is necessary.  As a wise saying goes, "it's better to be divided over the truth than united in a lie".

So what does Ladaria suggest?  Why, dialogue, of course!  Lots and lots of dialogue!  These poor little bumpkin politicians just need a good sit-down!  Of course that's nonsense!  These pro-aborts are running the country (and I daresay the Vatican).  They know very well what the Church teaches - they simply could not care less!

The America article paraphrases Ladaria with the phrase "don't rush the debate".  Truth be told, there is no debate.  One either obeys the teaching of the Church that have been handed down through the centuries, in this case as encapsulated in Canon 915, or they put themselves in disobedience.  This is a battle that is heating up, and I will post more on this later.

Woe To You That Call Evil Good, And Good Evil

That passage from Isaiah 5:20 is a strong admonition to left-leaning Catholics who have joined the progressive clarion call to fight all kinds of what they consider to be "social injustices" that may not be unjust at all.  The measure of what is good or evil, just or unjust is to be found in the Church's teaching traditions of the past two centuries, as opposed to popular fads that are spewing forth from dissident Catholic quarters.

Let's look at immigration, since these left-wing quarters, from the top down (that means you, USCCB) are having hissy fits about President Trump's ongoing efforts to expel foreign invaders.  The left-wing, clergy included, refuse to acknowledge that our concerns lie not with those who immigrate in conformity with our applicable laws, but with those who flout our laws and sneak inside the US.  They are, by definition, criminals.  They are breaking US law that does comply with Catholic moral theology.  In obfuscating that important distinction, they commit serious sins against the Eighth Commandment.  I've written a bit on this topic over the years; here's a collection of it.  So in this case, what's being called "evil" is the responsible regulating of immigration and what's being called "good" is the direct disobedience of immigration laws and being accessories to these crimes.

Let's move to another darling cause of the progressives - gun control.  The left is all gung-ho on this bugaboo, not addressing the fact that criminals, by definition, disobey laws.   The only ones impacted would be law-abiding citizens who desire to own firearms for the protection of themselves and their families.  Whenever a shooting happens, immediately the left starts kveling about the need for firearm restriction - never the apprehension of criminals.  Would that impinge too greatly on the Democratic voting base?  Look at England.  They've essentially outlawed guns, so what happens? Knife attacks arise - surprise!  The "geniuses" governing England are now into (wait for it!) knife-control!  Same thing in Red China!

Again, I've written a bit about that.  See here.  Please note that the top post explains why I believe that the USCCB's stance on gun control runs counter to Catholic moral theology.  Once upon a time I believed that this was an area in which good people could disagree.  I no longer hold onto that delusion.  The right to adequate self defense is a moral good that no one may call evil, on pain of sin.  A former pro-life leader, Rob Schenck, has glommed onto the erroneous push for arms banning, and in the process has allowed his thinking on basic pro-life issues to become corrupted.  I'll have more to say on that later.

Let's move on to the death penalty or capital punishment.  If gun control is an attack on the good of self-defense, the push to eliminate the death penalty is an attack on the good of civil government protecting its citizens from violent criminals.  Again, the USCCB and their dutiful puppets are lock-step with their Soros-esque sugar-daddies in their shielding of criminals from the death penalty.  Again, I've written much on that and won't rehash everything, but will elaborate on one major point.  In the past, all the popes have upheld the legitimacy and the good of capital punishment.  The most recent catechism from Pope John Paul II does the same.  However, last year Pope Francis annnounced his intention to rewrite the catechism to say that the death penalty is inadmissable.  I said it then, I'll say it now; THIS IS HERESY.   Of course the USCCB intends to happily comply in promulgating this heresy.  So now the good of capital punishment has been called evil, and this error has reached the proportions of full-blown heresy.

The USCCB, their obedient state-wide counterparts and the rest of their lapdogs are fully engaged in calling good "evil", and evil "good".  They have jettisoned all authentic moral bearing for the favors of money, power, and worldly prestige.  In so doing they have allowed their own thinking to become clouded, as have those who unthinkingly swallow the progressive bile simply because it comes from men wearing miters.

