Bishop Gracida is the only bishop in the US who instructed the police that removing people who were preventing abortions is a mortal sin. Such police actions make the police into accomplices to abortion, since removing an obstacle that is preventing a crime always makes one an accomplice to the crime.
This is not the only time that Bishop Gracida has been a majority of one.
Pro-life rescues are becoming a regular event once again. There have been at least two in Washington. Not surprisingly, Cardinal Wuerl has remained silent as the police commit the mortal sin of removing obstacles that are preventing abortions.- The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2018/07/it-was-athanasius-against-world-now-it.html]
We are in the greatest crisis in the history of the Church because Francis and his pro-gay bishops network who make the immoral Borgia popes and their inner circles look like choir boys are creating gay heretical cardinals in a attempt to make a permanent gay heretical church.
As a priest recently said even if we can get the Church or state to remove all the bad men, Francis is only going to replace them with worse men.
Of course, we must continue to work for the removal of Francis’s immoral pro-gay bishops network, but the only way we are going to begin a real restoration of the Church is to remove Francis as well as all his controllers and collaborators.
There is only one bishop in the Church actively working toward the removal of Francis.
He is Bishop Rene Henry Gracida.
Whether he acknowledges it or not, Bishop Gracida is our St. Athanasius.
Athanasius virtually alone, except for the faithful laity, lead the resistance against the Arian heresy in the fourth century even when the Pope excommunicated him.
They said it was Athanasius against the world. Now, it is Gracida against the world.
The Bishop became like Athanasius when he explicitly said Amoris Laetitia is in error and to resist sacrilege Communions.
On December 2, 2017, Bishop Gracida became the only bishop to resist the Amoris Letitia sacrilege on his official website declaring Francis is teaching error:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
We have a humble yet heroic man to lead us in the resistance against heterodoxy and those who have created the greatest crisis in the history of the Church.
We have leading us in Gracida a real life hero who makes every other living bishop in the whole world look like a midget by comparison.
We have a 96 year old retired bishop with the heart of a lion leading us: Rene the Lionhearted.
I’ll say it again:
They said it was Athanasius against the world. Now, it is Gracida against the world.
I know he will not be happy that I said this. He told me by email that it would be prideful to think of himself as a Athanasius.
But for better or worst that appears to be the role God has given him in this crisis.
Since most of the clergy apparently have abandoned us, what can we the faithful laity do to assist Bishop Gracida against the world?
First pray for him.
Then please read, pray and share the following open letter with cardinals, bishops, clergy, canon lawyers and the laity so clarity and the action that is within God’s will can result from the letter.
The laity need to force people like Cardinal Raymond Burke and others to answer the theologically sound, clear and precise arguments put forward and either clearly and precisely counter them or put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was “never validly elected” the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.
If Burke and others do not act they are putting their immortal souls in danger because they are denying the Petrine office of Pope John Paul II who made binding law for the 2013 conclave in Universi Dominici Gregis.
The open letter of Bishop Gracida is a analysis of Pope John Paul Il’s Universi Dominici Gregis which appears to establish the “legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff” and calls the Cardinals to “Address… [the] probable invalidity”:
TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL
IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE
Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports.
Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.
So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility. If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election? His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.
His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.
Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.
What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregis particularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . . scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.]
This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent. Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.
This is so because:
1. Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;
2. Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,
3. Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:
each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.
Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis. These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.”
Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]
No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them. Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding. Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations.
Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.” His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave.
While it is not necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis in order to construe or to interpret its plain meaning, the first source to which one would look is the immediately prior constitution which Universi Dominici Gregis abrogated or replaced. Pope John Paul II replaced entirely what Pope Paul VI had legislated in the immediately previous Constitution on conclaves, Romano Pontfici Eligendo, but in so doing, Pope John Paul II used Romano Pontfici Eligendo as the format or pattern for His new constitution on conclaves. Making obvious changes, nonetheless, Pope John Paul II utilized the content and structure of his predecessor’s constitution to organize and outline Universi Dominici Gregis. Therefore, while it is not legally necessary to look outside Universi Dominici Gregis, the primary reference to an extraneous source of construction would entail an examination of Romano Pontfici Eligendo, and that exercise (bolsterd by the use of the key word “scienter” in the Promulgation Clause) would reinforce the broad principle of invalidity.
Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo. No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis. See the comparison both in English and Latin below:
Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:
Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]
Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity. Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error.
It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government. The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013.
Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ. After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ. It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation. Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics would be no different than Orthodox Christians.
In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”. But, the fact that “The Church . . . will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum.
This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake. This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its
Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person . . . in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”.
So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff. Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals. They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave. They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation. Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely.
In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals. If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals. In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either. (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.)
In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal. So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors. Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here. May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual. If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election” “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter.
May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
N. de Plume
Un ami des Papes Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
In the American Catholic world, George Weigel needs no introduction. Perhaps best known as the biographer of Pope John Paul II, Weigel has been a public Catholic commentator for decades. In fact, in 1982 Weigel was a contributor in the first-ever issue of Crisis Magazine (then known as Catholicism in Crisis), and since then Crisis has published almost 100 of his articles.
One subject matter of particular focus for Weigel is American foreign policy, especially in how it relates to issues of war and peace (in fact, that first Crisisarticle was about that topic). Over his decades of punditry, Weigel has advocated for robust American interventionism throughout the world. He has doggedly maintained that position, despite mounting evidence of its repeated failure, in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Now he has set his sights on Russia, where the price of failure could very well be nuclear war.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
With the stakes so high, it’s important for conservative Catholics to engage in serious debate on this topic. While Weigel has done much to advance the cause of Catholicism in this country, his opinions on American foreign affairs are not above criticism and should be directly engaged. And the fact is that Weigel’s neoconservative foreign policy views are questionable at first glance, and we find they are downright dangerous when examined closely.
Before we look at Weigel’s views on U.S. interventionism in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, let’s be clear about the role of Russia and Vladimir Putin. To argue against U.S. involvement in this crisis is not to justify or condone Putin. The Russian president, like most political leaders both today and in history, is willing to use immoral means to defend what he believes are his national interests. But evil is occurring every day around the world, often at the hands of corrupt politicians, and America’s non-response to those acts of evil are not an endorsement of them. In our fallen world we simply cannot stop evil from happening and must use prudence to decide when intervention is necessary (and when intervention won’t make matters worse).
Likewise, it cannot be denied that many innocents, particularly Ukrainian innocents, are suffering due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Because of this, some Catholics feel they must support American intervention in the region. Yet we’ve seen that increased chaos and suffering often follows American intervention, as happened after the 2003 American invasion of Iraq and during the 20-year war in Afghanistan. American intervention does not automatically mean the end to suffering. It may even make the suffering worse.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
And if we are always to intervene on behalf of innocents, what about Yemen? A horrific war has been going on in that Middle Eastern country since 2015, but very few Americans seem to care (and, to my knowledge, George Weigel has never once written about this crisis). Perhaps it’s because the main instigator of the conflict—Saudi Arabia—is a close American ally. Whatever the reason, it’s hard not to question someone’s concern for the innocents in Ukraine if he doesn’t seem to care about helping suffering Yemenis.
So even though one may recognize the unjust nature of Russia’ invasion of Ukraine as well as the plight of suffering Ukrainians, those two reasons alone are not enough to justify American intervention. And Weigel doesn’t stick to those two reasons alone. Instead he creates a framework on which American involvement becomes not just favorable, but required. Curiously, the framework he creates is a terribly familiar one for those who have followed his writings over the years.
When it comes to making his case for American intervention, Weigel has a pretty reliable (though aging) script. The Weigel Script includes: (1) a comparison to Nazi Germany; (2) turning foreign leaders into cartoon villians; (3) accepting at face value any and all U.S. intelligence that puts the proposed adversary in the worst light; (4) making non-falsifiable assertions about a dire future if the U.S. doesn’t intervene; and (5) ignoring any potential negative consequences of U.S. intervention.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
We saw the Weigel Script play out back in 2003 when Weigel was one of the biggest backers of the United States invasion of Iraq, and we see it playing out again today as Weigel advocates for America to intervene in the Russia/Ukraine conflict.
At the end of March 2003, days after the U.S. invasion of Iraq began, Weigel wrote a piece titled, “The Just War Case for the War.” He likely convinced many fence-sitting Catholics back then to support the war effort, but in hindsight the article is embarrassing to read. He was wrong over and over. If it weren’t for the notoriously short memory of the news-following public, we’d be appalled that he dares to use the same arguments today.
Back in 2003, Weigel made the inevitable comparison of Iraq to Nazi Germany. He writes,
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
A historical analogy may help. Given the character of the Nazi regime and its extra-legal rearmament, would it not have been plausible to assert that aggression was underway when Germany militarily reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936, in defiance of the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations? The withdrawal of Unscom weapon inspectors from Iraq in 1998 was this generation’s 1936. Another 1938, a new Munich, is morally intolerable: the world cannot be faced with a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein and an Iraqi regime that had successfully defied all international legal and political attempts to disarm it.
It’s clear now that Iraq was not a threat to the world comparable to 1930’s Nazi Germany. Weigel used this imagery to heighten the threat and make it appear that U.S. intervention was necessary. After all, no one wanted George W. Bush to be the next Neville Chamberlain.
Weigel returns to the Nazi comparison in 2022. Right before the Russian invasion and tying into China’s potential designs on Taiwan, Weigel writes, “In the tyrants’ bid for global hegemony, Ukraine and Taiwan are in the role played by Austria and Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s: If they fall to the tyrant-regimes, others will follow.”
The language is clear: to refuse to intervene in the Russia/Ukraine conflict would be equivalent to Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler. Yet this wasn’t true in 2003, so perhaps the comparison isn’t apt in 2022? And perhaps it’s rarely true? After all, Adolf Hitler’s Germany was a unique situation in world history. Few conflicts will ever fit that comparison, and definitely not as many as Weigel tries to shoehorn in.
In 2003, Weigel used emotionally-driven language to characterize Saddam Hussein as the epitome of evil, painting a picture in which the very existence of Hussein spelled certain doom for the entire world. He used phrases like “aggressive fascist ideology” and “grotesque forms of torture” and accused Hussein of working “feverishly to obtain nuclear weapons” and having “longstanding links to terrorist organizations.” To be sure, Hussein was no boy scout, but in hindsight we know he was never the global threat that Weigel and others made him out to be.
