Thursday, April 23, 2020 Friends,Christ is Risen! I recently received this letter from a reader:”Robert, “Thank you so much for taking since the death of your father an increasingly bold and courageous stand on the distressing developments in the Church. “It seems that the visible Church is being hollowed out to a large degree at an accelerated pace, and the void strategically and deliberately filled with something else — and, whatever that something is, it is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith of the past 20 centuries. “I never thought I would live to see such days.”There are many recent signs that this ‘something else’ is connected to an underlying conviction of Freemasonry: that all religions are equal and that an unswerving devotion to Christ as the unique savior is an impediment to the ideal of human brotherhood. “Note these signs: In contrast to the case of that French priest who was defrocked in 2013 (in a process begun under Benedict) because he refused to resign from a Masonic lodge, in recent months we’ve seen the opposite. An Austrian Catholic priest and Vatican official in clericals can now openly hold a press conference explaining his Masonic membership and launch his new 500-page book proclaiming the compatibility between “regular” (Anglo-American-recognized) Masonry and the Church, and expect (and apparently receive) no punishment is striking, and quite a spectacle. (link) “This of course comes on the heels of last year’s report that Freemasonry in Australia is or was being tolerated by the bishops’ conference, and indeed in official conversation with the Church there, with a Catholic priest still openly serving as a Masonic lodge chaplain in Queensland to boot (never mind the decades of overt, de facto toleration of Catholic Masons in Brazil, where even bishops hold Masses for them at which they wear their regalia).”What I think Inside the Vatican can offer, perhaps uniquely, is the ability to probe what is going on — also knowing, as I think we do, that Pope Francis has been no fan of Freemasonry since his days in Buenos Aires.  However, I sense Pope Francis’s objections have less to do with the Church’s official teaching than with his general antipathy to bourgeois deal-makers (unless, of course, they’re his own deal-makers). “My hypothesis? Given the ‘anything goes’ atmosphere in the Church at present, those who want to modify the Church’s stance on Freemasonry are testing the waters again, and evidently with some success. They probably hope to achieve de facto open tolerance of ‘regular’ Masonry in the short run and eventually of de jure official acceptance in the future.  “I assume you’ve seen the all coverage I’m referring to, but no one and no Catholic publication has yet tied these strands together, or offered an explanation of what they might portend.”In my view, the only good things to come out of this present crisis are (1) the demise of an exaggerated papalism; (2) the revelations, during this pontificate, of the deepest (and longstanding) moral corruption within, now requiring a thorough purification. “That is not, however, to say that Our Lord necessarily wills this crisis, but only that the crisis has exposed at least two things needing thorough correction.”As to what happens next, only God knows… “Yours in Christ,(name) I recall a conversation that I had with then Cardinal Ratzinger a few years before he became pope. We were in his apartment, not far from St. Anne’s Gate. We were discussing his conflict with Cardinal Walter Casper over the question of Universal Church and Particular Church which was much in the media at that time. I asked the Cardinal where the greatest danger to the authentic Catholic faith lies. “Is it in our own selves, our own sins and weaknesses. Is this what is the greatest danger to the Church or is it something else, some external enemy?” He looked at me directly in the eyes and then after a moment’s pause, as if he were reflecting, he said: “It is Freemasonry.”  I never forgot that conversation as it was fixed point that brought to a conclusion a long series of questions that had concerned me up until that meeting and have concerned me since. I would stress that the question concerns Christ. How are we to understand Christ and His centrality not only for our faith but for the very existence of our universe. If we believe in Christ we believe that through Him all things were made and therefore, that we ourselves were made through Him. And, if we make this the central concept, or principle, of our understanding of reality, then reality cannot frighten us, for Christ Himself is the ultimate reality, and it is His face that we see on the other side of sorrow and death. But if, out of a declared desire to reconcile differing groups of men, differing religions, Christ is removed from the central place — and this seems to be a central teaching, if not the central teaching, of Freemasonry, that Christ is not alone — then we are in that moment lost, subject to another “power” or “reality” who will not be as loving, as faithful, as committed to our freedom as souls having free will, as is Christ, the Lord. This is the crux of the battle over these ideas. At stake is the centrality of Christ. ***Prompted by the letter above, and by these memories of my talk with the future Pope Benedict XVI, I decided to make a modest effort to gather some of the facts referenced in the letter, and to put together a little report on a matter that many regard as of marginal importance, but which is in fact of central importance for the Church, and for our freedom as sons and daughters of God. A more complete report will appear in the June-July issue of Inside the Vatican.—RM   “Lodge and Altar”: Is a New Campaign Underway to Make Masonic Membership Permissible for Catholics? What a difference seven years makes: in 2013, a French priest was removed from office and stripped of his public ministry for refusing to resign from Freemasonry. By contrast, in February 2020 an Austrian priest and Vatican official quite open about his Masonic membership held a press conference to launch his new book about about the alleged compatibility of “regular” (British-recognized) Masonry and the Catholic faith, with little if any fear of punishment. This is one of many such recent, emerging efforts from Europe to Australia to “normalize” Masonic membership in the Church.  What exactly is going on, and why is this happening now?Although Pope Francis is no admirer of the Freemasons, having encountered them as wheeler-dealers in his native Buenos Aires, it appears action is no longer being taken to discipline priests and prominent laymen who are known Masons, or bar them from Holy Communion. This has clearly emboldened those working to gain de facto Vatican acceptance of Masonic membership and what they undoubtedly hope will be an eventual official change to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s 1983 Declaration on Masonic Associations.  There Ratzinger wrote: “The Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”However, it is true that there has been confusion since the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, as it no longer mentions Masonry by name and dropped the previous penalty of excommunication for Masonic membership. That is why then-CDF Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger issued a statement a day before the new Code came into force, explaining that Masonic membership remains forbidden and is a grave sin. InThe declaration specifically stated that local ecclesiastical authorities have no power to modify the Church’s centuries-old position, but as we’ll see below, the proponents of change are chipping away at all aspects of this landmark document. The most spectacular, or if you prefer, brazen, recent event was the February 12, 2020, press conference alluded to above, which took place in Vienna and served as the launch for Fr. Michael Weniger’s new 500-page book Loge und Altar. (link)Fr. Weniger, a former Austrian diplomat who was ordained in 2009 following the death of his wife, is a Mason and the chaplain of three Austrian Masonic lodges.  In 2012, Pope Benedict appointed him to the Pontifical Commission for Interreligious Dialogue. On the podium with Fr. Weniger was Georg Semler, a self-described “committed Catholic” who is currently Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Austria. Weniger noted that copies of his book were distributed to Pope Francis and to various cardinals, including Vienna’s archbishop, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, 75, the recipients of which he said responded “with benevolence, without exception.”  The book’s thesis is that there is no contradiction between being a Catholic and a member of a British-recognized “regular” Grand Lodge which requires a belief in God; focuses on basic ethical lessons grounded in natural law, offers conviviality and good fellowship, and does charitable work; and specifically forbids discussion of or involvement in politics and religion. He concedes that the Church’s fears about the liberal, “adogmatic” Grand Orient-type of Masonry (deemed “irregular” and not genuine Masonry by London) are well-founded, as the notorious Grand Orient of France (France’s largest Masonic group) and similar bodies are overtly and aggressively political and anticlerical, with a membership largely made up of left-leaning atheists and agnostics.  Despite all this, Fr. Weniger remains a priest in good standing as far as anyone can ascertain.In 2019, an equally surprising revelation came out of Australia, when a retired Queensland priest, Fr. Kerry Costigan, published an article in the magazine of the National Council of Priests of Australia, making similar arguments to those of Austria’s Fr. Weniger.  Fr. Costigan revealed that he, too, is a Mason and lodge chaplain and, more stunningly, that British-origin Australian Freemasonry has been in official private dialogue with the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference (ACBC) for years. He called on the ACBC to make its correspondence public, including a letter in which he said the bishops’ conference secretariat stated that “any Catholic man may join Freemasonry as exists in Australia.”  It came out that several years earlier, three of the Grand Masters of Australia’s five grand lodges were Roman Catholics who wished to regularize the status of Catholic Freemasons in the country. The Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference secretariat suggested that it would consider a joint proposal coming from all five Australian grand lodges. The fruit of these efforts include a now-leaked exchange of letters, one of which was written by ACBC General Secretary Fr. Stephen Hackett, MSC, which lauded the “spirit of harmony” now existing between the Church and Australian Freemasonry, and stated that “no penalty attaches to Catholic membership.” It also proposed that Masonic membership for Australian Catholics should treated as a personal, pastoral matter.  As with Fr. Weniger, it appears that Fr. Costigan is at little risk of losing his priestly faculties.Again, how different things were only a decade ago when it was discovered, in 2010, that a French parish priest in the diocese of Annecy, Fr. Pascal Vesin, was a member of the Grand Orient of France. In those last years of Pope Benedict’s papacy, Fr. Vesil’s bishop worked discreetly and gently to try to persuade him to resign, but in the end Vesil refused, and so was removed from office and suspended from public ministry in 2013, in the first months of Pope Francis’s pontificate. Vesil, then in his early 40s, walked 900 kilometers from his home to the Vatican, a 39-day “pilgrimage” as he called it, hoping for an audience with Pope Francis or with one of his secretaries. He never got one, and the French media quipped “Père ou Frère?” — “Father or Masonic brother?” In recent years, the Church has also turned a blind eye to prominent Catholic laymen who are Freemasons. A good example is President Trump’s Ambassador to China, the conservative former Republican Governor of Iowa and Catholic convert Terry Branstad, who was nominated for the role in 2016 and who now represents the United States in Beijing.  No one disputes Ambassador Branstad’s pro-life credentials or the honor bestowed on him by the Church in investing him as a Knight of the prestigious Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre, one of the two orders (the other being the Knights of Malta) specially and officially recognized by the Vatican. The Holy Sepulchre order, whose mission is to support the threatened Christian presence in the Holy Land, is headed by Cardinal Fernando Filoni, 74, who was appointed to that role by Pope Francis in 2019. Yet Branstad also remains a 32nd degree Mason and “Knight Commander of the Court of Honor” of the (US) Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, a Masonic body known until relatively recently for its rather open hostility to the Catholic Church.  This is apparently what de facto toleration of Catholic Masonic membership looks like today.It’s also worth noting that while Masonry is in a steep decline in much of the English-speaking world, in parts of Europe and Latin America it continues to grow, have influence and advance the business and political careers of its initiates. It is estimated that about one-third of the members of France’s Senate and National Assembly belong to one or another of the broad spectrum of Masonic “obediences.” Catholics may recall the story of the courageous late French police colonel Arnaud Beltrame, who voluntarily exchanged his life for an Islamist prisoner in 2018, and who was still nominally a member of the Grand Lodge of France at the time of his execution but was increasingly drawn to his Catholic faith before his death. (Some have even called for his canonization, saying that what matters are his actions in his last hour, as a kind of martyr.) Inside the Vatican‘s hallmark has always been fidelity to the Magisterium, and also a scrupulous attention to the facts. Yes, we recognize that Freemasonry is a very heterogeneous phenomenon around the world, and even includes, in most of Scandinavia, a Christian-only form of Masonry that is a kind of Lutheran confraternity very different from lodges in other parts of the world. At times, Catholics have indeed been too quick to give credence to questionable or unreliable anti-Masonic exposés, as with the fictitious (and ultimately embarrassing) Taxil ones of more than a century ago.  However, the Church’s official position on all forms of Masonry remains unchanged, though clearly it is being flouted more and more without consequence. We should remember the Roman legal maxim that custom is the best interpreter of laws. It seems those who wish to alter the Church’s position think they may have found a pathway to regularization, step by de facto step. As it happens, some of them take inspiration from the Vatican’s signing, on February 4, 2019, of the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, arguably and ironically a more “advanced and progressive” declaration than any ever issued by the fusty United Grand Lodge of England.