However, there have been pro-life leaders who, themselves succumbing to the siren calls of emotion-based leftwing sentiments, have allowed their pro-life beliefs to become weak and uncertain.  In other words, by assuming progressive positions on immigration, gun control, etc, they have assumed progressive positions in pro-life matters as well.  I have already mentioned Rob Schenck a few paragraphs back.  He now supports the legalized murder of children.  Another former pro-life leader, John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, became so enamored of progressivism that he cast his vote for the rabidly pro-abortion Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Both of these men clearly called evil "good".

Ladies and gentlemen, liberalism is harmful to the soul and can impede eternal salvation.

It's Not Just About Capital Punishment

In a blog post yesterday, Msgr Pope appears to be minimizing the damage done by Pope Francis' attempt to change Church doctrine and to chide faithful Catholics (including Yours Truly) into silence.  Please remember that this blog is hosted on a server owned by the Archdiocese of Washington and that he has been quashed by them before.  However, if you read through the comments, you'll see that many of his readers comprehend the far-reaching implications of this latest action by Pope Francis.  Edward Feser of First Things elaborates on this further.

The Not-At-All Catholic Reporter opined last week that abortion should not be criminalized and that if we really want to end abortion, we'll need "support for birth control".  In other words, to eliminate one evil, substitute another.  In this screed against laws to prevent abortion, I wonder what the authors would think if we were to substitute "racism" for "abortion"?  But I digress.

Of course they waxed lyrical over Francis' death penalty gaffe and what they acknowledge as an attempt to change Church teaching.  They really have no concern for obeying Church teaching, as evidenced by their dismissive attitudes towards contraception.  But perhaps they believe that the pope will try to bastardize the Church's teachings on contraception.  I regret they may be correct in that prediction.

The Pope Has Uttered Heresy. Is The Seat Of Peter Vacant?

From the Catholic News Service (official news outlet of the USCCB), we read that the "pope revises catechism to say that death penalty is inadmissible".  With that the pope has squarely plopped himself into full-blown heresy.

It cannot be denied.  No pope can change Church teaching.  The Church's teachings are immutable for they emanate from God, who is Himself immutable.  Throughout the centuries the Church has always upheld the legitimacy and usefulness of capital punishment.  No one pope can turn around and contradict all his predecessors, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church etc without pronouncing heresy.

Many blogging colleagues have written excellent analyses of this latest antic of Pope Francis'.  Rather than "reinvent the wheel", I'll now link to them for your reference and reading.

• One Peter Five - with a discussion on why the pope's statement is formal heresy
• Ann Barnhardt - with a smattering of teaching throughout the years
• AKA Catholic - detailing how Pope John Paul II's errors facilitated today's heresy
• Remnant - exposing the arrogance behind Francis' stunt.
• My own prior writings - including why abolishment of the death penalty is itself sinful

This heresy needs to be put in some context.  I don't think I'm the only one to find it very interesting that the pope plopped this stinker just as we are all focused on the sodomite rapists among the episcopate.  In a saner time, they would be eligible for the death penalty, but I digress.

We also notice that this is happening as there is much discussion on:

• admission of divorced and "remarried", that is, adulterers, to Holy Communion
• admission of non-Catholics to Holy Communion
• allowing dissident women to pretend that they are "deaconesses"
• attempts to normalize sodomy in the Church (e.g., amoralis lamentia)

The things stated above would all be heretical.  Might the push to demonize capital punishment be a "trial balloon", so to speak, to get faithful Catholics to swallow the false notion that immutable Church teaching can be "tweaked" here and there?  Some faithful Catholics might buy the canard that capital punishment might well be declared wrong in opposition to centuries of Tradition.  But right there, the camel has stuck his nose under the tent, for if Tradition can be disregarded with respect to capital punishment, why not with respect to contraception or homosexuality or divorce/remarriage or even abortion?

Formal heresy has been uttered.  Is Peter's seat vacant?

Of Medals, Seamless Garment, And Corruption

I posted the above from Father West for he says eloquently what I've been trying to say to those Catholics who not only refuse to acknowledge the evidence of Pope Francis' misdeeds but who lash out (in fits of obvious denial of reality) at those of us who are trying to shine much-needed light on these situations.  At one time I thought that these friends were simply too trusting and a bit simplistic in their views on the papacy.  Given their increasingly vitriolic reactions to our efforts, I must wonder if there is some intellectual dishonesty influencing them.