Today Weigel uses similar emotionally-driven language to present Vladimir Putin as the new epitome of evil with whom one cannot reason or negotiate. Weigel describes him as an “old KGB apparatchik,” a lying tyrant who rules a “kleptocratic regime.” As I noted before, it’s not that Putin isn’t using immoral means to advance his goals; the problem is that Weigel wants to create a cartoon villain so evil that any suggestion of trying to negotiate for peace comes across as Neville Chamberlain, Part II (or perhaps Part XXVII considering how often Weigel has used this analogy).
The third step in the Weigel Script is to support without question any intelligence the United States asserts as true. In 2003 that meant the claim that Hussein’s Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Weigel assumed the truth of this claim, and it was a centerpiece of his argument that America must invade in order to prevent Iraq’s use of them. Yet today we know that claim was false. Iraq did not have WMD’s.
In spite of this history Weigel is still content to pass along any U.S. intelligence that puts our proposed adversary—in this case, Russia—in the worst light. For example, Weigel immediately accepted the accusations of genocide at Bucha to further bolster his case for action against Russia. While it’s easy in hindsight to know that American intelligence claims about WMD’s were false, any claims made today about Russia cannot be verified or refuted at this point: the fog of war prevents coming to definitive conclusions. Yet the history of U.S. intelligence should at least give us pause before accepting its claims at face value. Accusations of genocide at Bucha and other war crimes must be thoroughly and impartially investigated before they are used to justify intervention.
The next step in the Weigel Script is to present a dire future if America doesn’t intervene internationally. In 2003, Weigel made non-falsifiable assertions about a future in which the U.S. didn’t intervene in Iraq. He argued,
The world cannot be faced with a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein and an Iraqi regime that had successfully defied all international legal and political attempts to disarm it…What should not [be] in dispute is that the gravest damage would be done to the cause of world order and international law if Saddam Hussein were permitted to defy demands for his regime’s disarmament…[T]he appeasement of Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime was, in my judgement, both morally loathsome and a profound threat to peace.
In other words: we needed to be afraid, very afraid, that at any moment Iraq could rain down nukes on every major American city. We couldn’t wait for an attack, because our entire world might be obliterated by Saddam’s nukes in the blink of an eye. Such an argument is impossible to counter, because it can neither be proven nor disproven. Sure, something horrible could happen in the future, but we don’t go to war—at least a just war—based on the fears of fevered imaginations. A just war requires provable and imminent threats to national security.
Yet Weigel returns to this theme when writing about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He paints a dire future if the United States doesn’t intervene decisively. When asked why Russia’s invasion poses a major threat to global order and stability, Weigel responds, “If the world acquiesces in Putin’s aggression, the world will become a free-fire zone in which aggressors have the initiative and the forces of peace and freedom are constantly on the defensive. That is not a world that any of us should wish to live in.”
One can condemn Russia’s invasion while still recognizing that such predictions are so over-the-top as to be ludicrous. But according to Weigel, we again must be afraid, very, very afraid.
While the Weigel Script paints a dire future indeed when the United States doesn’t intervene, it also brushes off any possible negative consequences if it does. In 2003, Weigel simply ignored the possibility that a U.S. invasion could have any significant repercussions. A world without Saddam Hussein in power was such an obvious good that nothing else mattered (after all, he was the next Hitler, right?). Weigel blandly asserted, “Scholars and analysts with entirely respectable track records have argued that these things [possible chaos in response to an invasion] will nothappen.” He also wrote that U.S. intervention would lead to “the emergence of a new, free and stable Iraq.”
In hindsight, it’s hard not to be frustrated by the refusal to acknowledge possible blowback to a U.S. invasion, considering the history of such interventions. And just ask the displaced Iraqi Christians about the negative consequences of the 2003 invasion. They will not paint as rosy a picture as Weigel tried to create.
Today the potential for disastrous results of a U.S. intervention are even greater. While the U.S. invasion of Iraq further destabilized the Middle East and caused untold suffering to many Iraqis, that’s nothing compared to what could—and likely would—go wrong if the U.S. takes the belligerent stance against Russia that Weigel advocates.
Back in 2003 Weigel pushed the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but Russia actually does own the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world today. One misunderstanding, one mistake, in a U.S.-Russia hot war could literally mean the end of the world as we know it. Pushing for peace and not a chest-thumping escalation of conflict is the only reasonable option here.
Ultimately, in 2003 and now in 2022, the Weigel Script gives a cartoon version of reality in order to justify American intervention. The United States are the Avengers defending the world against a Thanos-like threat. With this logic, how can anyone not support the good guys against the bad guys?
But of course the real world is not so simplistic. Iraq did not have WMD’s; it was not involved in 9/11; and although Hussein was a terrible dictator, Iraq posed no national security threat to the United States. Further, our invasion and attempted nation-building in Iraq turned out to be a disaster and highly costly, in casualties, resources, and displaced lives.
Today’s world is likewise complex. It’s not that everything Weigel says about Russia is wrong; when a cartoon artist creates a caricature, there’s truth in it. Here though the caricature—presenting some features while ignoring others—is dangerous. Unproven assertions are presented as facts, and nations or individuals are demonized or lionized to push the narrative. This beats the war drums. It disallows rational discourse and a discussion of all issues, such as the role of U.S./NATO involvement leading to his crisis, problems internal to Ukraine, and the possible negative consequences of American involvement.
In the Russia/Ukraine conflict, the American role should be for peace, not for encouraging every Ukrainian to fight to the death while adding U.S. soldiers to the death toll. Yes, such a peace likely won’t mean the complete defeat of Vladimir Putin, but we don’t live in a world where bad guys are always humiliated.
Conservative Catholics need to learn from the mistakes of the past 30 years and come to reject the neoconservative foreign policy George Weigel advocates—a policy that unites American politicians from Lindsey Graham to Hillary Clinton, from Mitch McConnell to Chuck Schumer. Those policies have brought only increased pain and suffering to the world, not peace and freedom. We’ve seen this pain and suffering in Iraq and we’ve seen it in Afghanistan. If the U.S. doesn’t work for peace in Ukraine, even if it means negotiating with Vladimir Putin, then we could see pain and suffering on a much more massive scale throughout the world.
While Catholics can and should support the idea of a just war, it should not be misused to justify American interventionism in foreign conflicts. We should push for a negotiated peace that brings an end to those conflicts, not actions that only lead to their conflagration.
One curiosity in the Weigel Script is that it completely ignores the views of Pope John Paul II. In 2003 the Polish pontiff strongly opposed America’s invasion of Iraq, yet Weigel never mentioned that opposition. Weigel is best known for his hagiographical 1999 biography of John Paul II, Witness to Hope, in which he presented the Polish pontiff as the world’s moral leader and one of the greatest popes in history. If Weigel really believed this, perhaps he should have at least mentioned that his views on the moral justness of the U.S. invasion—and the essential pieces of the Weigel Script itself—were diametrically opposed by John Paul II.
Pope John Paul II once said, “War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity…War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations…war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.”
I hope and pray that the late pontiff’s biographer will listen to those wise words, recognize his past mistakes, and rewrite the Weigel Script to silence the drumbeats of war today.
[Photo Credit: Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC)]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on I SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD NOT FOLLOW GEORGE WEIGEL LEAD IN THIS PRESENT CASE
A NATIONAL WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN TO REFOCUS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S ATTENTION ON THE UNBORN CHILD
From: U.S. Coalition for Life, Export, PA
To: Prolife Americans of All Ages, Creeds, and Racial/Ethnic Backgrounds
Date: From May 15, 2022 – Until the Rejection of Roe vs Wade
Goal: To Refocus the U.S. Supreme Court’s Attention on the Unborn Child as a Human Being and a Natural Born Citizen of the United States with All Rights Thereof, Foremost the God Given Right-To-Life. Please Duplicate and Circulate Freely.
Letter Basics for Writing U.S. Supreme Court Judges
Why Letters? Supreme Court judges prefer typed or hand-written letters over emails and phone calls. Security professionals and law clerks sort the incoming mail first. Exceptional individual letters are given directly to the addressed judges. Others are noted. Continued at URGENT: U.S. Supreme Court National Write-In Campaign | AKA Catholic.
Many things bother me these days, rising crime rates, scarcity of available foods, fears of war over Ukraine, a porous southern border, rising gas prices (and rising other costs of living), political turmoil over everything, increasing homeless, and regularly depressing news.
I suppose one answer is to ignore radio and television news. Take a deep breath, look at pretty skies, nice sunsets, and take naps. After all, it has been said that in his infinite wisdom the Good Lord does not present us with problems with which we are unable to cope.
So I ask, how am I to cope with regular assaults on my core beliefs in the benevolence of my government, the brotherhood of humanity, the friendliness of my neighbors, and the belief in the goodness of people?
As a youngster, I was taught and learned through experience that children were protected and loved by adults. School taught me respect for authority, that the police were there to help me, and that everywhere there were safeguards in life that would care for me in times of danger. My future welfare would be the product of my energies and my personal obligation was to absorb the education being provided and to ultimately go forth on my own and produce a family and children who would repeat the process.
Today I can look back upon a life that proceeded along those lines…at least in general terms. I absorbed my education, became a productive member of society, married and raised a family, and am now retired and living with the results of my accomplishments. My children have themselves followed a similar pattern, are raising their own families, and are preparing for their retirement. Their children, my grandchildren, are moving into a world where the values and goals and cultural imperatives that guided me (and mostly guided my children) have changed, perhaps evolved but certainly altered in almost unrecognizable ways to what today passes for a “lifestyle” that is unrecognizable [to me, at least].
I was a product of the last great generation that was born before WWII and lived through the great years that saw black-and-white movies become colorized, saw black-and-white television become colorized, witnessed the jet plane turn into rocket ships and put a man on the moon, invent cell phones and home computers and…and now learn that nation-wide-lockdowns for the flu are required, racial differences are not merely significant but important, that equity refers to outcomes and disparity is a sin, that membership in political parties is a condition of social acceptance and disagreement with the government is not merely socially unacceptable it is terrorism and a serious threat to democracy.
If today’s education programs, what is actually in place and being taught to the current generation of grade-school-through-college students, were even hinted at when I attended school, the hue and cry of communism and black arts and degeneracy and devil-worship would have been deafening.