Divine Mercy Miracle? Light Beams From Divine Mercy Image During Parish Mass Live-Stream

by ChurchPOP Editor – Apr 22, 2020

Whoa! What do you think of this?

Father José Guadalupe Aguilera Murillo of San Isidro Labrador Catholic Church in Querétaro, Mexico broadcasted Mass via livestream this past Sunday amid the coronavirus pandemic. However, something unexpected occurred during the stream.

Since the Catholic Church celebrated the feast of Divine Mercy on Sunday,  Fr. Murillo placed the image in the video’s background. However, if you look closely, the rays of white light beam from the image across the altar.

Here’s the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bakT4hicnOE
Click here if you cannot see the video above. 

Here’s another photo:

Jesus told St. Faustina, “The pale ray stands for the Water which makes souls righteous. The red ray stands for the Blood which is the life of souls.”

“These rays shield souls from the wrath of My Father. Happy is the one who will dwell in their shelter, for the just hand of God shall not lay hold of him.” (Diary of St. Faustina, 299)

“By means of this image I shall grant many graces to souls. It is to be a reminder of the demands of My mercy, because even the strongest faith is of no avail without works.” (Diary of St. Faustina, 299)

What a beautiful blessing!

The parish commented on the event, saying “Lord, I trust You! Thank you for making yourself present in our devotion to Divine Mercy.”

The parish also added the screenshot as the cover photo for their Facebook page.

What do you think about the video?

Jesus, I trust in you!

The Eponymous Flower

ANTE DIOS NUNCA SERÁS HÉROE ANÓNIMO

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

“They Are Trying to Establish a ‘Neo-Church'” — New Interview of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

In a new interview, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano criticizes the fact that a connubium of modernists and Freemasonry wants to create a “neo-church”.
(Rome) Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has been one of the most internationally renowned Church representatives since his sharp criticism of Pope Francis in the McCarrick case. In an interview published yesterday, he spoke about the attempt to replace the Church of Jesus Christ with a “neo-church” and about the Third Mystery of Fatima.
Cardinal McCarrick had risen to become the most influential cardinal in the United States under Pope Francis. Although in June 2013, in his capacity as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Vigano had informed the Pope in detail about Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual double life and his corruption of priests and seminarians, Francis remained inactive.
It wasn’t until the New York Times published McCarrick’s legacy in July 2018 that Francis stripped him of cardinalship. But when the head of the church declared that he knew nothing of all that he had otherwise acted earlier, it was too much for Archbishop Vigano. He accused Francis of in fact covering up McCarrick’s machinations for more than five years and making him his adviser. The archbishop accused Francis not only of cover-up and omission, but also of lying, and called on him to resign. Francis declined to comment.
Archbishop Vigano, on the other hand, has been living in secret “for fear of retribution” ever since and only goes public in writing. An exception was the Acies ordinata against the “Synodal Way” of the German Episcopal Conference, which took place in Munich last January. Archbishop Vigano surprisingly mingled with the participants.
Yesterday he gave an interview to the Portuguese newspaper Dies Irae in which he also commented on the Third Secret of Fatima.
DIes Irae: Excellency, thank you for giving us this interview. We are in the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic that has affected the lives of millions of people in recent months and has even caused the deaths of many of them. In view of this situation, the Church, through the Episcopal Conferences, has decided to close virtually all churches and to deprive the faithful of access to the sacraments. On March 27, In front of an empty St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis led a hypothetical prayer for humanity in an apparently media-friendly manner. There have been many reactions to the way in which the Pope carried out this moment, one of which tried to link the lonely presence of Francis with the message of Fatima, that is, with the Third Mystery. Do you agree?
Archbishop Vigano: First of all, allow me to say that it is a pleasure for me to give this interview to the faithful of Portugal, to whom the Blessed Virgin has promised to keep it in the Faith even in these times of great trial. You are a people with great responsibility, because you may soon have to preserve the holy fire of religion, while other nations refuse to recognize Christ as their king and the blessed Mary as their queen.
The third part of the message, which Our Lady entrusted to the shepherd children of Fatima so that they may deliver it to the Holy Father, is still secret. Our Lady asked for it to be revealed in 1960, but John XXIII issued a press release on 8 February of that year declaring that the Church “does not want to assume the responsibility of guaranteeing the truthfulness of the words which the shepherd children say the Virgin Mary addressed to them.” With this distancing from the message of the Queen of Heaven, a cover-up operation began, apparently because the content of the message would have revealed the terrible conspiracy against the Church of Christ by its enemies. Until a few decades ago, it would have seemed unthinkable that one would go so far as to silence even Our Lady. In recent years, however, we have even experienced attempts to censor the Gospel, the word of her divine Son.
In 2000, during the pontificate of John Paul II, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano [1990–2006], presented his own version as the Third Secret, which, due to some elements, clearly seemed incomplete. It is not surprising that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone [2006–2013], tried to draw attention to an event from the past, only to make the people of God believe that the words of the Virgin had nothing to do with the Church crisis and with the interaction of modernists and Freemasonry behind the scenes of the Second Vatican Council. Antonio Socci, who has carefully examined the Third Secret, exposed this deliberate behaviour of Cardinal Bertone. At the same time, it was Bertone himself who strongly discredited and censored the tears of Tears of Our Lady of Civitavecchia, whose message perfectly matches what she had said in Fatima.
Let us not forget the unnoticed appeal of Our Lady to the Pope encouraging all bishops to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in order to defeat Communism and atheist materialism: not to consecrate “the world, not that nation that you want us to consecrate to you “, but “Russia”. Did it cost too much to do that?