Let's look at two things.

Last week we learned that the pope gave a medal that is only given to a Commander of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St Gregory to a rabidly pro-abortion Dutch politician.  Now they've gone into "damage control" according to Austin Ruse.  Perhaps the "control" should be rendered "augmentation".  We read that "the medal was no more than part of a protocol exchange".  Really?  I'm sure the Vatican has engaged in many, many protocol exchanges with other visiting dignitaries over the past centuries.  When, oh when, has the Vatican ever given such medals in the past as part of "protocol exchanges"?

Then the article says, "In recent months, the Vatican has played host to a steady stream of speakers who stand in public opposition to Church teaching on a whole host of issues including Governor Jerry Brown of California."  Now hold this thought for a moment while I bring up a related matter.

Today the annual March for Life occurred.  In addition to the main march in Washington DC, similar marches occurred elsewhere at the same time for the sake of those who were unable to make the journey to DC.  Such was the case in Little Rock, AR.  The local marches there were first organized by local bishops.  However, this year, Bishop Anthony Taylor of the Diocese of Little Rock boycotted the march because the local pro-life organizations had booked as a speaker someone who supports the use of the death penalty.  The speaker is Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, whose pro-life credentials seem to be totally in line with traditional Catholic morality as opposed to the "seamless garment" caricature of the same.  Bishop Taylor, in ascribing capital punishment the same status as baby-murder, is dissenting from Catholic moral teaching.  I've posted before why the move to eliminate the use of all capital punishment may well be its own heresy.  But the death penalty is not today's main consideration.

Consider both of the preceding paragraphs.  One the one hand, you have rabid pro-aborts being wined and dined and even given medals by the pope. These pro-aborts, though, are good little progressives who whine about capital punishment, climate-change junk-science, immigration.  On the other hand, you have a bishop snubbing a march for life because another speaker doesn't toady to the progressive talking points on capital punishment.  A consideration of both these scenarios together buttresses my suspicions that the so-called "seamless garment" yak is nothing more than a smokescreen for pro-abortion infiltration of the Church.

By the way: Eccles and Bosco have some pointers in giving out medals.

Pope Francis Toys With Heresy In His Hostility Towards Capital Punishment

Pope Francis has made known his animosity towards capital punishment, going so far as to condemn it outright.  Of course in doing so, he has directly contradicted centuries of Church teaching.  These teachings include proclamations by various popes and the Council of Trent.  Also read here, here, here, here, and a smattering of my previous posts dealing with this as the Maryland Catholic Conference repeatedly blundered on this topic.

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope St. John Paul II betrayed his personal distaste for capital punishment, but he respected Sacred Tradition enough to acknowledge that it trumped his personal proclivities.  In other words, he understood that as the Successor of Peter, his role was to safeguard and promulgate the Deposit of Faith in its entirety.

Today we heard from several sources that Pope Francis thinks the catechism should be updated to reject the death penalty.  See here and here.

Ponder these considerations:

• The pope is the guardian of Church teaching, not its judge.  He cannot alter it to his personal liking.
• The Teaching of the Church is immutable for it stems from God's word, which is as immutable as He is.  To pretend that God's word can change is to insinuate that God is subject to change.  That is impossible.  Such notions strike at the very nature of God Himself - a supreme blasphemy.
• "Heresy" is defined as by St Thomas Aquinas as being "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".  The morality of capital punishment has been promulgated by the Church for hundreds of years.  It will not change.  The attempt to change it is inherently heretical. 

If God's teaching can be held to be subject to change in this matter of capital punishment, then all topics of doctrine and morality can be seen as subject to change.  I believe this is the main goal of this latest papal move.  This proposed change to declare capital punishment to be anathema is a trial balloon.  If this "balloon" appears to be flying free, we'll see the heresies ensconced in Amoralis Lamentia being promulgated without nuance or apology within our Churches.