What happened? What happened to the kids of today who no longer play in the yards of their neighbors, chase balls, and jump over cans to hide and seek each other in the nooks and crannies of local buildings? Where was it written that possessing a cell phone and the infinite variety of games and communication/broadcast opportunities and social exposure of personal daily lives was more important than running about the neighborhood and actually playing outdoors was unimportant?
Yes, there are more cars in the streets, they travel faster and pay less attention to playing children. Yes, the world has become a busier place with more people having more things to do and less time available. Life isn’t as much fun and if you doubt that just ask your local neighborhood shrink. New diseases have been invented along with new emotional and mental disabilities and the number of people devoted to telling us what is wrong… with everything, has increased. Everything is much more complicated today, just ask any politician.
So where is it one can find peace and quiet, comfort and satisfaction? How can one learn to deal with the complexities of daily life, with the regular challenges that arise at every turn of experience? How to find love and companionship when disruption and contention are the watchwords instead of the inspirations?
God no longer exists, relegated to the ruins of a history that also has been placed on the back burner. The new Supreme Being is the Government whose benevolence and tolerance and guidance is unrecognizable through yesterday’s eyes but available to all whose lives are being taught by the new learnings. Pronouns and genders have been expanded and re-defined, racism is more discussed than religion and victimization is more popular than heroism. Symbolism is the watchword…but only if the government’s symbolic pronouncements are fully accepted. Disagreement with the government has become a capital sin and social banishment is a punishment regularly applied by the new cognoscenti whose education or genuine credentials are less important than their celebrity status.
Will the planet continue to rotate on its axis, the sun regularly shine, rain fall and wind blow? Will the universe provide whatever inspiration may yet be available to those who yearn for intelligent direction and some vestige of peace and stability? Of course! If the continued order and symmetry to be found in all life, the beautiful pattern of the stars remains and the operation of whatever form of divinity may continue to function, then there is hope for all of us.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO LIVED DURING THE TIME WILL ROGERS WAS A POPULAR HOMESPUN PHILOSOPHER? I THOUGHT OF HIM AND ALSO MARK TWAIN AS I READ THE POST I HAVE POSTED BELOW
In response to the Supreme Court decision leak signaling the end of Roe v. Wade, many Hollywood celebrities, such as Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Laura Dern, attended protests in New York City and Washington, DC, supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion. Many of the protesters at these events were chanting, “no uterus, no opinion”. It is interesting that these women are taking the position that only people with specific body parts are entitled to be engaged in the democratic process because for the first 133 years of this country if you didn’t have a penis, you weren’t allowed to vote. So, in essence, these women are behaving exactly like many of the powerful men in our country’s history who denied women the right to vote based on their biology.
But if we are being truly objective when excluding people from the abortion debate, it should be the exact opposite – If you have a uterus, you should have no opinion. Why? Because women have a vested one-sided interest in the legality of abortion, they bring a biased point of view. They would not be able to look at the issue objectively. And as is standard practice, people who have a vested one-sided interest in an issue, usually recuse themselves and allow people with a more unbiased view to pass judgment. But men cannot be objective either, because they also have a vested interest in abortion. In fact, more men than women want abortion to be legal because many men want to be able to have as much sex as possible, and then if they get the woman pregnant, they can sidestep their responsibility by shipping her off to a doctor to kill the baby. If we were able to ask the baby, I would surmise that 99.9999% of them would be stridently against abortion, just as you and I are stridently against murder because everyone is for criminalizing any act that could get you killed.
Many of these same outspoken pro-abortionists, shouting “my body, body choice”, last year were demanding that the government institute vaccine mandates for Covid. When it came to potentially saving their own life, they were all for allowing the government to make medical decisions for others and to determine what happens to other people’s bodies. It is only when someone else’s life is being protected by government intervention and not their own, do these people tell the government to keep their hands off the citizens’ bodies. At least, the people against vaccine mandates were willing to put their own lives on the line for their libertarian beliefs.
The abortion debate proves that many in the women’s rights movement are not about equal rights for both sexes but about gaining power for their sex. And if society had been structured as a matriarchy, then they would have abused their power to keep men down as much as the worst male chauvinist ever did to women because in the abortion debate two groups of people have a claim to rights; the woman claims the bodily autonomy not to remain pregnant, while the baby claims the bodily autonomy not to be killed. These women blindly exert their right to bodily autonomy without even considering the right to life of the baby. So, when they are put in the power position, equality and civil rights for all suddenly become irrelevant
It’s very similar to race relations in America. When white people had the power, minorities, rightfully so, demanded equal rights and equal protection under the law, and were against discrimination based on skin color. But now that the pendulum is swinging the other way, and minorities have power, many prominent civil rights advocates have become less concerned about equal rights, equal protection under the law, and discrimination based on skin color if those things happen to get in the way of them exerting their power. They have no problem with schools teaching that white people are inherently evil and irredeemably racists. They are all for racial preferences in college admissions and hiring. They are supporting everything they’d be against if the races were switched which shows that many of these people, if America had been a black-dominated society from the beginning, would have been the ones holding the whips.
That’s what the Black Power movement was all about. It wasn’t about equal rights and equal protection; it was about black people replacing white people in the repressive racial hierarchical structure of society. Their vision of justice was no more just than the unjust system they claimed to be fighting to upend. Only people like Dr. Martin Luther King, who envisioned a colorblind society, stood for true equality and true equal justice under the law. The true test of character and morality is how you use the power given to you. Do you use it for justice? Or do you abuse it for your own purposes? But that is what the women who are chanting, “no uterus, no opinion” are all about, abusing power for their own purposes.
I don’t know how anyone can march in public advocating for the murder of little babies. It’s as bad as publicly marching for slavery or the Holocaust. The amazing thing about the internet is that these protests and these opinions will be part of the public record for as long as civilization exists. And these people’s advocacy for abortion will become more and more horrid over the years the more science proves that life begins at conception and abortion is tantamount to murder. No one would have wanted to be filmed in 1863 protesting against the Emancipation Proclamation or goose-stepping down the streets of Berlin in 1933. Who wants to be the equivalent of the police officer fire-hosing black protesters in Birmingham in 1963? Or removing blacks from the lunch counters in 1960? Or preventing a little black girl from entering a white public school in 1954. So, I’m not so sure, that a hundred years from now, you want to be the person pictured holding the pro-baby killing sign.
All of those people in history were as convinced that their evil positions were as morally right as the pro-abortion protesters believe theirs are. Only time will tell who is on the right side. I sleep well at night knowing that if my position on abortion is proven to be wrong, then I simply advocated for the births of millions of children, but if proven right, then I spoke out against the killing of 60 million babies. While if the pro-abortion side is proven right, they merely supported the termination of millions of pregnancies, but, if they are proven wrong, then they were vocal advocates for the murder of 60 million babies. That’s an untenable position to take. It is a position that you must be 100% convinced beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt that it is the right position because if proven wrong, it is such an evil position to hold that there is no recovery from it. It would put you in the category of some of the worst people in human history. It would be hard for me to hold a position with even the slimmest possibility that I could be advocating for evil.
A hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, when the abortion debate is resolved, will the historians of the day place a historical context on the positions that people hold on abortion, or will they be held to the prevailing standard of the day as we do to the leaders of our past. If society finally sees abortion for the murder that it is, will politicians like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton have their names sullied and their images torn down? Will they be canceled and vilified? Will they be seen as evil for holding an acceptable political position in their day but a wholly unacceptable position in that future time? Only time will tell whose opinions are correct, but until then, everyone is entitled to voice their opinion on every issue regardless of what body parts you have.
________________________
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A UTERUS YOU ARE MORE QUALIFIED TO HAVE STRONG OPINIONS IN THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY AGAINST ABORTION THAN THOSE WHO DO HAVE A UTERUS
Several years ago, as I have heard tell, my formidable old professor of medieval Italian literature, Robert Hollander, was reading Chaucer, and he fell to weeping because the Christian faith that animated the poet was so beautiful, and he, the professor, could not share it. It was the same man who, when he first visited the University of Dallas, came back home to Princeton and said to his friend, a scholar of Cervantes, that he had finally found the school where they should have taught, rather than wasting their careers in the Ivy League. I’ve no doubt he’d have said the same had he visited us at Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts.
And here I am struck by something I find hard to explain or to understand. As I write, the Supreme Court is rumored to be about to deny that abortion is a fundamental moral right, protected by the Constitution. It will be a welcome retrenchment of the Court’s long-standing tyranny—I use the word in its ancient Greek sense, for a man is a tyrannos not because he is cruel, though such men often are, but because he exercises power outside of proper authority. Pisistratus was a generous and enlightened tyrant. Our Court has, I believe, been a soft-headed, capricious, and darksome tyrant, exercising authority that properly belongs to legislatures and executives. A lawyer’s province is the law, not the culture, nor even, except in an indirect way, the common good.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
Protestors are set to spray-paint church doors, disrupt Mass, shout obscenities and absurdities, and in general make themselves appear as ghoulish as the thing they are defending. I’m well aware that they do not regard it that way. We rarely smell our sins as they are. There will always be some cheap rhetorical cologne to splash them with, or a clothespin for the nose.
Still, there are pictures of unborn children in the womb. As early as eight weeks in, you are looking at a being that is obviously human, with arms and legs, toes and fingers, a head, a face, and eyes. A little later on, he will be sucking the thumb, practicing in the womb what will soon be his sole means of nourishment. The child is strange and familiar at once. Set aside all the muddle of your fears and desires, your resentment, your self-opinion, your politics, whatever. Look at that child. That was you, that was me.
Nothing else that we know of is like him. He possesses, in latency, the developing powers of a mind capax universi: capable of apprehending a universe of existent things. He possesses, in latency, the soul capable of grasping itself; of conceiving objects not bounded by matter; of reflecting his Creator by the works of his hands, his heart, and his imagination; of promising itself in duty; and handing itself over in love. Surely, we have here infinite riches in a little room. And he is our brother.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
What strikes me is that, in all my life, I have never heard a single supporter of the abortion license describe that child as beautiful. If you must level an old neighborhood to build an airport, you may mourn for the houses to be razed, the streams to be choked up, the contours of the land to be effaced, the human memories to be obliterated. We would consider it rather monstrous in you if you did not do so.