Obviously yes for those who have no view of the supernatural. One preferred the path of détente with the Soviet regime that Roncalli had taken, without understanding that peace is not possible without God. 
Today, with a President of the Russian Federation who is certainly a Christian, this request of the Virgin could be fulfilled in order to avert further catastrophes for the Church and the world.
Benedict XVI also confirmed the topicality of the message of the Virgin Mary, although according to the interpretation spread by the Vatican, it is to be regarded as complete. Those who have read the Third Secret said in all clarity that it concerns the apostasy of the Church, which began at the very beginning of the 1960s and has now reached such an obvious stage that it is recognized even by inexperienced observers. This almost compulsive insistence on issues that the Church has always condemned, such as relativism and religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, Malthusian ecology, homoheresy and mass immigration, has found in the Abu Dhabi Declaration the fulfilment of a plan conceived by secret sects for more than two centuries.
DIes Irae: In the middle of Holy Week and after the Synod of Amazons, the Pope decided to set up a commission to discuss and study the women’s diaconate in the Catholic Church. Do you think that this has the purpose of paving the way for the clericalization of women, or, in other words, an attempt to manipulate the priesthood that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted on Holy Thursday?
Archbishop Vigano: The Sacrament of Holy Orders can and will never be changed in its nature. The attack on the priesthood has always been at the heart of the actions of the heretics and their inspirer, and it is understandable that attacking the priesthood means destroying Holy Mass and the Most holy Eucharist, as well as the entire sacramental structure. Among the conspiratorial enemies of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, there was, of course, no shortage of modernists who, since the 19th century, have theorized a Church without priests or with priests and priestesses. These delusions, anticipated by some representatives of modernism in France, subtly resurfaced at the Second Vatican Council in an attempt to imply a certain equivalence between the official priesthood resulting from the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the general priesthood of the faithful emerging from baptism. It is significant that it is precisely through the play with this deliberate misunderstanding, the reformed liturgy [Novus Ordo] is also affected by the doctrinal error of Lumen gentium, going so far as to reduce the consecration to mere presiding in a meeting of [general] priests. The priest is in reality an old Christ, not because the people appoint him, but through the ontological alignment with the high priest Jesus Christ, whom he has to imitate in the holiness of life and in the absolute devotion, which is also represented by celibacy.
The next step therefore had to be necessarily followed, if not by the extinguishing of the priesthood, then at least by making it ineffective by extending it to women who cannot be consecrated. It is precisely what has happened in the Protestant and Anglican sects, which today are also experiencing the embarrassing situation of having lesbian bishops in the so-called Church of England. It is obvious that the ecumenical “pretext” – that is, the approach to deviating communities, even by accepting the latest errors – is based on Satan’s hatred of the priesthood and would inevitably ruin the Church of Christ. At the same time,  ecclesiastical celibacy is also the target of the same attacks, because it belongs unmistakably to the Catholic Church and is a valuable protection for the priesthood, which tradition it has kept vigorously throughout the centuries.
The attempt to introduce a form of consecrated women’s ministry in the Church, despite the repeated declarations of the Magisterium, is not new. John Paul II, too, clearly defined, with all the canonical requirements of an infallible ex-Cathedra declaration, that it is absolutely impossible to question the doctrine on this subject. But just as one has put one’s hand on the Catechism to declare the death penalty “not in conformity with the Gospel”, which is unprecedented and heretical, so today one tries ex novo to invent some form of female diaconate – propaedeutic, of course, for the future introduction of the women’s priesthood.
The first Commission set up by Bergoglio years ago issued a negative opinion and confirmed what could not even have been discussed. Because a commission was unwilling to obey Francis’ wishes, this does not mean that another commission whose members he chooses could not be more “docile” and more willing to destroy another pillar of the Catholic faith. I have no doubt that Bergoglio has convincing methods and that he can put pressure on the Theological Commission. But I am equally sure that in the unfortunate event that this consultative body should give a favourable opinion, it will not necessarily need an official statement by the Pope to see the introduction of deaconesses in the dioceses of Germany or Holland – while Rome is silent on this. This method is well known and makes it possible, on the one hand, to attack the priesthood and, on the other hand, to provide a pleasant alibi for those within the ecclesial structures who thus claim at all times that “the Pope has not allowed anything new”. This is exactly what they have done by authorizing the Episcopal Conferences to allow autonomous hand-Communion, which was enacted by abuse and has now become a worldwide practice.
We should remember that this approach to the dogmas of the Church confirms an undeniable fact: Bergoglio has adopted the so-called situation theology, whose loci theologici, theological places, random facts or themes are: the world, nature, the feminine, young people… This is a theology which does not focus on the immutable and eternal truth of God, but on the contrary starts from observing the imperative urgency of phenomena in order to give answers that correspond to the expectations of today’s world.
Dies Irae: According to renowned historians, the Second Vatican Council was a break between the Church and tradition. Hence the appearance of ways of thinking, which they want to transform into a mere humanitarian association that embraces the world and embraces its globalist utopia. How do you see this serious problem?
Archbishop Vigano: A church that presents itself as new in contrast to the Church of Christ is simply not the Church of Christ! The Mosaic religion, that is, the “Church of the Old Law”, which was wanted by God to lead His people to the coming of the Messiah, has found its fulfillment and completion in the New Covenant and was finally revoked on Calvary by the sacrifice of Christ. From his open side came the New and Eternal Covenant, which replaced the synagogue. It seems that the post-Conciliar, modernist and Freemason Church also aims to transform, overcome, and replace the Church of Christ with a “neo-church”, a disfigured and monstrous creature that does not come from God.
The purpose of this neo-church is not to get the chosen people to recognize the Messiah, just as it is not the purpose for the synagogue to convert and save all peoples from the second coming of Christ, which is the purpose of the Catholic Church. Its purpose is rather to constitute itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order and to promote the One World Religion. In this sense, the Council Revolution first had to destroy the heritage of the Church, its thousand-year-old tradition from which it drew its vitality and authority as the mystical body of Christ. Then it was a matter of getting rid of the representative of the old hierarchy, and only recently she began to show herself to be what she wants to be, without pretense or camouflage.
What you call utopia is in fact a dystopia, because it represents the concreteization of the plan of Freemasonry and prepares the appearance of the Antichrist.
I am also convinced that the majority of my confreres, and especially almost all priests and believers, are not fully aware of this hellish plan, and that recent events have opened the eyes of many. Their faith will enable our Lord to gather the pusillus grex, the small flock, before the final confrontation around the true shepherd.
Dies Irae: In order to restore the ancient splendour of the Church, it will be necessary to question many aspects of the Council’s teaching. What points of the Second Vatican Council would you question?
Archbishop Vigano: I believe that there is no shortage of important personalities who have already expressed the critical points of the Council better than I have. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it was used in the Synod of Pistoia. It also contained good things, but the errors it claimed were considered sufficient to make them forgotten.
This Irae: Is the current pontificate the culmination of a process that begins with the Second Vatican Council and was longed for in the so-called “Catacomb Pact”, or is it still an intermediate phase?
Archbishop Vigano: As with any revolution, the heroes of the first hour often fall victim to their own system, as was the case with Robespierre. Those who were regarded yesterday as the flag bearers of the Council Spirit now appear almost as conservatives: the examples of this are visible before all eyes. There are already those who, in the intellectual circles of progressivism (such as those frequented by a haughty Massimo Faggioli), begin to dispel doubts here and there about Bergoglio’s real abilities, to make “courageous decisions” – for example, to abolish celibacy, to allow women to the priesthood, or to legitimize the Communicatio in sacris with heretics – almost as if he were hoping that he would step down in order to elect a pope who was even more obedient to the elites who had their most unscrupulous and determined followers in the Catacomb Pact and in the Mafia of St. Gallen.This Irae: Our Excellency, we Catholics today often feel isolated from the Church and almost abandoned by our shepherds. What can you say to the hierarchs and believers who, despite the confusion and error that are spreading in the Church, are trying to persevere in this tough struggle to maintain the integrity of our faith?
Archbishop Vigano: My words would certainly be inadequate. I confine myself to repeating the words of our Lord, the eternal word of the Father: “Be sure, I am with you all the days until the end of the world.” Of course, we feel isolated: but did the Apostles not feel that way, and all Christians? Didn’t even Our Lord feel abandoned in Gethsemane? These are times of trial, perhaps of the last trial: we must drink the bitter cup, and even if it is human emanating from the Lord to let him pass by us, we must repeat with confidence: “But not as I will, but as you will” and remember His words of consolation: “In the world you are in affliction; but have courage: I have conquered the world.”After trial, however hard and painful it may be, the eternal reward will be prepared for us that no one can take away from us. The Church will once again radiate the glory of her Lord after this terrible and long-lasting Easter triduum.
Although prayer is undoubtedly indispensable, we must not relent on fighting the good struggle, but should make everyone witnesses of a courageous spirit of struggle under the banner of the Cross of Christ. Let us not allow the finger to be pointed at us, as the maid did in the court of the high priest with Saint Peter: “You also were one of his disciples,” and then he denied Christ. Let us not be intimidated! Let us not allow the gag of tolerance to be applied to those who wish to proclaim the truth! Let us ask the Blessed Virgin and Our Lady Mary that our tongue can courageously proclaim the kingdom of God and Hs righteousness. May the miracle of Lapa be renewed, where the blessed Mary gave back the voice to little Joana, who was born dumb. May she also give us a voice, her children, who have remained silent for too long.
Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Victories, ora pro nobis.

Introduction/translation: Giuseppe
Nardi Picture: Corrispondenza RomanaTrans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDGPosted by Tancred at 11:33 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to PinterestLabels: Antonio Socci, Archbishop Vigano, Judeo-Freemasonry, Massimo Faggioli, Our Lady of Fatima,Pope Francis, Portugal, Second Vatican Council, Third Secret, Women’s Diaconate, Women’s Ordination

4 comments:

JBQ said…

Boom! Talk about a “cannon shot across the bow”. April 22, 2020 at 3:17 PM

Max said…

Dear archbishop Carlo, thank You from the bottom of my heart for this words.There is no confusion, no political corectness, no double standards, no misunderstandings in your words.Everything is crystal clear.This is narrative and attitude in which I recognize true shepherd, and which I follow.God bless You, and give you strenght for the battle which we all must go through.April 22, 2020 at 4:44 PM

YARP said…

WE HAVE TO INCREASE OUR PRAYER, OUR CLOSENESS TO GOD, INFORM OURSELVES OF OUR TRUE RELIGION THAT WE KNOW OUR FAITH, AND STAND FIRM IN TRUTH, REFUSING THE DISGUSTING COMPROMISES THAT DISTORT THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH AND DISMISS OUR GOD IN FAVOR OF THOSE WHO WOULD FORM THEIR OWN IDEA OF CHURCH. MAY GOD BE CLOSE TO US. CK
April 23, 2020 at 10:01 AMFr. VF said…

There are two ways to change one substance into another.

1) The miraculous, unique, instantaneous, NON-PHYSICAL (and therefore invisible) event known as “transubstantiation,” whereby bread and wine instantaneously cease to exist, changed into the living Body and Blood of Jesus Christ;

2) The non-miraculous, normal, non-instantaneous, physical process of gradual change.