Thus far Pope Francis has opposed capital punishment as a matter of public opinion.  For canon lawyers and moral theologians out there, if the pope does attempt to alter the catechism, will that constitute an act of material and formal heresy that might render his papacy invalid?  I don't know, but it seems to me to be a reasonable question.

New Pro Life Movement = Seamless Garment Regurgitation

Michael Hichborn, formerly of American Life League, runs a site called Lepantoinstitute.org.  It is a well-run site that is quite informative and faithful to Catholic teaching.  Recently he ran an article regarding the attempts by John Carr to insinuate himself into the pro-life movement.  Recall that while he was at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Carr oversaw the office that was in charge of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.  He did absolutely nothing to address the scandals regarding that collection.

The main focus of this article is not John Carr.  We are looking at the attempts of others to couple the pro-life movement with the now-discredited “seamless garment” theory that was championed by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.  In his article, Hichborn made mention of a series of articles found in the summer edition of Human Life Review.  Here is the site for your perusal   Many of the authors understand the perils of the seamless garment theory under its many disguises.  Among them, Ann Hendershott, Kevin Williamson and Kristin Hawkins see the danger of diluting our focus on ending baby-killing.  On the other hand, there are people like Aimee Murphy, director of Rehumanize International.  I previously did some research on this group and found them to be at serious variance with Catholic moral teaching.   Their “new media coordinator” supports homosexual conduct and may herself be embroiled in that sin.  Murphy herself evinced racism as she supported the violent “Black Lives Matter” on her facebook page.

But the seamless garment poses an even greater threat to the authentic pro-life cause than mere dilution.  In many, if not most, cases, its adherents ascribe to “seamless garment” tenets moral authority that belongs only to those matters to which the Church has placed special emphasis: abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosexual conduct, abuse of embryos.  Even worse, some “seamless garment” adherents will go so far as to transgress against the Church’s teachings on the aforementioned intrinsic evils in order to promote the progressive positions on lesser matters (such as immigration or capital punishment).  We’ll now expound on these threats.

Some of the articles made mention of a group that dubs itself the “The New Pro-life Movement” – rather pretentious, that!  Its site is thenewprolifemovement.com .   Right on its homepage we see a problem.   John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe was a highly-respected pro-life leader approximately 25 years ago.  He helped spearhead the clinic rescue aspect of the movement.  Recently, some seamless garment pet causes – in his case, amnesty for illegal immigrants – clouded his perspective to the extent that he supported the unapologetically pro-abortion Hillary Clinton during the last presidential election.  I won’t go into the evils of that or this article would take up the entire magazine.  Look at the “contributors” page.  One of the other contributors is Rebecca Bratten Weiss.  Rather than go into another lengthy explanation, I refer you to this piece by LifeSiteNews. 

Let’s look at its “organizations we support” page.  We see listed “Obria Medical Clinics”.  Going to that site, we see their page on abortion.  While they don’t speak glowingly of abortion, they think that it could be “the right choice” for someone.  What???   They seem to be fine with contraception.  Another supported organization is “All Our Lives”.  Not only is it “informed” by the “consistent life ethic”, but also “the reproductive justice movement”.  They advocate for gay rights.

This “new pro-life movement” organization is not unique in having serious moral problems.  We’ve always known that those enamored with the “seamless garment” have flirted either with mortal sins themselves or have allied themselves with others embroiled in those sins.  An example of that was brought to my attention during the controversies over DACA.  A friend of mine, perhaps in an attempt to justify amnesty for Illegal aliens, posted an article about a priest in Georgia, Fr. Rey Pineda, who is himself an illegal alien.  To bring his “plight” to national attention, he relayed his story to Senator Dick Durbin, who then took it to the Senate floor last November.  Of course Durbin did this while advocating for illegal amnesty.  Dick Durbin’s name recently came up during Senate judicial hearings, when he and Senator Dianne Feinstein grilled judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett regarding her Catholic faith, mocking her in the process.  So on the one hand, Dick Durbin (a “Catholic” who has always been pro-abortion) takes up Fr. Pineda’s case for his own end, but on the other hand he openly takes aim at a judicial nominee for living out her Catholic faith.  Pineda, a priest, lent moral credibility to a politician who displays anti-Catholic bigotry in order to facilitate his own sinful disregard for his host nation’s laws.  This is just another instance of moral compromise when Catholics get entangled in the seamless garment embrace of progressive causes.