But the supporters of the license to kill the unborn child do not do so. They do not say, “You are right to see the beauty, your affections are just and fitting, and your moral system is admirable. It is, however, too difficult for man. We cannot live by it. We are too weak.”
It is the same for our Faith. What about it is not beautiful and filled with hope?
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
I can understand why someone might say that the Christian story is too good to be true: a God of love, the Creator, nearer to us than we are to ourselves; man, made in God’s image, fallen into sin and yet still dear, and so beloved by his Maker that God Himself would deign to be born as a mere child in this cold and hard-hearted world, would teach a doctrine at once obvious to man (because man was made for it) and yet world-shaking, such as the noblest and wisest of the philosophers could not reach (because it is in fact divine); that He would suffer mockery and persecution, and be condemned by His own people, and yet would say, from the Cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”; that He would die, and rise again from the tomb, not as a specter, and not as a resuscitated mortal, but in a glorified body, unto life eternal; that He would promise to all who love God a share in that life; that faith is true and hope is not in vain; that the first and last word on all things is the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.
I can understand why my good old professor wept. I cannot understand the contempt. I cannot understand the desperate hope that there should be no hope.
Someone may say that the view of the faith is marred by the faces of its followers. No doubt it is. I am ever in fear that some unconsidered word, some uncharitable response to uncharity, some smartly foolish rejoinder to folly, will put a stumbling stone in the path of a brother or sister on the way to salvation. But we also seek to see the worst, and even a Mother Teresa has not escaped vilification. And then there is the face of Jesus; and the face of the unborn child.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
Perhaps we should do better to tell stories, and by the unassuming beauty of an imagined life lived according to the moral law, attract our fellow dwellers in this shabby and dismal and irritable and languid world. Imagine, then, that boys and girls take for granted that they are meant to fall in love with one another. Imagine that there is an arc to their growth and their developing sexual powers. Imagine that they understand, when the first stirrings of adulthood begin to change their bodies forever, that they are rather like embryos in the womb, only beginning to learn what it really means to be a man meant for a woman, or a woman meant for a man.
Imagine that they therefore begin, with much trepidation, some embarrassment, much bashfulness, some tears, and a great lot of mirth, to learn to dance, to behave with comely modesty, to enjoy the company of the other sex, to be grateful for the differences, to open the heart to the possibility of love, to hold hands, even to kiss. Imagine that there is an aim to all this blossoming-forth in the womb of adolescence, and that the boys and girls know well what it is.
Imagine that instead of amputating their powers by pornography, and searing the wound with listlessness, and stumbling or bullying their way into bed with someone they do not love and will not live with forever, full of dark memories and regrets at the best, apathy at the worst, the boy and girl, now tall and ready for true life, though their voices are young and their faces are fresh, stand innocent before the altar and pledge themselves to one another forever.
Imagine that the wedding day is more than for legalizing and publicizing an accomplished fact, or for a party that is all the more expensive for its being sapped of significance. Imagine that it is the great end of one story, its consummation in fact, and the beginning of a new one, and that the children, children no more in body though they are yet young in soul, will soon be welcoming a new child into their midst, a new consummate mystery and wonder.
That is no airy and idealistic story. It is and has been accomplished even by fallen man, with the grace of God. And all our preaching on the family, and all our customs regarding the sexes, and all the laws that corroborate those customs, should be aimed at making that story more immediate and present to the imagination, and more common in realization; just as we want the beautiful and not the grim, the ghastly, the obscene, and the spiritually exhausted; as we want the child to live and not die.
Anthony Esolen, a contributing editor at Crisis, is a professor and writer-in-residence at Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts. He is the author, most recently, of Sex and the Unreal City (Ignatius Press, 2020).
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HERE IS YOUR MEDITATION FOR TODAY (AND OFTEN IN THE FUTURE)
Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Are Numerous May 16, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Catholics can disagree about many things and still remain faithful to the Church, but when they disagree with Church teachings on matters that are “intrinsically evil,” that cannot be taken lightly. Regrettably, many Catholic politicians are in open defiance of the Church’s teaching on abortion, a life and death issue. When the draft of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade was leaked to the press, most Catholic politicians weighed in, one way or the other. We counted 86 who did so. They represent governors, congressmen and senators. There were 84 Democrats and 2 Republicans who expressed their dissatisfaction with the anticipated overruling of this decision. Here is the list. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) “Our daughters, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers will not be silenced. The world is about to hear their fury. California will not sit back. We are going to fight like hell.” – May 2, 2022 “California will not stand idly by as women across America are stripped of their rights and the progress so many have fought for gets erased.” – May 2, 2022 Gov. Steve Sisolak (D-NV)“In Nevada, we’re committed to protecting reproductive rights – I’ve signed legislation affirming this right and expanding access to healthcare.” – May 2, 2022 Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)“A truly dark day in America with news reports that the Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.” – May 2, 2022 Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)“The ramifications of this decision would be devastating for New Mexico women.” – May 2, 2022 Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY)“For anyone who needs access to care, our state will welcome you with open arms. Abortion will always be safe & accessible in New York.” – May 2, 2022 Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)“If this draft Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe is true, it’s an enormous step backwards for our country.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)“If it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, I will just tell you that it rocks my confidence in the court right now.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA)“I’m in.” – replying to Gov. Newsom’s tweet, “We can’t trust SCOTUS to protect the right to abortion, so we will do it ourselves.” May 3, 2022 Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)“If true, this draft opinion that circulated last night would end a half-century guarantee that reproductive rights are protected by our Constitution.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)“In this moment, I want women in NJ and across the country to know that I will never stop fighting for your right to choose.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)“This is unconscionable.” – May 2, 2022 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)“We must codify the right to an abortion into federal law—even if it means eliminating the filibuster….And states like NY must open our doors.” – May 2, 2022 Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)“If this draft opinion becomes the final opinion of the Court, I have serious concerns about what overturning almost 50 years of legal precedent will mean for women in states passing near or total bans on abortion.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)“If the reporting is correct, the Supreme Court could send us tumbling backward in time, stripping away a bedrock constitutional right that has granted women autonomy over their bodies and health for nearly five decades.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)“The draft opinion shows why the Senate GOP denied Merrick Garland a hearing and rushed Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation. 2 stolen seats = Taking away women’s rights.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)“Women’s lives and their health care are not political footballs.” – May 2, 2022 “If the reporting about the draft opinion is true, America is on the path to returning to a dangerous time.” – May 2, 2022 Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)“If this is true, this kind of outcome is exactly what I’ve been ringing alarm bells about—and this is a five alarm fire….In a matter of days or weeks, the horrifying reality is that we could live in a country without Roe. If this is true, women will be forced to remain pregnant no matter their personal circumstances.” – May 3, 2022 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)“The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)“There’s been a lot of horrific long-term damaging news over the past several years, none have hit me like this.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)“The news is a reminder of what we know to be true: the Senate must end the filibuster to protect reproductive rights and make the Women’s Health Protection Act law.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)“Pro-choice elected officials need to ban together & fight for reproductive rights at every office.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ)“It’s outrageous the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn the right to an abortion.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)“The Senate must send the Women’s Health Protection Act to @POTUS now to protect access to safe abortion care and save lives.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)“This leaked draft opinion threatens the fundamental right to choose, undoing 50 years of precedent & dismantling access to reproductive health care.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)“I am apoplectic about what this leaked SCOTUS decision will do to a generation of women in this country. There has not been one word about the responsibility of the impregnator.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA)“This attempt could erase decades of progress and freedom for millions of women across our country.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)“[T]his is a sad day because again…it just reeks of not respecting women.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA)“News of a draft SCOTUS opinion on Roe v. Wade makes it clear that we must act now to protect a woman’s right to choose.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)“A decision that overturns a half century of legal precedent will be a betrayal of our Constitution and a betrayal of millions of women who count on its protections to retain control of their own bodies and choices.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA)“Right-wing extremists and their allies on the Supreme Court are trying to change the country. Because they cannot do so through legislation, they want to do it through the courts.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA)“The Supreme Court has confirmed the validity of the draft opinion and our worst fears….We must codify Roe and protect the fundamental right to control our own bodies & lives at all costs.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA)“We can make #RoeVWade the law of the land next year:… Eliminate the filibuster.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA)“We can’t go back to the days where a woman is criminalized for deciding what she does with her own body.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA)“We can no longer afford to wait to pass federal legislation protecting a woman’s right to choose.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA)“I am deeply alarmed by this draft opinion.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Nanette Barragan (D-CA)“Abortion is STILL legal right now….A right I’ll fight like hell to make sure women continue to have.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA)”I don’t want to see women return to clandestine medical procedures.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA)” This callous and reckless decision will threaten the lives of women everywhere.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA)“A woman’s right to make her own health care decisions shouldn’t be stripped away.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. John Larson (D-CT)“If the Supreme Court moves forward with this draft as written, it will be devastating.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)“[This] is a full-throated attack on Supreme Court case law that has been painstakingly built over decades to protect the right of privacy for all Americans.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT)“I am horrified, ashamed, and angry.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL)“Leaked Sup Ct opinion would set women’s rights back over 50 yrs in America.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL)“Civil rights, economic rights and LGBTQ rights are next.” – May 3, 2022″We will never stop fighting.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Chuy García (D-IL)“Striking down Roe is a direct attack on Latinos, Black Americans, & communities of color.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL)“If the Court formally adopts the leaked draft opinion, it would represent a radical departure from longstanding protections of personal freedom and bodily autonomy.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-IN)“I am a staunch supporter of women’s rights, and that includes the rights to access medical treatment, to have autonomy over their own bodies, and the ability to make their own life decisions.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA)“Women have been empowered to make their own decisions about their bodies and reproductive rights for nearly half a century. and I will not stand idly by and let decades of progress slip away.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD)“This draft decision is extreme, it’s dangerous, and will erase decades of progress for women’s rights.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA)“Here in Massachusetts, a woman’s right to choose remains sacred. We must continue to ensure that women across our country share that same access to vital health care resources.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)“We must stay focused, stay organized & use every tool at our disposal to fight back.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA)“The fight is on. We need the Women’s Health Protection Act. We need it NOW!” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)“[I]ts misguided reasoning represents an abrupt and wrong-headed departure from the basic Constitutional protections identified by Roe….” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI)“The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade would be an unprecedented attack on women’s health.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)“If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, no fundamental right in this country will be safe.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)“Women’s reproductive choice belongs to women, not a right wing Supreme Court that will allow this fundamental human right to be criminalized.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV)“5 justices shouldn’t be able to overrule our will, our rights, & our health care choices.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)“If this draft opinion is accurate, the Supreme Court is on the cusp of overturning half a century of precedent and decimating reproductive rights for millions of Americans.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)“The SCOTUS draft opinion would represent a dangerous erosion of women’s rights….” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)“An overwhelming majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. That’s why republicans today are whining about leaks: to distract you from what they’ve done.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)“This draft decision is a shocking attack on women’s health.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM)“[I]n the face of this anticipated and devastating draft decision, NM will stand with women and families. We will remain a leader in ensuring that patients have access to the full spectrum of healthcare they need and deserve, including access to abortion care.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY)“The Supreme Court’s leaked majority opinion to overturn #RoeVWade would have devastating consequences for women in this country.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY)“To be clear, this leaked opinion we are seeing is a draft, not a final order. Abortion is still your legal right. If you are in need of care, please reach out to a provider immediately.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)“This is an attack on the right to a safe abortion all over the country. We will fight this.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)“Time is running out—we have to expand the court before it’s too late.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)“As we’ve warned, SCOTUS isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage + civil rights.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)“If true, this is a draconian step backward.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY)“The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will do horrendous damage to the rights of millions of Americans….” – May 3, 2022Rep. Joseph Morelle (D-NY)“In one fell swoop, they are poised to roll back centuries of hard-fought progress, creating a dystopia where women no longer have autonomy over their own bodies.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY)“The Supreme Court is on the verge of decimating the rights of women across our country.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)“If the Supreme Court were in fact to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would further invite state legislatures with partisan agendas to interfere in one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)“Every single one of my GOP opponents supports extreme, restrictive anti-abortion laws. We cannot let them near the Senate.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)“The leaked draft decision from the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, if enacted, would be dangerous—it completely disregards science and would put the health of millions of women at risk.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA)“This is a recipe for disaster.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA)“This is terrifying and confirms what we already knew: This extreme Supreme Court is hostile to abortion.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)“This leaked opinion shows we were right to be terrified. The Senate must move NOW to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act.” – May 2, 2022Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA) “The draft Supreme Court opinion, which restricts women’s access to safe, legal abortion services, is outrageous.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA)“If the leak’s real, #SCOTUS is going to repeal #RoeVWade – an earthshattering change which most Americans oppose and which would harm women’s access to healthcare.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI)“If this reported leak is in fact accurate, it represents the most severe rollback of women’s rights in this country’s history, overturning decades of settled case law.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX)“The Senate must not wait to codify Roe to ensure women have the freedom to make personal decisions with those they love and trust without politicians trying to control them.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)“My faith is clear: abortion must be rare and safe.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)“If this SCOTUS leak is real, it is not only incredibly disturbing, but it is completely unprecedented for our nation’s highest court….I urge my Senate colleagues to codify Roe v. Wade immediately.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT)“Reports of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will be the greatest infringement of freedom in generations.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA)“By taking away a right for the first time in constitutional history, these zealots have utterly discredited the third branch of government & unleashed forces that will fracture America.” – May 2, 2022