In #2, the change of substance is brought about through a gradual change in the accidents of the object. Examples:

a) Holding a flame to a flammable object. It gets hotter and hotter, then begins to burn. Wood, paper, fabric, etc., are thus changed to various kinds of ash.

b) Digestion. The food (animal or vegetable) is attacked by stomach acid and bacteria, is broken down, and eventually converted into the flesh of the animal that consumed it.

It is by the SECOND type of substantial change that the Catholic Church has been almost entirely converted into the Ape Church. The Catholic Church today exists only as isolated, pulverized, disorganized particles of food that have been left on the plate. The rest, no longer on the plate, has been consumed, digested, and utilized to form the Ape Church. Hundreds of millions of people have been incorporated into the Ape Church, while totally unconscious of the process they have lived through.

Because the Ape Church retains use of the name “Catholic Church,” and occupies the buildings, including the historic headquarters, of the Catholic Church, it is currently “victorious.” The actual Catholic Church will emerge from eclipse when enough people recognize the theft.April 23, 2020 at 12:47 PM

NEWS

BILL GATES: THE INCREDIBLE SCAM BEHIND HIS FOUNDATION

APRIL 23, 2020FROM ROME EDITORLEAVE A COMMENT

French, with English subtitles.

This report, from Sept. 19, 2019, reveals that even then it was known that Bill Gates controlled ALL THE DECISIONS of the World Health Organization, and that his alleged philanthropy is to exploit the poor, especially in Africa, to make himself richer.

SHARE THIS:

• https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.6787510241df65d128e2b60207ad4c25.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Ffromrome.info%2F2020%2F04%2F23%2Fbill-gates-the-incredible-scam-behind-his-foundation%2F&related=wordpressdotcom&size=m&text=Bill%20Gates%3A%20The%20Incredible%20Scam%20behind%20his%20Foundation&time=1587657487235&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffromrome.info%2F2020%2F04%2F23%2Fbill-gates-the-incredible-scam-behind-his-foundation%2F&via=wordpressdotcom
• https://www.facebook.com/v2.3/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=249643311490&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df23c4bc263d118%26domain%3Dfromrome.info%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ffromrome.info%252Ff6552670b1d3f%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Ffromrome.info%2F2020%2F04%2F23%2Fbill-gates-the-incredible-scam-behind-his-foundation%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey
• Print
• Save
• Share
• https://widgets.getpocket.com/v1/button?label=pocket&count=horizontal&v=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffromrome.info%2F2020%2F04%2F23%2Fbill-gates-the-incredible-scam-behind-his-foundation%2F&title=Bill%20Gates%3A%20The%20Incredible%20Scam%20behind%20his%20Foundation%20%7C%20FromRome.Info&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffromrome.info%2F2020%2F04%2F23%2Fbill-gates-the-incredible-scam-behind-his-foundation%2F&r=0.5533401596929525
• https://www.reddit.com/static/button/button1.html?newwindow=true&width=120&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffromrome.info%2F2020%2F04%2F23%2Fbill-gates-the-incredible-scam-behind-his-foundation%2F&title=Bill%20Gates%3A%20The%20Incredible%20Scam%20behind%20his%20Foundation
• https://embed.tumblr.com/widgets/share/button?canonicalUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ffromrome.info%2F2020%2F04%2F23%2Fbill-gates-the-incredible-scam-behind-his-foundation%2F&postcontent%5Btitle%5D=Bill%20Gates%3A%20The%20Incredible%20Scam%20behind%20his%20Foundation&postcontent%5Bcontent%5D=https%3A%2F%2Ffromrome.info%2F2020%2F04%2F23%2Fbill-gates-the-incredible-scam-behind-his-foundation%2F
• Email
• WhatsApp
• Telegram

https://widgets.wp.com/likes/index.html?ver=20190321#blog_id=57452816&post_id=14641&origin=fromrome.wordpress.com&obj_id=57452816-14641-5ea1bb0d9d6d0&domain=fromrome.info

RELATED

• SUBSCRIBE to the NEW OXFORD REVIEW

Volume > Issue > “Politics and the English Language.” By George Orwell.

“Politics and the English Language.” By George Orwell.

LITERATURE MATTERSBy Michael S. Rose | April 2020Michael S. Rose is Associate Editor of the NOR.

In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell poses a thoughtful question: Does language experience “natural growth” or is it shaped “for our own purposes”? In other words, does the English language organically evolve over time or is it purposefully manipulated in order to affect the social order? Anyone familiar with Orwell’s body of work can probably guess at the trajectory of his response. Although one could argue that this seminal essay on 20th-century linguistics was written merely to lament the “general collapse” of language as a reflection of the general collapse of civilization following the Second World War, Orwell’s ultimate purpose is to show that social activists can unduly manipulate language for their own ends by obscuring meaning, corrupting thought, and rendering language a minefield in the political landscape. Why? Orwell says: to effect changes in thought and affections and to shame those who somehow prove impervious to manipulation.

Orwell dramatizes this assertion in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Published three years after “Politics and the English Language,” the iconic dystopic novel imagines a futuristic government that manipulates language so that its citizens conform in thought, word, and deed to a narrow political orthodoxy. Language, in fact, is the primary change agent, assisted by government-engineered fearmongering and savage punishments for language dissidents.

Just as language matters in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, it matters in our world too. Consider, for example, the basics of “inclusive language.” Back when Orwell was writing, and throughout much of the 20th century, the accepted universal singular pronouns were he, him, and his, a reality codified in every English grammar text published before 1999. These pronouns referred to any individual, whether male or female, as in “Every student should bring his book to class.” The meaning was clear, the convention was understood, and because it was an accepted grammatical convention, no one was denounced as sexist for applying its usage. Some years later, in an effort to be “inclusive,” language handlers in academia and the publishing industry pointed out that the convention itself was sexist and reinforced sexism in society. If they could change the convention, they reasoned, they could change society.

The language handlers first promoted the alternative “inclusive” usage of he or she, him or her, and his or hers — and soon thereafter demanded it. Those who continued using traditional grammatical constructions that included the universal pronouns he, him, and his (especially men) were often branded, on the basis of their grammar alone, as sexists. But mere social stigma later gave way to punitive actions. For example, in 2013, California State University, Chico, revised its definition of sexual harassment and sexual violence to include “continual use of generic masculine terms such as to refer to people of both sexes.” Thus, Chico profs who say, “Every student should bring his book to class” are susceptible to disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal. As you might imagine, Chico is not alone in this. Rather, this is the norm on most college campuses.

But now, in 2020, it is no longer acceptable to use he or she or him or her. What was once promoted and then demanded by language handlers as inclusive has now been deemed verboten by the same people! Who are these language handlers? In brief, they are the engineers of the English-language style manuals used by academia, the media, and the publishing industry, all easy prey to special-interest lobbyists who demand language changes to promote their sociopolitical agendas. Last year, for example, the American Psychological Association (APA) announced a change to its stylebook, advocating for the singular they because it is “inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender.” The APA style guide makes it clear that using his or her is no longer inclusive and no longer acceptable. This could not have happened without the proponents of transgenderism pushing for the manipulation of language. In order for the APA’s statement to make any sense — “they…is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender” — one is forced to accept the premises of transgenderism, including the theory of so-called nonbinary gender. If one is to accept the usage of the singular they, one must also accept the fantasy that an infinite number of genders exists and that language is tied to something called “gender expression” rather than to sex, which is binary (i.e., male and female).

In 2018 the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) released a “Statement on Gender and Language,” promoting the use of the singular they as the only inclusive universal pronoun. In its position statement, the NCTE actually spells out the premises one must accept in order to make sense of the singular they. This is not about language clarity or precision; this is about advancing a sociopolitical agenda that requires everyone — yes, everyone — to accept the following terms:

Gender identity: an individual’s feeling about, relationship with, and understanding of gender as it pertains to their sense of self. An individual’s gender identity may or may not be related to the sex that individual was assigned at birth.

Gender expression: external presentation of one’s gender identity, often through behavior, clothing, haircut, or voice, which may or may not conform to socially defined behaviors and characteristics typically associated with being either masculine or feminine.

Cisgender: of or relating to a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender: of or relating to a person whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. This umbrella term may refer to someone whose gender identity is woman or man, or to someone whose gender identity is nonbinary (see below).

Nonbinary: of or relating to a person who does not identify, or identify solely, as either a woman or a man. More specific nonbinary identifiers include but are not limited to terms such as agender and gender fluid (see below).

Gender fluid: of or relating to individuals whose identity shifts among genders. This term overlaps with terms such as genderqueer and bigender, implying movement among gender identities and/or presentations.

Agender: of or relating to a person who does not identify with any gender, or who identifies as neutral or genderless.

The NCTE, like the APA, the Chicago Manual of Style, and the Associated Press, not only advocates using the singular they, it also prohibits “using he as a universal pronoun” and “using binary alternatives such as he/she, he or she, or (s)he.” And, in case you don’t understand the prohibition, the NCTE provides an example of the forbidden “exclusionary (binary)” language: “Every cast member should know his or her lines by Friday” must be rephrased as “Every cast member should know their lines by Friday.” But the new convention presents an offense against the dignity of traditional grammar usage, as the plural pronoun, their, does not agree with its singular subject, cast member. (Really now, a simpler rewrite would render the sentence both grammatically correct and “inclusive”: All cast members should know their lines by Friday.) And, according to NCTE, in the case of a student named Alex, who declares that his preferred pronouns are they, them, and their, a teacher should say, “Alex needs to learn their lines by Friday.” Yes, seriously, this is the example given by the NCTE. (And whose lines, one may ask? Everyone’s lines? This phrasing is lacking in precision and clarity, and this from the organization that exerts enormous influence over our nation’s high-school English teachers!) To be sure, teachers and students will be forced to utter the ridiculous: Alex needs to learn their lines by Friday. Failing to do so could, in the near future, be construed as gender harassment and be cause for expulsion or sacking.