The gains that the pro-life movement has made in recent years have been due in large measure to the movement’s laser-like focus on defending innocent life and the sanctity of marriage.  We are soon coming up on the centennial anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun that culminated Our Lady of Fatima’s appearances to the three children.  During these apparitions, she warned the children that the leading cause of souls going to hell was sins of the flesh.  Let us focus on eradicating these sins and not allow other matters disguising themselves as “social justice issues” to distract us and even seduce us to sin.

Storm Clouds Gather In Preparation For October's Sin-Nod

As we saw last week, Archbishop Cupich was appointed delegate to next October's sin-nod almost immediately after he twisted Catholic moral teaching about in his statement that abortion was no more of an evil than capital punishment.  Most Catholics with at least two working brain cells know that while abortion is always intrinsically evil (and thus a mortal sin), capital punishment is not so and in fact can be morally licit.  My intention is not to reignite that debate in my com-boxes but to illustrate how Cupich prostituted his high office to push a progressive agenda.  I suspect that qualified him immediately as a delegate in the eyes of the sin-nod perpetrators, so off he'll go to the Vatican come October.  But there are more storm clouds.

Recall the "shadow synod" that happened last May.  I suppose they believe that it was such a rousing success that they want to repeat the damage benefit.  Who is a papal adviser that is invited to that?  Why, it's none other than Cardinal Maradiaga (ht to Lifesitenews)!  You've seen enough of Maradiaga's name on this blog, as well as a rundown on the mischief he's wrought in the Church (to date).  Read the Lifesitenews piece for the rundown on the other heretics who will be spreading their bile at that meeting in hopes of poisoning influencing the sin-nod.

Many good people are sounding alarms.  The Instrumentum Laboris for the sin-nod is out, and Voice of the Family finds within it reasons for grave concern.  As you read it, go all the way to the bottom where Voice of the Family states that we faithful Catholics "have a duty to oppose the direction being taken at the synod".  Bishop Athanasius Schneider has also sounded an alarm regarding the working document, saying "one is left with the suspicion that the authors of the Instrumentum Laboris try to push forward the agenda of a certain clerical pressure group in order to change the Divine law of the non-admission of divorced and remarried to Holy Communion."

The battle lines are being drawn.  I thank the Lord for courageous prelates like Bishop Schneider.  Pray for him and his fellow faithful priests and bishops, that they be protected from those who wish harm upon them.  Pray also for those who carry on like wolves in sheep's clothing for theirs' will be a horrible punishment if they don't repent.

From The Francis-Effect Department: John Gehring Carries On At NCR

"NCR" in my title stands for Not-At-All Catholic Reporter.  In his latest plop in the online edition of that rag, John Gehring had the hypocritical gall to call a pro-life governor a "cafeteria Catholic".  There are so many errors here one scarcely knows where to begin - but I'll give it my heroic effort.

Before I begin, have you ever noticed something odd about Gehring and other progressive "katholyc" authors?  They often chide Catholics who champion pro-life causes for not adhering to the (discredited) seamless-garment ideology.  Never have I ever read of them rebuking pro-abortion politicians for anything, let alone their shilling for baby-murder.  I find that to be rather telling regarding their own convictions about the lives of the unborn.  And get a load of Gehring's Twitter page!  But I digress!

The backdrop for Gehring's dribble is the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.  Right in the second paragraph is one whopper.  He claims that capital punishment, war and "other moral issues" clash with traditional Catholic teaching.  No, they don't.  There are conditions that must be met before capital punishment or war are engaged, but they are not the intrinsic evils that abortion and contraception are.  I'll link now to a very pertinent article written by Father C. John McCloskey, showing the place capital punishment has in the realm of Catholic moral theology.  And there is this, from the Catechism of Pope St Pius X: "It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.”