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE “LIST OF SHAME” OF PRO-ABORTION CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Are Numerous May 16, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Catholics can disagree about many things and still remain faithful to the Church, but when they disagree with Church teachings on matters that are “intrinsically evil,” that cannot be taken lightly. Regrettably, many Catholic politicians are in open defiance of the Church’s teaching on abortion, a life and death issue. When the draft of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade was leaked to the press, most Catholic politicians weighed in, one way or the other. We counted 86 who did so. They represent governors, congressmen and senators. There were 84 Democrats and 2 Republicans who expressed their dissatisfaction with the anticipated overruling of this decision. Here is the list. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) “Our daughters, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers will not be silenced. The world is about to hear their fury. California will not sit back. We are going to fight like hell.” – May 2, 2022 “California will not stand idly by as women across America are stripped of their rights and the progress so many have fought for gets erased.” – May 2, 2022 Gov. Steve Sisolak (D-NV)“In Nevada, we’re committed to protecting reproductive rights – I’ve signed legislation affirming this right and expanding access to healthcare.” – May 2, 2022 Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)“A truly dark day in America with news reports that the Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.” – May 2, 2022 Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)“The ramifications of this decision would be devastating for New Mexico women.” – May 2, 2022 Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY)“For anyone who needs access to care, our state will welcome you with open arms. Abortion will always be safe & accessible in New York.” – May 2, 2022 Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)“If this draft Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe is true, it’s an enormous step backwards for our country.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)“If it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, I will just tell you that it rocks my confidence in the court right now.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA)“I’m in.” – replying to Gov. Newsom’s tweet, “We can’t trust SCOTUS to protect the right to abortion, so we will do it ourselves.” May 3, 2022 Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)“If true, this draft opinion that circulated last night would end a half-century guarantee that reproductive rights are protected by our Constitution.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)“In this moment, I want women in NJ and across the country to know that I will never stop fighting for your right to choose.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)“This is unconscionable.” – May 2, 2022 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)“We must codify the right to an abortion into federal law—even if it means eliminating the filibuster….And states like NY must open our doors.” – May 2, 2022 Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)“If this draft opinion becomes the final opinion of the Court, I have serious concerns about what overturning almost 50 years of legal precedent will mean for women in states passing near or total bans on abortion.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)“If the reporting is correct, the Supreme Court could send us tumbling backward in time, stripping away a bedrock constitutional right that has granted women autonomy over their bodies and health for nearly five decades.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)“The draft opinion shows why the Senate GOP denied Merrick Garland a hearing and rushed Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation. 2 stolen seats = Taking away women’s rights.” – May 3, 2022 Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)“Women’s lives and their health care are not political footballs.” – May 2, 2022 “If the reporting about the draft opinion is true, America is on the path to returning to a dangerous time.” – May 2, 2022 Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)“If this is true, this kind of outcome is exactly what I’ve been ringing alarm bells about—and this is a five alarm fire….In a matter of days or weeks, the horrifying reality is that we could live in a country without Roe. If this is true, women will be forced to remain pregnant no matter their personal circumstances.” – May 3, 2022 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)“The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)“There’s been a lot of horrific long-term damaging news over the past several years, none have hit me like this.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)“The news is a reminder of what we know to be true: the Senate must end the filibuster to protect reproductive rights and make the Women’s Health Protection Act law.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)“Pro-choice elected officials need to ban together & fight for reproductive rights at every office.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ)“It’s outrageous the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn the right to an abortion.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)“The Senate must send the Women’s Health Protection Act to @POTUS now to protect access to safe abortion care and save lives.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)“This leaked draft opinion threatens the fundamental right to choose, undoing 50 years of precedent & dismantling access to reproductive health care.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)“I am apoplectic about what this leaked SCOTUS decision will do to a generation of women in this country. There has not been one word about the responsibility of the impregnator.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA)“This attempt could erase decades of progress and freedom for millions of women across our country.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)“[T]his is a sad day because again…it just reeks of not respecting women.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA)“News of a draft SCOTUS opinion on Roe v. Wade makes it clear that we must act now to protect a woman’s right to choose.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)“A decision that overturns a half century of legal precedent will be a betrayal of our Constitution and a betrayal of millions of women who count on its protections to retain control of their own bodies and choices.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA)“Right-wing extremists and their allies on the Supreme Court are trying to change the country. Because they cannot do so through legislation, they want to do it through the courts.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA)“The Supreme Court has confirmed the validity of the draft opinion and our worst fears….We must codify Roe and protect the fundamental right to control our own bodies & lives at all costs.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA)“We can make #RoeVWade the law of the land next year:… Eliminate the filibuster.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA)“We can’t go back to the days where a woman is criminalized for deciding what she does with her own body.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA)“We can no longer afford to wait to pass federal legislation protecting a woman’s right to choose.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA)“I am deeply alarmed by this draft opinion.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Nanette Barragan (D-CA)“Abortion is STILL legal right now….A right I’ll fight like hell to make sure women continue to have.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA)”I don’t want to see women return to clandestine medical procedures.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA)” This callous and reckless decision will threaten the lives of women everywhere.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA)“A woman’s right to make her own health care decisions shouldn’t be stripped away.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. John Larson (D-CT)“If the Supreme Court moves forward with this draft as written, it will be devastating.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)“[This] is a full-throated attack on Supreme Court case law that has been painstakingly built over decades to protect the right of privacy for all Americans.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT)“I am horrified, ashamed, and angry.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL)“Leaked Sup Ct opinion would set women’s rights back over 50 yrs in America.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL)“Civil rights, economic rights and LGBTQ rights are next.” – May 3, 2022″We will never stop fighting.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Chuy García (D-IL)“Striking down Roe is a direct attack on Latinos, Black Americans, & communities of color.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL)“If the Court formally adopts the leaked draft opinion, it would represent a radical departure from longstanding protections of personal freedom and bodily autonomy.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-IN)“I am a staunch supporter of women’s rights, and that includes the rights to access medical treatment, to have autonomy over their own bodies, and the ability to make their own life decisions.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA)“Women have been empowered to make their own decisions about their bodies and reproductive rights for nearly half a century. and I will not stand idly by and let decades of progress slip away.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD)“This draft decision is extreme, it’s dangerous, and will erase decades of progress for women’s rights.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA)“Here in Massachusetts, a woman’s right to choose remains sacred. We must continue to ensure that women across our country share that same access to vital health care resources.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)“We must stay focused, stay organized & use every tool at our disposal to fight back.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA)“The fight is on. We need the Women’s Health Protection Act. We need it NOW!” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)“[I]ts misguided reasoning represents an abrupt and wrong-headed departure from the basic Constitutional protections identified by Roe….” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI)“The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade would be an unprecedented attack on women’s health.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)“If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, no fundamental right in this country will be safe.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)“Women’s reproductive choice belongs to women, not a right wing Supreme Court that will allow this fundamental human right to be criminalized.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV)“5 justices shouldn’t be able to overrule our will, our rights, & our health care choices.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)“If this draft opinion is accurate, the Supreme Court is on the cusp of overturning half a century of precedent and decimating reproductive rights for millions of Americans.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)“The SCOTUS draft opinion would represent a dangerous erosion of women’s rights….” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)“An overwhelming majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. That’s why republicans today are whining about leaks: to distract you from what they’ve done.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)“This draft decision is a shocking attack on women’s health.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM)“[I]n the face of this anticipated and devastating draft decision, NM will stand with women and families. We will remain a leader in ensuring that patients have access to the full spectrum of healthcare they need and deserve, including access to abortion care.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY)“The Supreme Court’s leaked majority opinion to overturn #RoeVWade would have devastating consequences for women in this country.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY)“To be clear, this leaked opinion we are seeing is a draft, not a final order. Abortion is still your legal right. If you are in need of care, please reach out to a provider immediately.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)“This is an attack on the right to a safe abortion all over the country. We will fight this.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)“Time is running out—we have to expand the court before it’s too late.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)“As we’ve warned, SCOTUS isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage + civil rights.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)“If true, this is a draconian step backward.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY)“The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will do horrendous damage to the rights of millions of Americans….” – May 3, 2022Rep. Joseph Morelle (D-NY)“In one fell swoop, they are poised to roll back centuries of hard-fought progress, creating a dystopia where women no longer have autonomy over their own bodies.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY)“The Supreme Court is on the verge of decimating the rights of women across our country.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)“If the Supreme Court were in fact to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would further invite state legislatures with partisan agendas to interfere in one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)“Every single one of my GOP opponents supports extreme, restrictive anti-abortion laws. We cannot let them near the Senate.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)“The leaked draft decision from the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, if enacted, would be dangerous—it completely disregards science and would put the health of millions of women at risk.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA)“This is a recipe for disaster.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA)“This is terrifying and confirms what we already knew: This extreme Supreme Court is hostile to abortion.” – May 2, 2022 Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)“This leaked opinion shows we were right to be terrified. The Senate must move NOW to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act.” – May 2, 2022Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA) “The draft Supreme Court opinion, which restricts women’s access to safe, legal abortion services, is outrageous.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA)“If the leak’s real, #SCOTUS is going to repeal #RoeVWade – an earthshattering change which most Americans oppose and which would harm women’s access to healthcare.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI)“If this reported leak is in fact accurate, it represents the most severe rollback of women’s rights in this country’s history, overturning decades of settled case law.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX)“The Senate must not wait to codify Roe to ensure women have the freedom to make personal decisions with those they love and trust without politicians trying to control them.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)“My faith is clear: abortion must be rare and safe.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)“If this SCOTUS leak is real, it is not only incredibly disturbing, but it is completely unprecedented for our nation’s highest court….I urge my Senate colleagues to codify Roe v. Wade immediately.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT)“Reports of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will be the greatest infringement of freedom in generations.” – May 3, 2022 Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA)“By taking away a right for the first time in constitutional history, these zealots have utterly discredited the third branch of government & unleashed forces that will fracture America.” – May 2, 2022
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IS THIS A FUTURE ROLL CALL LIST FROM HELL?