So, why does it matter what the APA or the Chicago Manual of Style or the NCTE has to say on the matter of nonbinary, gender-inclusive language and the singular they? Well, the APA sets the writing style and format conventions for academic essays for many college and high-school students, as well as for scholarly articles and books. The Chicago Manual of Style (published by the University of Chicago) sets the editorial standards and conventions that are widely used in the publishing industry. And the NCTE, as mentioned above, sets the tone for high-school English teachers across the nation, those who will teach our children to read, write, and speak.

In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell calls this “an invasion of one’s mind” — again, the purposeful manipulation of language in order to corrupt one’s thoughts and affections. Thus, the choice of academia, the media, and the publishing industry to adopt the singular they is not simply about word choice — as silly and illogical as it may be: Alex needs to learn their lines by Friday! — it is about forcing students and others to accept the language of transgenderism and the ideological corollaries behind the vocabulary. It is asking us all to accept something that is less than reality. Pronouns, we are told, are no longer related to the body (male and female) but to the mind, how one “identifies” or “expresses” the social construct of gender. Reality is denied, and the fluid world of one’s nonbinary fancy replaces it.

It is worth noting that last year the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education published a 30-page document, “Male and Female He Created Them,” on this very topic. Quoting Pope Francis, it explains that gender theory “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.” This ideology, Pope Francis explains, promotes “a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time.” Thus, in the case of the Catholic educator or the Catholic student, one must compromise one’s religious principles in order to conform to the industry standards of language.

This attempt to transplant pronouns from the body to the mind, Orwell might say, is an attempt to destroy our ability to communicate. According to this new norm, one can now choose from a multitude of “gender identities” — or simply make up a new one — none of which has any fixed link to a specific set of pronouns. (Some recently emerging gender pronouns include zir, ze, xe, hir, per, ve, ey, hen, and thon. And there are more! Facebook, for example, offers 50 options. Fifty!) In fact, following this reasoning, gender expressionists may, at any time and for any reason, decide to change their preferred personal pronouns but without changing their gender identity; they may also decide to change their gender identity without changing their preferred pronouns — or they may choose to change both.

This is the kind of linguistic pretension that, as Orwell warns, obscures meaning, corrupts thought, and renders language a minefield in the political landscape. Why a minefield? As Orwell illustrated in Nineteen Eighty-Four, language-engineering is an attempt to shame or punish those who disagree with the ascribed linguistic orthodoxy. And, again, to what end? As Chicago-based community activist Saul Alinsky famously wrote in his manifesto Rules for Radicals (1971), “He who controls the language controls the masses.” (Note his use of “sexist language” by way of the universal singular pronoun he.) Alinsky, an enthusiastic advocate of manipulating language for political purposes, agrees with Orwell: It’s all about thought control; it’s about superimposing a sociopolitical ideology on the masses; it’s about altering our understanding of the world; it’s about customizing the language to effect whimsical social change. It’s ultimately about altering reality so that, as Orwell dramatized in Nineteen Eighty-Four, we come to accept that “war is peace,” that “freedom is slavery,” and that two plus two equals five.

Orwell, as evidenced by “Politics and the English Language,” believes that language should reflect reality. If it doesn’t, what possible limits could be placed on misleading, manipulative language, whether in grade-school textbooks, government documents, or political campaign literature? If language is “always evolving,” as many commentators have reasoned in their recent support of so-called nonbinary, gender-inclusive language (including the singular they), what is stopping anyone from using this as an excuse to effect any change in any language for any reason at any time?

©2020 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved.

DEBATES, NEWS

RUSSO TO SCHNEIDER: WE MUST BELIEVE BENEDICT, WHEN HE SAYS HE IS STILL THE POPE

MARCH 6, 2020 FROM ROME EDITOR 13 COMMENTS

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

Authorized English translation by FromRome.Info

Due Papi, Due Domande Impellenti, Una Risposta urgente.

by Marco Tosatti

Dear Friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae: a friend of our community, Sergio Russo, author of the book about which about which we spoke some time ago, Sei tu quello o dobbiamo aspettarne un altro? (Are you the one or should we expect another?), has sent us a reflection which seems to us particularly interesting and stimulating on the strange situation in which we we are living, and about which we have spoken in recent days.  Have a good read!

§ § §

Two Impelling Questions
which necessitate an urgent answer

by Sergio Russo

The first is: “Is Pope Francis a pope in every way, or not?”

The second, which is consequent upon the first, is: “Is Pope Benedict XVI still the pope, or not?”

I offer my personal contribution to the present debate, taking occasion also from the recent intervention by the Mons. Athanasius Schneider (dated Feb. 28, 2020) published originally in English at the site LIfeSite News, and also in French translation on the blog, Le Blog de Jeanne Smits.

Therefore, I will list here simply a series of facts, and not of argumentations, leaving it to the Reader to form his own opinion on the matter, knowing well, however, that contra factum non valet argumentum (against a fact no argument is valid).

·         Both academics and experts of things theological, as well as simple faithful, have noted how, from the date of March 13, 2013, even unto today, there has been created an unheard of situation, never before happening in the two thousand year history of the Church: the co-existence and co-habitation in the Vatican of two popes.

·         All of these, however, know well that the expression, “pope emeritus”, plays on the congruence/assonance of “Bishop Emeritus” and “Cardinal Emeritus”, and that, besides, it is not ordained by any canon of ecclesiastical law, neither past nor present …
Moreover, it is to be noted – and here it basically returns to the same univocity which occurs in effect in the principle — just as there is, thus, no “priest emeritus”, so also, both the academic and the faithful have always known (but perhaps today the way to understand things has changed?) that there absolutely is no other kind of pope, neither Emeritus nor Presiding, and more so, and this by “una contraddizione, che nol consente … (a contradiction which does not consent to it)”, as Dante would say, since — and all believing Catholics have always held this as valid — the pope is the symbol and guarantor of unity in the Catholic Church, and She is one Body (though Mystical, but a true body), which cannot have but one sole Head!
Therefore, not a two-headed Body, which would be a monstrosity, and neither a headless body, which would instead be a deficiency: as a matter of fact, one alone is the Christ, one alone is the Church, one alone the Faith, one alone the Vicar of Christ and one alone the Head of the Church …. and this is what the two-thousand year Magisterium of the Church has always affirmed, without the least hesitation!

·         Pope Francis, on the one hand would be the pope in every way, since he was licitly elected by all the Cardinals, united in a lawful Conclave (and which consequently is indubitable)

·         On the other hand, we are given to know that the election of Pope Francis (and this is also indubitable) might not be equally valid, since according to a declaration — never denied — of the now late Belgian Cardinal Godfried Dannels, present in his book-biography, which reports the admissions of the prelate made to the journalists, J. Mettepenningen and K. Schelkens, the said Cardinal revealed to them that a group of Cardinals and Bishops (to which he also belonged) worked for years to prepare for the election of J. M. Bergoglio, seeing that all of these porporati were opponents of Joseph Ratzinger: it was, in fact, a group which was kept secret, which the same Cardinal Danneels defined as “a mafia club, which bore the name of St. Gall”.
And this type of agreement, according to the Apostolic Constitution of Saint John Paul II, Universi Dominic Gregis, which regulates the “vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff”, falls under a latae sententiae excommunication, as is clearly affirmed in nn. 77, 81, and 82:

« Confirming also the prescriptions of our Predecessors, I prohibit anyone, even if he is marked with the dignity of the Cardinalate, to make agreements, while the Pope is alive and without having consulted him, about the election of His Successor, or promise votes, or take decisions in this regard in private meetings » (n.79);
« The Cardinal Electors are to abstain, moreover, from every form of vote-canvassing, agreements, promises or other pledges of any kind, which can constrain them to give or deny their vote to one or another.  If such in reality would happen, even if under the obligation of a vow, I decree that such a pledge be null and invalid and that no one is bound to observe it; and from this moment I impose the excommunication latae sententiae upon the transgressors of this prohibition.» (n.81);
« Equally, I forbid to the Cardinals to make, before an election, formal agreements, whether to receive pledges of common agreement, obliging themselves to put them into effect in the case that one of them be elevated to the Pontificate.  Even these promises, as much as they might be made, even under the obligation of an oath, I declare null and invalid » (n.82).

·         It is good to repeat that the “Renunciation” of Benedict XVI (according to his own admission) was truly made in full awareness and without any constraint … and yet that such a “renunciation” cannot be held to be truly such, since (and this is the seventh one which has occurred in the course of the two thousand years of Church history) all those who did renounce the papacy afterwards returned to their prior status as before thier election: and hence he who was a Bishop or Cardinal, returned to being a Bishop or Cardinal … he who was before a hermit, returned to be a hermit … (if one remembers the events of Pope Celestine V and Pietro da Morrone!), and hence none remained pope (not even an “emeritus”, or any other kind), by continuing to wear the white cassock, by maintaining the papal coat of arms, by signing wtih the name of the Pontiff, etc..