Further down Gehring whines, "But when a national Catholic event that attracts leading Republican politicians and Catholic bishops consistently sends a message that being pro-life or pro-family can be reduced to a narrow agenda that aligns with one political party, that is a problem."  If he believes that is a "problem", did he bother to ask how that "problem" came into being?  Which of the two main political parties has abortion rights and "gay" rights ensconced within its official party platform?  It's simply fact that the pro-life position is more closely aligned with the GOP platform - but that's only because the Democrats formally reject all things having to do with protecting innocent babies in their wombs!  Why does Gehring ignore that?  I believe there is a deliberated reason for that!

At the bottom of the article we read that Gehring is Catholic Program Director at Faith in Public Life.  My Catholic Media Coalition colleage Stephanie Block did several exposes of FPL (see here and here) several years ago, exposing its rather squalid alliances with dissident organizations such as Dignity and Call to Action and their own nefarious activities.

Three years ago The Blaze ran an article that revealed the funding that FPL received from George Soros.  It also detailed a "behind the scenes" media campaign that Gehring undertook to undermine the bishops' efforts to combat the Obamacare contraception mandate.  A prior position Gehring held was Communications Director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.  I've written about them and their undermining of Catholic teaching and the funding they've received from (guess!) George Soros!  Are we sensing a pattern here?

At the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter, John Gehring is quite at home, for many (if not most) there, when it comes to matters Catholic, don't know apple butter from cow pie.

Did The Pope Utter Heresy In Regard To The Death Penalty?

We know that several of the previous pontiffs have personally opposed the death penalty.  Pope Saint John Paul II was one.  He wrote about it in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae.  However, he acknowledged that the state still had the right to legitimate use of the death penalty.  He never tried to abolish it outright.  He couldn't, for the legitimacy of the death penalty has been established Church teaching for the past 2,000 years.  I will link to two blogging colleagues who wrote pieces in response to the erroneous efforts by a number of Catholic press outlets.  One is by From Rome and the other from One Peter Five.  In my post two weeks ago I also presented some Catholic truth on the matter.  I think all this supports From Rome's premise, that it is a heresy to claim that capital punishment is wrong.

That makes the pope's words, released this morning by Vatican news outlets, to be quite troubling.

He stated today that the death penalty is "inadmissible, however serious the crime".  Ladies and gentlemen, that is not Catholic doctrine - and thus not the teaching of Jesus Christ.  Will this pope declare that his predecessors and many Doctors of the Church to be in error?  He rails against "punishing one murder with another".  His statement does not do justice to the definition of "murder" according to Catholic moral theology, as I explained in my March 6th post.

No pope can contradict the perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church - but that is precisely what Pope Francis did this morning!  St Thomas Aquinas defines heresy as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith in Christ, corrupt its dogmas."

So does this blanket condemnation of capital punishment constitute heresy?

Pope's Erroneous Call For End To Death Penalty AND Life Imprisonment

As most Marylanders know, the State of Maryland last year abolished capital punishment of deadly criminals (the execution of innocent babies goes unabated, however).  I wrote two pieces that both excoriated the Maryland Catholic Conference and demonstrated why they actually violated Church teaching in their effort to abolish capital punishment.

In their efforts to abolish capital punishment, both on their website and during testimonies in Annapolis, the MCC stated that Maryland would be able to protect its citizens through the use of life imprisonment without parole in lieu of the death penalty.  I've saved screen shots of two of these and will post them after the jump break so as not to take up too much space in the main screen.

However, Pope Francis today made clear his opposition not only to the death penalty, but to life imprisonment.  He said "life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty".  So he just contradicted Archbishop Lori and the Maryland Catholic Conference.  He made the latter appear to be a bastion of conservative common sense - that's quite an accomplishment!

More seriously, though, he spoke in disregard to Evangelium Vitae and the hundreds of years of Church teaching.  He seems to impute motives of "violence and revenge" to governments who employ these means.  I've no doubt that some corrupt regimes do precisely that; however, to issue a blanket denouncement of life imprisonment - and the death penalty for that matter - is simply irresponsible.

What also seems to be disregarded is that governments have a solemn duty to protect their citizens from unjust aggression - including that which arises from other citizens.  That is an overriding concern, and in fact one that must rise above the "redemption" of one criminal.  So without at least life imprisonment, just what does His Holiness think should be done with those violent criminals who simply won't be "redeemed"?  Do I hear crickets?