HE IS THE POPE, NOT THE OTHER.The non-Renunciation of Benedict XVI of February 11, 2013 it is the direct fruit of “Ratzingerism”, the taught heresy for fifty years by Pope Joseph Ratzinger in his Introduction to Christianity.
Pro manuscripto illustrated, editions Aurea Domus, in-8°, Preface by H.E.R. Mgr. René Henry Gracida. Milan 2022, pp. 469, € 60,00, at 15% discount, = € 45,00, economic shipping included, time 20 days, in USA: € 75,00. (You can request it with an E-MAIL to the Author, payment with Paypal)
* * * ONE BOOK ALONE AGAINST EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE, OR ONE BOOK TO SAVE EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE ?* * * FRONT* * *BACK* * *First: a book against Pope Ratzinger or a book to save Pope Ratzinger? Breaking the veil with which even the most apparently faithful Pastors of the Church have blinded their eyes for nine years in order to hide the truth, the book I am proposing shows, for the first time in the world, all the very gravely erroneous and articulated doctrine Hegelian taught since 1967 at the University of Tübingen by Prof. Ratzinger, who, climbing the most important steps of the Magisterium to the highest, is revered by all as the most formidable champion of the faith. Now, given that de internis non iudicat prætor, objective, public facts are found in the book, given which, see pp. 357-8, with great apprehension Pope Benedict is shown the only way to save himself from the grave danger that would await him if he does not disavow his terrible doctrines.* * *Second: a book against the “Ratzingerians” or to save the “Ratzingerians”? On this basis, for the first time in the world it is shown with the most irrefutable and rigorous evidence that the Renunciation made on 11 February 2013 by Benedict XVI is invalid and null and void, and only because it was elaborated on the basis of the erroneous Hegelian doctrine of which above, which all the Cardinals and Bishops of the Church have supinely accepted, except two, one of whom also wanted to draft the important Preface now placed at the end of the book. However, if these Pastors recognize that the Renunciation is invalid, as demonstrated on pp. LXXVI ff. and on pp. 366-8, the writer here is the first to point out that they too would save themselves from the terrible punishment that awaits those who adhere to erroneous doctrines, always in compliance with the above judicial principle.* * *Third: a book against “Francis” or a book to save “Francis”? From what has been said it follows that “Francis” is in reality an anti-pope, so that what has just been said also applies to him: if he too recognizes that the Conclave which (knowing he is electing an anti-pope: the facts are objective) elected him on the 13th March 2013 is invalid and null, he too will return to obey the Laws of God, as indicated throughout the book, especially on pp. 375-7, thus perhaps saving himself as his modernist accomplices from the punishment reserved for those who betray the Law of God. * * *
TO SHAKE THE CHURCH FROM THE MODERNIST SPELL
OF RATZINGERISM TAKES A DIVINE INTERVENTION. This book should have been little more than a pedantic and perhaps boring doctrinal critical investigation, and instead it immediately revealed much more than that, because somehow a kind of drama soon took to life in it, almost a Greek tragedy in which all the important doctrinal concepts have as though withdrawn into the background, as if they were just a large scenario, the severe landscape more and more tormented and anguished, in which events take place that have taken more and more life, breaking up in a jolt in a conclusion from page to page more and more pressing, unexpected, and, as will be seen, overwhelming.
And this is the point: that this metaphysical essay, wearing the increasingly evident and dramatic garments of a Greek tragedy, turns out to be even more than an invented work, which is precisely a Greek tragedy, showing itself as the crudest and ruthless photograph of a precise fact: that of the Church and the world caught today in their most hasty flight from reality. That is, better: in their most hasty flight from God: from the reality of God. And it is precisely from this detailed and documented discovery that the drama was born: from the merciless photograph of a precise, very current and global event; but, even before that, it is precisely from here that the rigorous, documented and scientific philosophical analysis of those Ratzingerian doctrines from which that drama came to life was born.
And this is where the book “exploded”. Yes: it really “exploded” into unexpected and very lively images of Angels, Archangels, Cherubs and Serafini, because its almost five hundred pages were suddenly animated by unexpected Celestial Creatures, don’t ask me how, don’t ask why, as if the thousand terrible doctrinal truths unfolded had felt the most imperative need to make everyone see clearly, from the first to the last page, the faces, eyes, mouths and lips of those who were really uttering those terrible and powerful words of indisputable truth, so that, among a hundred clouds torn here and there by darting rays of the sun or by flashes of lightning and lightning, they came to life, among those writings of high metaphysics about a more than justly much loved and universally well appreciated personality, and we are obviously talking about Pope Joseph Ratzinger, dozens of ineffable creatures who somehow made their way between the lines, the drop caps, the references, the headlines, shaking them and violating them. and with no respect for the structural order, now with the most moving, weeping and painful sweetness, now with the most unusual roughness and arrogance, in any case always without having asked anyone’s permission, certainly not me. Result? I wish the readers were to judge him. We could perhaps imagine this strange book with a somewhat four-faced look as if it were not at all shy, but determined, unstoppable and comely last Muse, also released, like all her other sweet sisters, due to the urgency of the Truth to show us that it can reach our hearts not only through the irresistible force of the most reasoned and solid logic, but because it is precisely this Truth, in itself Truth, that is attractive, that is splendid, that is beautiful, that is, that is boundlessly desirable, to be married immediately and forever.Why marry? Because the Truth that lives in Beauty is our Lord Jesus Christ himself, Verbum etImago Dei, and he is our Spouse, it is He who awaits us from heaven, to make us live forever. Forever, do you understand? Together with him, in the Father’s arms of love. What are we waiting to be convinced?* * * (Go up)Here, in a nutshell, are the eighteen serious heretical deviations that I believe taught for fifty years by Professor Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in his Introduction to Christianity, fifteen of which are struck by the Church – and one of them even three times –, in his long history, from the due anàthemes, and which together gives rise to the multi-heresy, never disavowed, indeed at least three times by its Author reiterated, of the “RATZINGERISM”:1), the most springing and initial deviation: adoption of the Kierkegaard-Pascalian fideistic model, for which the metaphysical knowledge of God is impossible (see, in At the heart of Ratzinger, §§ 11-21);
2), the most incisive: subversion of the order of the Persons of the divine Monotriad, that is, not perceived but implemented and systematic inversion of the metaphysical order that will and intellect must have (the will, which proceeds, is made to precede the intellect), thus making the SS. Trinity an arbitrary and dictatorial God as in the erroneous Islamic notion, so as to lose his two most substantial qualities: the reason and the love (throughout the book, especially in §§ 65-6 and 70); anathematized;
3), the most devastating: consequent recourse to the postulates of practical reason: replacement of reasons for believing with the will to believe. Thus theory is replaced with praxis, which however, as we know, is not suitable for reasoning, but rather constitutes its stumbling block that devastates and annihilates it, that is, it is its error (see §§ 11-21) ; anathematized;
4), the most modernist: adoption of the skeptical Fideistic doubt based on knowledge, assuming as a criterion precisely what constitutes the surest vehicle of cognitive uncertainty, placing it in the first place at the basis of the knowledge taught by the Church: supernatural knowledge, or witness, or by faith (§ § 11-6);anathematized;5), the most tragedy: the conviction that God remains “essentially invisible”, even in the beatific vision of Paradise (§ 18);
6),the most antiscientific: the evident if not explicit disavowal of the divine origin of the Bible, for which it would be man who conjectures things about God, and not God who with His Word teaches man what man must know about He and must then do (§§ 64 and 69); anathematized;
7),the most atheist: to reduce the notions and prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning invisible realities such as Hell and devil or miraculous such as the divine and virginal sonship of Jesus Christ to imaginative and semi-pagan mythologisms (in several points, especially in §§ 64-5); anathematized;
8),the most idealistically cause initial: the evident but not explicit disregard of the reality principle, which moreover can only be found in the principle of source “innascence”, or “of in-birth” of God the Father, and, metaphysically speaking, nowhere else (§§ 10 and 25);
9), the most idealistically consequent: splitting of the Papacy into “Active Papacy” and “Passive Papacy” within a “Synodal Papacy”, in the typical, unreasonable, unrealistic and anti-Catholic idealistic Heg-elian scheme of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” (§ 22);anathematized;
10), the most Pantheistic-Spinosian: to make thinking coincide in God with creating, with the consequent conviction that therefore the essence of God would be involved in His creation and in human history (§§ 19, 42 and 63; anathematized;