·         Hence, just as, if one must believe that Benedict XVI posited his “renunciation” in total autonomy and independence … so and equally, one must believe in what He himself declared:  “… When, on April 19 nearly 8 years ago I accepted to assume the petrine ministry … from that moment on I was engaged always and for always by the Lord …  The “always” is also a “for always”, there is no longer a return to the private: My decision to renounce the active exerciste of the ministry, does not revoke this ” (Benedict XVI, Wednesday General Audience of Feb. 27, 2013, Piazza S. Petro).
And hence, through his own same admission, Benedict XVI is always and still pope, whether others say so or not.
Therefore, in this case more than ever, there is required by all a firm intellectual coherence: if we ought to believe and hold as true the words of the Holy Father about His own renunciation, we ought, on the other hand and equally, believe and hold as true the just mentioned words pronounced by Benedict XVI, which affirm that he remains still and always pope!

·         In conclusion, how can one explain, then, such an apparent and present unresolved situation in the Church … what, in substance, ought we hold to have clear ideas and not to let ourselves be overwhelmed, even us, by such a contemporary “confusion”?

The solution is supplied us both by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, but as something requiring of us the highest attention and correct discernment ….

It is Our Lady Herself, in fact, who asks us to pay attention to Her words, left in our own days at Fatima, in which She speaks, both of the Holy Father, and of a Bishop dressed in white.

The Divine Providence has also arranged, also in our own days, that Pope John Paul II elevated to the honors of the altar the Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, making in this way known to all believers her singular visions, especailly those in which she saw “the Church of the two popes”, the Church of always, faithful to the Magisterium, at whose head is the Holy Father,and another “new” church: big, strange and extravagant … (and, moreover, that the warnings, in part from the Mother of God are truly very many: the Miraculous Medal, La Salette, Fatima, Garabandal, the Marian Movement of Priests and many, many others …).

And, at last, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in nn. 675-677), in which it informs, that, in our own days, all the faithful will be called to confront a “final test”, capable of shaking the faith of many believers, since in it there will be revealed the “mystery of iniquity”, able to provide an apparent solution to contemporary men, under the form of a religious impostiture, and it will be then that we will have to decide on which side to stand: whether with the Anti-Christ (the Anti-Church and the Anti-Gospel, as even John Paul II was wont to say), though this at the cost of apostasy from the Truth, in joining in such a manner the “new church”, great and lauded by the world, as ecological and ecumenical, which concerns itself primarily with the poor … or if we would remain with the Church of always, even if it is today seen in a bad light by the world, which reputs Her as integralist and fundamentalist, to remain with the holy Magisterium, held even today as antiquated, and faithful to the Gospel of Christ, the one and true God, our Savior and Redeemer: “Whom we hold most dear!”

This is an authorized translation of the original at

MARCOTOSATTI.COM

ReplyReply allForward

Ordo Dei

A site about matters of the Catholic Church, history, philosophy, and literature

Josef Pieper on the Purity of Heart and the Perception of Beauty

hicksonfamilyCatholic Church, Theology, Philosophy  April 22, 2020 8 Minutes

Dr. Robert Hickson                                                                                                20 April 2020

Saint Agnes of Montepulciano (d. 1313)

Epigraphs

“A new depth here opens to our view: purity is not only the fruit of purification; it implies at the same time readiness to accept God’s purifying intervention, terrible and fatal though it might be; to accept it with the bold candor of a trustful heart.” (Josef Pieper, Josef Pieper: An Anthology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), page 83—my emphasis added.)

***

“Only a chaste sensuality can realize the specifically human faculty of perceiving sensual beauty…and to enjoy it for its own sake,…undeterred and unsullied by the self-centered [i.e., selfish] will to pleasure. It has been said that only the pure of heart can laugh freely and liberatingly. It is no less true that only those who look at the world with pure eyes can experience its beauty.” (Josef Pieper, Josef Pieper: An Anthology, 1989, page 81—my emphasis added.)

***

“It is in such an asceticism of cognition alone that he may preserve or regain that which actually constitutes man’s vital existence: the perception of the reality of God and His creation, and the possibility of shaping himself and the world according to this truth, which reveals itself only in silence.” (Josef Pieper, Josef Pieper: An Anthology, 1989, page 87—my emphasis added.)

***

In the following considerations, I wish to present and discuss briefly some of Josef Pieper’s insights into the matter of purity and beauty, and their interrelations.

First in 1981, Josef Pieper published in Munich, Germany his own authorial anthology by which he personally selected and editorially arranged from all of his writings a fitting representation of much of his deepest thoughts down the years.

In 1984, Dr. Pieper, upon request, then published a second and more ample German edition, also with Kösel Verlag in Munich, and still entitled Josef Pieper: Lesebuch. From this second edition came the 1989 English translation, Josef Pieper: An Anthology,¹ a portion of which we shall now consider. On pages 80-87, we shall find these four chapter subtitles sequentially (27-30), as follows:

Only the Pure of Heart Can Perceive Beauty; The Fruit of Purity; Temperance [as the Fourth Cardinal Virtue] Creates Beauty; and “Concupiscence of the Eyes” [1 John 2: 16; 5:19, for example, as a disorder].

Let us now follow the sequence of some of Josef Pieper’s insights and affirmations:

Christian doctrine does not exclude sensual enjoyment from the realm of the morally good (as against [as distinct from being the realm of] the merely “permissible”). But that this [sensual] enjoyment should be made possible only by the virtue of temperance and [disciplined] moderation—that, indeed, is a surprising thought. Yet this is what we read in the Summa theologica [of Thomas Aquinas], in the first question [quaestio] of his tractate on temperance—even if more between and behind the lines than in what is said directly….

Man, by contrast [to a lion, for example], is able to enjoy what is seen or heard for the sensual “appropriateness” alone which appeals to the eye and the ear….For intemperance (like temperance) is something exclusively human….Keeping this distinction in mind the [this] sentence becomes meaningful: unchaste lust has the tendency to relate the whole complex of the sensual world, and particularly of sensual beauty, to sexual pleasure exclusively. Therefore only a chaste sensuality can realize the specifically human faculty of perceiving sensual beauty, such as that of the human body, as beauty, and to enjoy it for its own sake,…undeterred and unsullied by the self-centered will to pleasure. (80-81—my emphasis added)

Thus, Josef Pieper would especially want to convince us now that: “Temperance is liberating and purifying. This above all: temperance effects purification.” (82—my emphasis added) And we recall, as well, his earlier words that “only the pure of heart can laugh freely and liberatingly” and “only those who look at the world [or another sudden person] with pure eyes can experience its [or her or his] beauty.” (81—my emphasis added)

Moreover, says Pieper:

If one approaches the difficult concept of purity…and begins to understand purity as the fruit of purification, the confusing and discordant sounds, which…move it dangerously close to Manichaeism, are silenced. From this [fresh] approach the full and unrestricted concept [and reality!] of purity…comes into view.

This is the purity meant by John Cassian [circa 360-435 A.D.]. when he calls purity of heart the immanent purpose of temperance: “It is served bysolitude, fasting, night watches, and penitence.” It is this wider concept of purity which is referred to in Saint Augustine’s statement that the virtue of temperance and moderation aims at preserving man uninjured and undefiled for God. (82—my emphasis added)

Dr. Pieper then asks us a question and answers it at once unexpectedly:

But what does this unrestricted concept of purity stand for? It stands for that crystal-clear, morning-fresh freedom from self-consciousness, for that selfless acceptance of the world which man experiences when the shock of a profound sorrow [like the death of one’s child] carries one to the brink of existence or when he is touched by the shadow of death. It is said in the Scriptures: “Grave illness sobers the soul” (Ecclesiasticus 31:2); this sobriety belongs to the essence of purity. (82—my emphasis added)

Further to clarify his nourishing, though complex, concept of purity, our author adds new insights from the related Greek tragic notion of “Catharsis” and an aspect of the infused “Gift of Fear”:

That most disputed statement of Aristotle: tragedy causes purification, catharsis, points in the same direction. Even the Holy Spirit’s gift of fear, which Saint Thomas assigns to temperantia, purifies the soul by causing it to experience, through grace, the innermost peril of man [i.e., the loss, finally, of Eternal Life, “Vita Aeterna”]. Its [that divine gift’s] fruit is that purity by dint [by means] of which the selfish and furtive search for spurious fulfillment is abandoned. Purity is the perfect unfolding of the whole nature from which alone could have come the words: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord.” (Luke 1:38) (82-83—my emphasis added)

After this preparation concerning the concept and reality of purity, our modest, though dedicated and resolute, guide will consider more fully the fourth cardinal virtue of temperantia and its inherently moderating discipline:

To the virtue of temperance as the preserving and defending realization of man’s inner order, the [additional] gift of beauty is particularly co-ordinated. Not only is temperance beautiful in itself, it also renders men beautiful. Beauty, however, must here be understood in its original meaning: as the glow of the truth and the good irradiating from every ordered state of being, and not in the patent significance of immediate sensual appeal. The beauty of temperance has a more spiritual, more austere, more virile aspect [and discipline]. It is of the essence of this beauty that it does not conflict with true virility, but rather has an affinity to it. Temperance as the wellspring and premise of fortitude [the third cardinal virtue], is the virtue of mature manliness.

The infantile disorder of intemperance, on the other hand, not only destroys beauty, it also makes man cowardly; intemperance more than any other thing renders man unable and unwilling to “take heart” against the wounding power of evil in the world. (83-84—my emphasis added)

How does one discern, especially from external manifestations, someone who is not just impatient but fundamentally intemperate and inwardly disordered, as we may now wonder about a certain character? But Josef Pieper will help us here again:

It is not easy to read on a man’s face whether he is just or unjust. Temperance or intemperance, however, loudly proclaim themselves in everything that manifests a personality: in the order or disorder of the features, in the attitude, the laugh, the handwriting. Temperance, as the inner order of man, can as little remain “purely interior” as the soul itself [i.e., “anima forma corporis”], and as all other life of the soul or mind. It is the nature of the soul to be the “form of the body.”