Ladies and gentlemen, sometimes we must disagree vociferously with our Church leaders in matters of "prudential judgment".  Clearly this is one of them.  I link now to excellent points by Vox Cantoris.

Again, the MCC writings are below this jump break.

The USCCB's Corrosive And Deadly "Social Justice" Teachings With Their Poster Boy John Sweeney

Yesterday John Zmirak published an article called "The Myth Of Catholic Social Teaching".  I commend it to your reading.  He basically states that the Magisterium speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals.  Some issues such as abortion and contraception involve the direct commission of mortal sin.  Those are intrinsic evils; no amount of debate is permissible.  We do not commit murder - period.

There is also the matter of care for the poor.  That is a charge laid upon us.  However, good people can disagree as to the best methods to implement such care.  Sometimes it's clear that those in high places of the Church are exercising faulty logic in their approaches to matters such as alleviating poverty, etc.  In those circumstances, we are not obliged to give obedience to those directives as they do not carry magisterial weight.  Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said so himself when he attempted to have a letter delivered to a US bishops' meeting.  It said - in part - "not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."

It is becoming all too clear that the USCCB advocates progressive positions on matters such as illegal immigration, self-defense rights, and even the atrocities being committed by Muslims in the Middle East.  I blogged on the muslim matter last week, chiding the USCCB for urging more useless "dialogue" with thugs.  I've no doubt that the USCCB dismisses my words.  Sadly, they probably also dismiss the words of Archbishop Emil Nona, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul.  He and four other Mosul bishops have been driven from their dioceses, along with countless thousands of their flocks.  He warns that what we see there could well be a harbinger of things to come in the western world - that means us, folks!  I will quote the archbishops's own words: "Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles.  You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values.  If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home."  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has issued his own, very similar warning.

I think there are two things Archbishop Nona is trying to say.  First, the US bishops must stop their simpering and groveling pleas for "dialogue".  They are an abysmal waste of time at best and at worst, they serve to distract us when we should be preparing for real action to protect our families and our very culture.

Second, we must stop "welcoming them in our homes".  That means we must stop the floods of immigrants that pour across our borders.  Make no mistake about it; the bulk of illegals are young men, not helpless little waifs.  How many of these young men are muslim terrorists?  We don't know because there is no effective screening of those who cross the Rio Grande.  But again, we hear the USCCB telling us to "welcome the stranger".  Never mind that these "strangers" may well be murderers awaiting their orders from their muslim commanders.  By the way - there are reports that ISIS groups are in Mexico, planning an attack on the US with car bombs and the such.  USCCB, shall we "welcome those strangers"?

A gentleman named John Snyder posted an article on Crossmap a few days ago, taking the USCCB to task for their stance on gun control, given the threats of terrorism that are looming in the United States.  I quote one salient statement:  "USCCB should terminate its disgraceful support for the criminalization of private handgun possession. Such criminalization would eliminate the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals, including terrorists.  Catholic clergy should abandon pacifism and see reality for what it is. People need guns for protection. As Christ Our Lord proclaimed, 'The man without a sword must sell his cloak and buy one,' according to Luke 22:36"  Hear!  Hear!

So why, oh why, does the USCCB insist on parroting the Obamanista's talking points on illegal immigration, muslims and gun control?  In a word, follow the money, for the USCCB certainly does.  I wrote an article for Defend Life recently (look on page 7 of this link), detailing the obvious links between the USCCB shilling for porous borders and allowance of everyone crossing the Rio Grande.  The money trail was so blatant; they aren't even trying to hide it.

There you have it.  One consequence of the USCCB's wrong-headed stances on these issues will most likely be an increase of murders, if not outright terrorism - both because they favor unfettered admission through our borders AND the removal of our ability to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

"But that's merely conjecture!" some might say.  Fair enough, but it's reasonable to believe this to be a very solid probability.  AND we have evidence of current corrosion of faith and morals by USCCB-esque social teaching.  That evidence comes from the mouth of the corrosion victim himself - John Sweeney!