11), the most absurd (but ideologically necessary for the Ratzingerism): connote God as “God of Freedom”, charging Him with two aspects then transmitted, by analogy, to the world created by Him: elusiveness and unpredictability, as in the false notion of God elaborated later by Mohammed, and, nine hundred years later, by Luther, by Calvin and the “enlightenment” atheists of all centuries, including those of today (§§ 24-26); anathematized;
12), the most unlikely antitrinitarian: to introduce in the essence of God, in addition to the concept of Logos, that of Diá-logos, or “Colloquium”, for which the three Persons “dialogue” with each other as with man; the antipope will take the matter to the extreme, arguing that « the three Persons quarrel », because the dialogue of a “God of Freedom” cannot have boundaries (§§ 55-60 and 66); but the essence of God has no motion: in it there is only one, unique, all-en-compassing and eternal “SuperThought”: the Logos; anathematized;
13), THE MOST SERIOUS: rejection and annihilation of the divine, ineffable Redemption as the ‘Holocaust Sacrifice of God the Son, in Jesus Christ, to God the Father’, confirmed in 2016 – in an interview with Jacques Servais s.j. – as a fact « unacceptable by modern man », that is, in reality, by Pope Ratzinger himself (§§ 39-43 and 62-5); anathematized;
14), the most reductive: the belief that Redemption is “the attainment, in Christ ‘Omega’, of the perfect man” with a Teilhardian imprint (§§ 44-7); anathematized;
15), the most devastating: cancellation of original sin, of the concept of sin as an “offense to God”, of Hell, of the devil, of Purgatory, of Heaven, as well as of the final and definitive separation of the “pious people” from the “impious”, because it too is « unacceptable by modern man », that is, always by Ratzinger, also here hidden behind the periphrasis « modern man » (§§ 50-3); anathematized;
16), the most illogical and depressing: cancellation of the glorious bodies of the blessed in Paradise, including those of Christ and the Virgin (§§ 50-1); 17), the most repulsive: the conviction that « the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus would not be affected if Jesus were born of a human marriage », with all the multiple, serious and heretical consequences that this entails (§ 71); anathematized; and three times;
18), the most ecumenist: the opinion that the Church’s unconsutable tunic, due to the splits caused by the disobedience and rebellions of the heretics, is today « divided into multiple churches » (§ 72); anathematized.* * *CONTENTS. (Go up)Foreword of René Henry Gracida………………………………….p. I First Part.
PREQUEL: ON THE RENUNCIATION OF POPE BENEDICT XVI. 1. The reason why we call these pages “Prequel”.………..p. V
2. Today, Romano Amerio would affirm: “Benedict XVI’s Resignation is invalid, null and void. Ratzinger is still the Pope. Bergoglio is an antipope.” The reason is the following………………………………………p. VII
3.How did we arrive to the present disgraceful situation…..p. X
4. What is the good that the Church must always pursue…..p. XII
5. The terms of the problem…………………………………………..p. XV
6. The three notions of ‘Munus Petrinum’, ‘Munus Episcopi’ and ‘ministeriumEpiscopi’ according to the meaningattributed to them from Magisterium of the Church………………………………………………………..p. XVII
7. The three notions of ‘Munus Petrinum’, ‘Munus Episcopi’ and ‘ministeriumEpiscopi’ according to the meaning attributed to them since fifty years from Pope Benedict XVI’s – Joseph Ratzinger’s in his ancient and never retracted Hegelian ideology…..p. XXII
8. The three notions of ‘Munus Petrinum’, ‘Munus Episcopi’ and ‘ministeriumEpiscopi’ in the meaning attributed to them from Pope Benedict XVI’s in his Declaratio of Resignation of February 11, 2013………..p. XXIV
9. Logical-semantic analysis of the Farewell Speech held by Benedict XVI of February 27, 2013…………….p. XXVII
10. The notions of ‘Bishop emeritus’ end of ‘Pope emeritus’ according to the Magisterium of the Church. Do we have here a legislative vacuum or only the will to do whatever one wants?……………p. XXX
11. First conclusions of the logic-semantic analysis on Benedict XVI’s Declaratio and Farewell Speech…p. XXXV
12. The arguments of invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI’s Resignation of the Papacy with regard to a juridical-canonical validation. First aspect: is the Resignation invalided by external elements?………………………………………p. XXXVII
13.The arguments of invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI’s Resignation of the Papacy with regard to a juridical-canonical validation. Second aspect: is the Resignation invalided by internal elements?..……………………………………..p. XL
14. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………..p. XLIV
15. Finally, there is a reasoning thatdoesn’tgive alternatives: neither to the Pope, nor to anyone else: the Pope is and remains Benedict XVI. The reasoning that we say is called “Disjunctive vel”. There it is.………………………………p. XLVII
15.A. First reflection, based on the premise ‘p’, which says: You are Pope, yes, albeit ‘emeritus’.…p. LI
15.B. Second reflection, based on the premise ‘q’, as opposed to ‘p’:No, You are not Pope, because You has renounced it.…………………………….p. LIV
Post Scriptum. Where and how this work is inserted in the vast panorama of the very significant studies existing on the topic today on the subject……………..p. LVII
Annotation in the margin of the II par of p. XXVII (*), of the II par of p. XLIII (**) end IV par of p. XLV (***)…………………………………..p. LXVIII The Cardinal Ratzinger excommunicates Pope Ratzinger (and with him the whole Church). And You, Pope Ratzinger, what are You waiting for to save Yourself from excommunication (and save, with You, the whole Church)?…………….p. LXVIII
Is perhaps a universal self-excommunication of the Church possible? Yes, it is possible: isn’t that just what is happening today?……………..p. LXXVII Second Part.
ON THE TEACHING OF JOSEPH RATZINGER IN HIS STUDY INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY. Anthology of the eighteen (18!) most serious heresies foundin Introduction to Christianity, never retracted, indeedthree times, even recently, by their Author confirmed, fifteen of which (five out of six) already struckby precise anàthemas.…………….p. 373
1. Equalities and inequalities…………………………………………..p. 17
2. Who is the true “Master of doubt” of the super-doubtful Cardinal Archbishop Monsignor Carlo Maria Martini ………………………………….p. 19
3. First: what is the task of a catholic theologian regarding the “Norma normans” of the Faith? Second:is this task also performed by Prof. Ratzinger?…………………………………………………..p. 22
4. The non-catholic heaven of the Professor from Tübinghen’s book, Introduction to Christianity – which by an ideological choice is a historicist, anti-metaphysical and fideistic book – anticipates the sky without dogma of today’s antipope “Francis”……..p. 26
5. Why an old book of fifty years ago is as important is as few other books in the word……………………………….p. 31
6. How to empty the doctrine of Faith from inside. Or from where, how, and through whom the current devastating secularization of the West has been spread……p. 36
7. Metaphysical methodology and historical methodology: that is catholic and anti-catholic, that is, modernist. Which one will Prof. Mons. Ratzinger have chosen?………p. 42
8.The historicist, anti-metaphysical, anti-scientific, and anti-catholic methodology of the Theologian from Tübingen.…………………………………………………………p. 47
9. If the exclusion of the correct investigation tools, which are moreover a duty and mandatory, can constitute a method……………………………………………….p. 51
10. The historicist method is the theologian’s drug. And the Protestant and Lutheran leaders are its pushers…..p. 54
11. One by one, the Professor’s main statements of Tübingen on the problems of doubt of Faith.………….p. 59
12. The doubt. The only thing of which, for Professor Ratzinger, one must never doubt……………….p. 62
13. You will never insist enough on certainty that God wants to instill in us: to be knowable by us. More: that His knowledge is by God strongly wanted……………….p. 67
14. Perfect theoreticality of the reasoning of Faith. Total unreasonableness of any doubt about Faith…………….p. 70
15. The crossroads of Ratzingerian thought is not Faith, but doubt. And precisely the skeptical doubt.…..p. 72
16. The Ratzingerian skeptical doubt, father of the new era of Faith: the ‘Mobilist’ Faith………….p. 74
17. What ever might conclude of good, a reason that made it self unable to be, as it should, very certain of the truth it knows, one reason, that is, which, by it self, has made it self powerless and incapable of reasoning correctly?……………………………………………….p. 78
18.Professor Ratzinger has every reason to have such a dramatically skeptical Faith: how does a man have a luminous Faith in a God which for him will always be « the essentially Invisible »?…………………………………….p. 81
19. Here we are, at last it comes to light a doctrine that dangerously approaches Professor Ratzinger to nothing less than Baruc Spinoza. And not only………p. 87
20. Kantius genuit Kierkegaardium, Kierkegardius genuit autem Coxium, Coxius inde genuit Ratzingerium, Ratzingerius vero genuit Martinum, Martinus denique……p. 92
21. The fideistic skepticism of the Tübingen Professor is it perhaps subject to some ecclesiastical censorship?…………………………………………..p. 94
22. The heretical Ratzingerian concept of the active Papacy and the passive Papacy as a direct reflection of the scheme idealistic Hegelian-like of “believer and non-believer”……………………………………………………………..p. 97
23. God said: « Look for Me in a horrid region », or not rather: « Do not look for Me in a horrid region »? (Isaiah 45:19; tr. CEI 74.)……………p. 103
24. To much “relationship”, in the Professor’s theology, and no “substance”: “But it’s the anti-metaphysics, my dear. It is from here that the Church has lost the principle of reality.”………………………………….p. 104
25. The most appropriate definition of the “religious philosophy”, as Livi would call it, of the Professor Joseph Ratzinger, is: “Ultra-Idealist Philosophy”: “Beyond Idealism”.…………………………………………………p. 111
26. If the “God Freedom” conjectured in 1967 in Tübingen resembles the notion of God elaborated in 610 by Mohammed and that reworked in the Sixteenth century by Luther and Calvin.………..p. 114