This fundamental principle of all Christian psychology [“anima forma corporis est”], not only states the in-forming of the body by the soul [the principle of natural life], but also the reference of the soul to the body….Temperance or intemperance of outward behavior and expression can have its strengthening or weakening repercussion on the inner order of man. It is from this point of view that all outward discipline….has its meaning, its justification, and its necessity. (84—my emphasis added)

Again on the premise that “contrast clarifies the mind,” we shall now conclude our reflections and presentations with Dr. Pieper’s own perceptions about the temptation and grave disorder of “the concupiscence [itching lust] of the eyes” (1 John 2:16).

Once again Pieper approaches his topic in a fresh way, though with some initial obscurity:

Studiositas, curiositas—by these are meant temperateness and intemperance, respectively, in the natural striving for knowledge; temperateness and intemperance, above all, in the indulgence of sensual perception of the manifold sensuous beauty of the world; temperateness and intemperance in the “desire for knowledge and experience,” as Saint Augustine puts it….The is no doubt that the will-to-knowledge, the noble power of the human being, requires a restraining wisdom, “in order that man may not strive immoderately for the knowledge of things.” (85—my emphasis added)

He promptly then asks: “But in what consists such immoderateness?”(85)… and then he adds: “The essential intemperateness of the urge for knowledge is ‘concupiscence of the eyes.’” (86)

Moreover, as Pieper now further proposes to teach us, there is much more to untangle, candidly and even bluntly:

There is a gratification in seeing that [both] reverses the original meaning of vision and works disorder in man himself. The true meaning of seeing is perception of reality. But “concupiscence of the eyes” does not aim to perceive reality, but to enjoy “seeing”….this is also true of curiositas. [According to Martin Heidegger, in his book Being and Time:] “What this [disordered or itching] seeing strives for is not to attain knowledge and to become cognizant of the truth, but [rather] for possibilities of relinquishing oneself to the world.”….

Accordingly, the degeneration into curiositas of the natural wish to see may [also] be much more than than a harmless confusion on the surface of the human being. It may be the sign of complete rootlessness. It may mean that man has lost his capacity for living with himself; that, in flight from himself, nauseated and bored by the void of an interior gutted by despair, he is seeking with selfish anxiety and on a thousand futile paths that which is given only to the noble stillness of the heart held ready for sacrifice…. (86—my emphasis added)

After an intervening four-paragraph presentation—sometimes quite harsh and glaring and coldly chilling—of the “destructive and eradicating power” (86) of the concupiscence of the eyes, along with cupiditas‘ “restlessness” (86), Pieper robustly disciplines his disgust and revulsion, and keenly says:

If such an illusory world [of “deafening noise” and “flimsy pomp” and such (87)] threatens to overgrow and smother the world of real things, then to restrainthe natural wish to see takes on the character of a measure of self-protection and self-defense. Studiositas…primarily signifies that man should oppose this virtually inescapable seduction with all the force of selfless self-preservation; that he should hermetically close the inner room of his being against the intrusively boisterous pseudo-reality of empty shows and sounds. It is in such an asceticism of cognition alone that he may preserve or regain that which actually constitutes man’s vital existence: the perception of the reality of God and His creation, and the possibility of shaping himself and the world according to this truth, which reveals itself only in silence. (87—my emphasis added)

What a profound and eloquent selection Josef Pieper has made from the writings of his long life—even in 1984 when he was already eighty years of age. What a harvest and set of gleaning he has given to us here in his unique personal anthology. May his entire Anthology also be contemplated now.

–Finis–

© 2020 Robert D. Hickson

1See Josef Pieper, Josef Pieper: An Anthology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989). All future references will be to this 1989 edition of varied but approved English translations, and placed above in parentheses in the main body of this short essay. We shall be concentrating on pages 80-87, the last part of the first main category, entitled “Human Authenticity.”

Share this:

• Twitter
• Facebook

https://widgets.wp.com/likes/index.html?ver=20190321#blog_id=154584919&post_id=450&origin=ordodei.wordpress.com&obj_id=154584919-450-5ea064c8257b0&domain=ordodei.net

Related

Josef Pieper’s Presentation of PurityIn “Catholic Church”

Josef Pieper on The Virtues of the Human Heart and the Test of TemptationIn “Philosophy”

Josef Pieper’s Double Challenge to a Character of Virtue: Facing Both an Unjust Exercise of Power and an Intrinsically Unrepayable DebtIn “Catholic Church”

• Tagged
• Virtues
• Josef Pieper

Published by hicksonfamily

Robert Hickson graduated from the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, in June 1964, and was assigned to Southeast Asia. After one year, he became a U.S. Army Special Forces Officer and earned his “3-prefix” as a “Green Beret,” after having already completed Parachute School and Ranger School and certain forms of Naval Commando Training. After tours in Viet Nam and elsewhere in Asia, he taught at the J.F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center as the Head of the East Asian Seminar and Instructor in Military History and Irregular Warfare. He acquired his Ph.D. in Comparative Literature and Classics (Greco-Roman) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with an emphasis on Ancient Philosophy and Medieval Literature (to include Theological Literature). For seven years, he was Professor and Chairman of the Literature and Latin Department at Christendom College, leaving shortly thereafter to return to Military and Strategic-Cultural Studies. He was a Professor at the Joint Military Intelligence College (former Defense Intelligence College), a graduate school in the U.S. Intelligence Community at the Defense Intelligence Agency (D.I.A.) in Washington, D.C. Among other things, he taught Foreign Area and National Security Studies, Military History and Strategy, as well as Moral Philosophy. He was then invited to the Air Force Academy for four years as a Professor in the William Simon Chair of Strategy and Culture, teaching in several academic departments. He concluded his Federal Service as a Professor of Strategic and Cultural Studies, as well as Military History and National Security Studies, at the Joint Special Operations University in Florida, a part of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Comparative cultural and strategic-historical studies constituted a unifying theme in these various forms of teaching over the years. Dr. Maike Hickson was born and raised in Germany. She holds a PhD from the University of Hannover, Germany, after having written in Switzerland her doctoral dissertation on the history of Swiss intellectuals before and during World War II. She now lives in the U.S. and is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Dr. Hickson published in 2014 a Festschrift, a collection of some thirty essays written by thoughtful authors in honor of her husband upon his 70th birthday, which is entitled A Catholic Witness in Our Time. Hickson has closely followed the papacy of Pope Francis and the developments in the Catholic Church in Germany, and she has been writing articles on religion and politics for U.S. and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt. View all posts by hicksonfamily PublishedApril 22, 2020

Post navigation

Previous Post Josef Pieper’s Double Challenge to a Character of Virtue: Facing Both an Unjust Exercise of Power and an Intrinsically Unrepayable Debt

“There is a stillness in the air as men sit and muse over what has befallen them

And they pat each other on the back that they are surviving such calamity

And they use trite phrases such as, “God helps those who help themselves.”

But they survey the world with eyes that are blinded by earth’s delusions,

For one who surveys the world through the lens of the Spirit sees a very different scene.

For there is blood on the petals of the roses and dark clouds obscure the sun

And demons saunter down the street in broad daylight.

For wishing something would go away does not cause it to cease to be

And God helps those who help themselves 

Only if the nature of their helping themselves is falling on their faces before God.

Do not sorrow that you have not yet taken warning messages to the world.

It is still a world that wishes not to be warned.

But soon the next chastisement will begin.

And then the next.

And then the next.

And eventually people will cry out to God

For they will see there is no help in themselves

And then will they embrace words from heaven.

But oh, give thanks that in this great and terrible day of the Lord

When blood drips from the roses and the sun is hidden

And demons cavort in the streets,

That you have words from heaven

For these things will not catch you unaware.

Those who must assist in this work are being called and some move slowly,

Peering around the corner to see if all is well.

But unless they look with the eyes of the Spirit,

They will see only a world waiting

And see not that it is their time to go forth.

But pray that the wind of the Spirit will blow over them

So that they will see that it is the great and terrible day of the Lord

And now is the time that they are needed.

But for those of you who bear the messages,

Do not miss the blood dripping from the roses,

And the clouds that become more dense and hide the sun

And when invited into the streets to walk with others, do not miss the evil in their eyes

For this is the great and terrible day of the Lord

And oh the sorrow that will grip the world before it is finished.”

A Trump Judge Tips the Balance, but Things Stay the Same

Hadley Arkes

TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2020

In times of contagion and war, unelected judges have been rightly timid about challenging the decisions made by figures in elective office, who bear a more direct responsibility to the people whose lives are in danger.  And so I began my last column as I noted that the issue of abortion could have a dramatic effect in disrupting that convention long settled in our law, as it has upended other parts of our law.

The recent decisions by governors, closing down vast parts of their economies, along with freedom of movement, have been sweeping well beyond any discriminations overly refined, or even mildly sensible.  These are not restrictions of liberty that Americans are likely to suffer for more than a few weeks without breaking into resistance.

And yet the main challenge so far has come on that issue of abortion.  Federal judges in Texas, Ohio, and Alabama issued restraining orders when the governors of those States thought it fitting not to exempt abortions clinics from the orders closing down other businesses.