John Sweeney
Thank USCCB social teaching for this!

Sweeney was recently honored by the AFL-CIO for his union work.  The erstwhile head of both the AFL-CIO and SEIU, at that award function, credited "Catholic social teaching" for giving him the impetus for his work.  I've detailed a lot of his work here and here.  The second link details the two occasions in which I led pickets of Sweeney public events.  I know I gave you a lot to read, so I'll close with a picture showing the beneficial impact of "USCCB social teaching" on John Sweeney.

Recall what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said - there are areas regarding prudential judgment in which we can disagree with Church leaders.  Many times, particularly with the USCCB, we must oppose them outright.

Maryland Catholic Conference Errs (Again) With Death Penalty

In today's Catholic Standard, page 3 in print and online here, the Maryland Catholic Conference is beating its chest over its faux-victoire regarding the abolition of the death penalty in Maryland.  I stated my case clearly how the abolition of the death penalty actually runs counter to Church teaching and Evangelium Vitae in particular.  I needn't rehash all that here.

I also stated in that post that there is an effort underway to petition this abolition to the next Maryland referendum.  I signed that petition, no doubt to the consternation of Mary Ellen Russell.  In the Standard article, read that little insert of hers that's designed to cajole faithful Catholics into eschewing the referendum petition.  She talks of the repeal of the death penalty as "an integral part of our pro-life efforts to uphold the sanctity of all human life."  No, it is not!  I'd strongly suggest that she study Evangelium Vitae and notice that there is a world of difference between the inherent evil of taking the most innocent human life - that is, murder and the exercise of legitimate authority a charge laid upon it by God Himself.

She then takes a direct pot-shot at the referendum effort itself, saying "the referendum will only divide the prolife community and drain scarce time and resources from other more important prolife goals".  Well, guess what, Ms Russell?  On both counts here, it's the Maryland Catholic Conference (under your less-than-stellar leadership) that stands guilty as charged!

The Death Penalty

As most readers know, the State of Maryland has just abolished the death penalty.  Oh no, I don't mean that Maryland has halted the murder of nearly 100 babies every day vis-a-vis abortion; I mean for the 1 convicted felon who was executed every 4-6 years (at most).  For that, the Maryland bishops lavished praise upon the CINO governor who has been known to use his bully-pulpit to raise funds for Maryland NARAL.

Initially I thought the abolition of the death penalty was a matter on which there could be legitimate disagreement amongst Catholics.  I no longer believe that.  Let me start by differentiating between two concepts that are often erroneously thought to be equivalent; they aren't.  They are:

1. Opposition to capital punishment
2. Abolition of the death penalty

One is a matter of personal belief, of prudential judgment.  The other is a matter of public policy.  One does not necessarily imply the other.  Let's now refer to Evangelium Vitae, section 56.  Please read the entire section.  I'll copy below a paragraph from that section.

"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Well, these cases are not non-existent.  They might well be rare, but from time to time they do exist; that's just reality.  In those rare cases, Church teaching provides for the imposition of capital punishment by legitimate civil authority.  Why?  Because as the encyclical clearly states, in those cases capital punishment is required to defend society.

 Acknowledging that God alone has supreme authority over life, the Church also acknowledges through Scripture and Tradition that God delegates the responsibility of capital punishment to legitimate civil authority.    Such delegation cannot be abdicated by state authorities, for in so doing, they stand in disobedience to the God who laid that charge upon them.   And once again, progressives within the Church hierarchy (and I mean you, Maryland Catholic Conference!) join the Maryland governor and other officials in their arrogance and disobedience as they thumb their noses at the Lord of Life and abdicate their duties and responsibilities to protect innocent life on one hand - and on the other hand, foster the murder of innocent children.

The Maryland bishops would do more for the culture of life if they demanded that the stonewalling of the Carhart investigations cease and that abortion be banned in Maryland.  Stop the murders of the 90+ babies everyday in Maryland before braying about false "triumphs".

My colleague at An Archdiocese of Washington DC Catholic links to a petition to put the matter to referendum.  I in turn will link to his piece.  I will sign the petition.  Knowing that this petition will never be allowed in Church, I urge interested readers to visit that site.