27. What binds and what unties the uncertainties of skeptical doubt to the certainties of the “Common sense” of Mgr. Livi and of Faith…….p. 118
28. For Professor Ratzinger and Cardinal Martini perhaps that Faith is a perpetual wave-like motion?………p. 122
29. The one professed by Professor Ratzinger and by Cardinal Martini is a heretic ‘voluntary doubt’, or is it merely ‘an excessive preoccupation with believing’?…….p. 129
30. From the skeptical doubt of the Professor of Tübingen to « synodal polyhedral » of the antipope “Francis”: total abolition of all truthful certainty, to begin with from that of the five certainties of the “Common sense”………..p. 133
31.If it can be said that a Christian “does not have” the truth, who does not posses the truth, as the antipope “Francis” says.………………………………..p. 136
32. Can’t Popes be judged and censored? In that case are to be judged and censored a Professor and a Cardinal……p. 141
33. If the heretical palindrome conjectured in 1967 by the Professor of Tübingen, confirmed and perfected in 1988 by a ultra-Cardinal of Milan, finally summarized in 2015 even by an antipope, it annihilates the whole Church…….p. 144
34.Thanks to the “Farmer”, we understand the “Prof”; worse: thanks to an antipope we understand the Pope. More: thanks to an antipope idolatrous we understand a Pope heretical. That is, how much ultra-extremist it is was believed moderate.……………..p. 147
35. Who is it, for the Tübingen Professor and for the man of today, the protagonist on the world scene: is it perhaps God, which, however, don’t be seen, or is it the man, who instead be seen?………………………….p. 151
36. The real drama – tó dràma – is between Heaven and earth, between God and man. But Prof. Ratzinger does not notice it at all………………….p. 156
37. Since God, provided He exists, provided He speaks, He didn’t speak first, who ever did then?…………………….p. 160
38. And forgiveness too, who brought it into the world? God brought it or men brought it?………………………………p. 164
39. We enter the drama of the Heavens. And of the Heavensof Heavens: the drama of an indignant God the Father, and of His Son – He too God –, to Him in His own sacrificed blood. We enter there whereit really does not want to enter, and never is entered, the historicist Professor from Tübingen.………………………………………..p. 168 40. For the Church it is the central “liturgical dogma”. For Professor Ratzinger (and future Pope) it is « a cruel one and unacceptable mechanism ». Who is right?…………………………………………………………..p. 171
41. I ask: the millions of Masses celebrated according to the Novus Ordo Missæ of Pope Paul VI, are under anàthema?…………………….p. 174
42. In full Soteriology, appears again Spinoza………………….. p. 180
43. “Lamb of God”: yea, to appease the indignation of God, the Lamb can only be of God. But in what sense “of God”?………………………………………p. 18344. Prolegomena to an evolutionary theology: “Cosmic Doubt” plus “Cosmic Evolutionism”, equal to…?…………………………………………………………….p. 188
45. Where, how and when was born the transformation of the rocky society founded on Jesus Christ into the liquid society dissolved in the putrescent liberal acid…….p. 194
46.The fluid and putrescent society of today is all born from a fluid and putrescent Church, which is to say from a Church false-pastoral, i.e. hypo-dogmatic, born from a fluidand putrescentCouncil, i.e. from a false-pastoral Council, that is hypo-dogmatic: the very modernist Ecumenical Council Vatican II…..p. 198
47. Professor Ratzinger, in short: Evolution or Redemption? “Mais naturellement, oui: ‘Èvoludemption’! In English‘Evoludemption’!That’s what they say, right?”…………………………………..p. 202
48. The fanciful and palpable contradictions of an antipope, and the false and non-existent contradictions of the Truth…………………………………………p. 207
49. How Ratzingerian Ultra-Idealism – surpassing himself, as indeed was predictable – it has become “the Ratzinger-Teilhardian Theological System”……………p. 208
50. To Catholic dogma absolutely not enough that Paradise is located « in the memory of God ». To Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, on the contrary, instead yes. Who is right?………………………………………..p. 212
51. The « resuscitation of the bodies » according to the two New Cathars: Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin s. j. and the Monsignor Joseph Aloisius Professor Ratzinger………p. 216
52.No devils, for Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, nor damned. The Hell, in fact, is not only empty, but, for him, it isn’t even there………………………………………………………p. 228
53.So no devils, damned and Hell, for the Prof. Ratzinger, but not even Limbo, Purgatory and Paradise.Thus is solved at the root “the Great Problem of Evil”.……..p. 230 54. Add “Christ Omega” to “Christ Community”. This, with the drafting of Introduction to Christianity, is the large strategy of Professor Joseph Mgr. Ratzinger.…..p. 23955. Says “Tübingen”: « In the one and indivisible God exists the phenomenon of dialogue ». But motion, in God, doesn’t exist. So, how can there be ‘dialogue’, which certainly is a motion?……………………………………….p. 244
56. The Professor Ratzinger is the real great theorist of the II Vatican Council: it is he who has been able to find in the SS. Trinity the cornerstone of the praxis there born and brought to full maturity by the antipope Bergoglio……….p. 24857.Trinitarian continuity and discontinuity, that are substantial, decisive, between the Prof. of Tübingen and the antipope today increasingly indecently reigning.…………………………………………………………………p. 25458. The Professor of Tübingen does not even imagine what hides the Trinitarian « diá-lógos »invented by him.. But the non-Pope “fake simpleton” understood this immediately.…………………………………..p. 258
59. The small Greek particle ‘diá’ is the Ratzingerian least iota that, exploding in three powerful errors, it subverts the essence of God and the whole earth, as it can only the most furious spiritual cataclysm in the world…………..p. 261
60. Says the Professor from Tübingen: « The three Persons of the SS. Trinity dialogue ». « No – says the antipope “Francis” firmly –, the three Persons quarrel, but they do not show it ».………………………………p. 26361. “To dialogue! To dialogue!” They shouted joyfully the Fathers of the II Vatican Council leaving St. Peter’s “(Thus the world will no longer grimly at us)”……………..p. 267
62.There is a problem: that “the Great Problem of Evil” is exalted by the Redemption of Christ, which frees man from things as sin, death and Hell, which however are no there left. So what do we do? Simple: you change Redemption.……………………………..p. 270
63. Analysis of what is called “medium term”, that is, of the topics chosen by the Professor of Tübingen to “forget” the work of Redemption of Jesus Christ………p. 274
64. But the narrator of the Holy Scriptures is it God or is the Professor of Tübingen?…………………………………p. 279
65. Analysis of the final conclusions reached by the Professor Ratzinger for remove, indeed for cancel, without being seen by none, the Redemption of Jesus Christ……..p. 288 66. ‘Diá’ and ‘relation’. Two of the many small iota not to be included in any way in the Catholic doctrine on the SS. Trinity. But inserted secretly by a Professor of Tübingen……..p. 296 67. The basic Christological error of the Theologian of Tübingen it is to place the starting point of the Catholic Faith in the Cross, and not, as it is, in the glory of the Resurrection…………………………………..p. 300
68. The premise necessary and sufficient to solve all the problems that arise from the “Great Problem of Evil”………………….p. 304
69. Here are all the problems of the “Great Problem of Evil”. But also their holy, unique and Christ-like solution…..p. 309
70. How can serious explanatory work be transformed of the doctrine in a dangerous ideology, that is, in horrid idol………………………………………………….p. 321
71. Let us now speak of the Blessed Virgin. “But why – asks Professor Ratzinger –, must She be a virgin? There was no need”.……………….p. 326 72. Professor Ratzinger, tell us: the Church of Christ is or is not only and uniquely the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church?……………………………………………………p. 34273. Without Livi’s notion of “Common sense”, there is a big risk: even that the idol ‘community’ be born – as Professor Ratzinger does – from the Holy Scriptures……p. 348 74. Sacrificed to the Ratzingerian idol ‘Community’ also the lively and most loving hermit spirituality…………p. 354
75. But there is any ruby, or sapphire, or perhaps a diamond, of which the Church can treasure, adorn itself with, clothe itself with, that is not ideologically scratched by the philosophical slant from which movesthe distinguished Professor of Tübingen?………p. 358 76. For a start, a nice ruby: Professor Ratzinger would hate, just like Professor Livi, “theological utilitarianism”. Yeah, but then: why use it?…………………………………………p. 35977. Almost a diamond, the one on page 195, where we discover that the doctrine of Jesus is Jesus himself. Yes, very good. But… ……………………….p. 361
78. Unexpectedly a sapphire, and great, immense: a boundless and moving sapphire like the celestial vault..p. 36379. We conclude by adorning ourselves with an amethyst, and let’s go back to the problem from which we started: and good “Tübingen” to make it a question of method…p. 36880. Conclusion: MENE – TEKEL – PERES. What does it mean?……………………………………………….p. 372
MENEDn 5:26 « God as computed Your Kingdom – Your life – and ended it ». At the heart of Ratzinger. By Pope Ratzinger: “Repent, and You will save not only Your life, but that of the whole Church!”……………………………….p. 379
TEKELDn 5:27 « You were weighed on the scales and You were been found insufficient ». At the heart of the Pastor of the Church. Of all the Pastor of the Church: “Choose: are You Catholics, or are You Ratzingerians, that is Modernists?”………..p. 388
PERESDn 5:28 « Your Kingdom will be divided and given to the Medes and the Persians ». At the heart of the antipope, yes: by Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio. “Return the Throne you usurped, and the Lord will look back at you!”……………………….p. 397(Pagina protetta dai diritti editoriali).
Enrico Maria Radaelli *
Sito realizzato da 
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.