We were hearing the argument, so obviously expected, that the business of abortion was bound up with a deep constitutional right in a way that restaurants or bars were not.  I remarked that everything was unfolding as if by script, and with the same script we knew how things would come out:  As ever, the protection of abortion would trump all other concerns of policy and law.

Except that things didn’t play this time exactly by script.  What I had neglected to factor in was that the script had been slightly altered. In the space of three years, the Trump Administration had appointed fifty-one new judges to the federal circuit courts, and they included some dear, accomplished friends of mine.

The gifted, young Kyle Duncan had built a reputation in defending religious freedom and natural marriage in the courts, taking time away only to raise, with Martha, five young children and practice classical piano.

He returned home to Louisiana and took his place on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.  As it happened, he would find himself on a panel of three judges to review the decision of  Judge Yeakel, in a District Court in Texas, to block the enforcement of the orders on the closure of abortion clinics.

And as it further happened, he would be joined on the panel by the formidable Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod in Houston. Together they formed a majority to overturn the order of Judge Yeakel and sustain the closing of the clinics.

And yet. . .the critical points I made in that past column have remained unaltered, and they still determine the meaning of these cases as they move through the courts.

The governors in several States had evidently been moved by a reasoned objection to abortion itself and the ground on which it had been proclaimed as a “constitutional” right.  But they could not speak those words in the courts as they sought to defend their decision to close the clinics.

They argued instead about abortions drawing away equipment and resources that might be needed far more in coping with the coronavirus.  But that argument could be picked apart, as it was by Judge Dennis in dissent, contending that surgical abortions did not make much use of “N95 respirators” or other equipment used in dealing with the virus. And the “medication abortions” – taking pills – made no demands on that equipment.

And sure enough, Kyle Duncan, writing for the majority, was compelled to steer around these arguments on either side.  He came down simply, forcefully on the side of the higher authority of elected officers in dealing with a grave danger to the public health.

He leaned heavily on the classic case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) a case dealing with a policy of compulsory vaccination for smallpox. The Supreme Court sustained that policy, even with its patent overriding of personal freedom and the fabled “control over one’s own body.”

But as Judge Dennis pointed out in dissent, even the Court in that case, conceded that there were plausible limits to this sweeping power of the government.  There could be a serious challenge to show that these restrictions on freedom bore a direct and substantial relation to the treatment of the contagion or the danger to public health.

Judge Duncan relied again on the deep responsibility of the political officers, who have a more direct relation to the people whose lives are at risk. And so he was quite emphatic now that the District Court judge had “usurped the power of the governing state authority when it passed judgment on the wisdom and efficacy of that emergency measure.”

The governors had been constrained from offering a moral or constitutional argument against abortion in the course of defending their orders.  And now Judge Duncan was compelled to do virtually the same as he found a way to sustain their orders.  Nothing in his decision then would prepare the ground for a challenge to that right to abortion if this case were brought, with others, to the Supreme Court.

The closure of the clinics might be bringing the blessing of saving lives – if people don’t drive to another State for the abortions.  But once again, the officials challenging abortion could not give their real reasons, and say what they really meant.

And so nothing in the law on abortion has really been altered in the crisis.

*Image: A Mother by Elizabeth Nourse, 1888 [Cincinnati Art Museum]

© 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

Hadley Arkes

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

APRIL 21, 2020

Why Muslim Nations Can’t Handle the Coronavirus

WILLIAM KILPATRICK

CRISIS MAGAZINE

The Muslim world’s reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic helps to highlight some important aspects of the Islamic faith. It also reveals some important differences between Islam and Christianity.

Of course, there are similarities as well. The main one is that Muslims, like Christians, are praying to God to spare them and their loved ones from the contagion.

Still, the differences are quite instructive. One of the chief differences is that many Muslims have a fatalistic attitude toward life. When a Muslim says inshallah—“if Allah wills”—it’s not quite the same thing as a Christian saying “God willing.” Ours is a God of reason; if He permits something, even if we don’t understand why, we can be sure it’s for a good reason and, ultimately, for our own good. In other words, He’s not capricious, and He abides by the laws He has established. In Islam, on the other hand, Allah is conceived of as pure will, unbounded by reason or the laws of nature. Things happen, not because there are natural causes and consequences, but because Allah wills each event directly.

From a strictly fatalistic viewpoint, there’s no sense in wearing masks, washing hands, or practicing social distancing. If Allah wills that you get the virus, you will get it; if he doesn’t, you won’t. Thus, some Muslims—most notably, members of the global Hizb ut-Tahrir movement—don’t insure their cars or wear seatbelts. When one’s time is up, it’s useless to take precautions.https://secureaddisplay.com/i/view/js/?Viewable=1&isMobile=0&AULU=31049420180502T2200289306460AB42454C400A8A16937CB3EB93D7&cb=1587494823865&ccvid=735656687&pvid=1486237600https://secureaddisplay.com/i/view/js/?Viewable=0&isMobile=0&AULU=31049420180502T2200289306460AB42454C400A8A16937CB3EB93D7&cb=1587494823865&ccvid=735656687&pvid=1486237600https://secureaddisplay.com/i/t/js/?ALU=109820190910T1144227772DA00614522D4F7AB4CF7D7DC13904D5&AULU=31049420180502T2200289306460AB42454C400A8A16937CB3EB93D7&cb=1587494823865&ccvid=735656687&pvid=1486237600

Likewise, in the face of the epidemic, the Islamic revivalist movement Tablighi Jamaat held a massive conference in Lahore, which drew 250,000 attendees; another in Kuala Lumpur, which drew 16,000; and yet another in Delhi, which drew 3,000. Thousands of cases of Covid-19 in Asia and the Middle East have been traced back to these meetings.

Of course, one has to be careful when making generalizations about 1.7 billion people. It’s probable that a majority of Muslims worldwide do observe public health precautions. They trust in Allah, but they also pay attention to the health authorities. Even the emir of Tablighi Jamaat, Maulana Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi, has said that it is permissible to follow “the doctor’s advice and take precautionary measures.” Yet this, he adds, only applies “to the extent that they do not cause suspension of your religious duties”—that is, attendance at mosque. Thus, “if you abandoned any of your religious duties due to your zeal to take precautions, God will pull his hand off you.”

Some Muslims believe that Allah will save them from the plague simply because they are Muslims, and other Muslims are taking every precaution. Yet, on the whole, it seems that Muslims are less prudent about the epidemic than other populations. In addition to the reckless behavior of Tablighi Jamaat, there have been numerous reports of Muslims in India, Europe, and Canada who have resisted government requests for social distancing. In the city of Qom—the epicenter of the epidemic in Iran—it was the clerics who resisted public health efforts to close the main shrine, even though the shrine was a known transmission site.

In The Closing of the Muslim Mind, Robert Reilly notes: “Since the effort of science is to discover nature’s laws, the teaching that these laws do not, in fact, exist (for theological reasons) obviously discourages the scientific enterprise.” Thus, says Reilly, “No major invention or discovery has emerged from the Muslim world for well over seven centuries now.” He notes that “India and Spain each produce a larger percentage of the world’s science literature than forty-six Muslim countries combined.” Although there are many Muslim doctors and scientists, the habit of scientific inquiry is not encouraged by many schools of Islamic theology. Consequently, no one is expecting the cure for the coronavirus to come out of a Muslim country.

Hugh Fitzgerald, who has written extensively about Muslim culture, suggests that the United States and Israel are the two countries most likely to create the first coronavirus vaccine. Writing in the New English Review, he observes that “among the 40 or so research groups now working in a half-dozen countries on a coronavirus vaccine, none were to be found in any of the 57 Muslim countries that are members of the O.I.C. (Organization of the Islamic Conference.)

“Islam means ‘submission’,” writes Fitzgerald, “and the habit of mental submission to that authority—that is, to the Quran itself, and to the Hadith—has always been encouraged in Islam.” Meanwhile, he argues that Islam discourages the “free and skeptical inquiry” which “furthers the enterprise of science.”

❧

Catholics who like to talk up the similarities between Islam and Catholicism ought to look more closely at the Islamic response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Although Catholics, like Muslims, may see the contagion as a sign from God that people need to return to Him, they also understand that the virus is a natural phenomenon which follows the laws of biology and chemistry, and is thus subject to scientific study and scientific treatment. Like Muslims, they will be praying more; unlike many Muslims, they will also be taking reasonable precautions and supporting the search for a vaccine.

According to Catholic tradition, God has established a rational universe that operates according to the laws of nature. Catholic scholars do not see any contradiction between science and faith but have always sought to reconcile faith and reason. Early Muslim scholars were aware of the natural law tradition in Christianity but most eventually abandoned attempts to reconcile faith and reason. To require God to act in a rational way, they believed, was an attack on His sovereignty.

The coronavirus has evoked a range of responses from Muslim fundamentalists. Some take the fatalistic attitude. Some say that the virus is a “soldier of Allah” meant to assail non-Muslims. Some have even encouraged infected Muslims to deliberately infect non-Muslims. Others say the virus was created by Jews in order to target Muslims, and some believe that Muslims who die in an epidemic are martyrs who merit paradise.

Almost all of the responses should awaken Catholics to the fact that Islam is a very different sort of religion. Here’s one last example: Asia News reports two cases in Pakistan of Hindus and Christians being denied government food aid during the coronavirus crisis. According to the news story, “without the help of… a Muslim human rights activist, 120 Christian families in the district of Kasur (Punjab) would have starved.” Yet I would argue that the deniers of aid were actually being more faithful to Islamic law than the activist. The Reliance of the Traveler, a widely consulted manual of sharia law, states quite clearly that “it is not permissible to give zakat [alms] to a non-Muslim.”

A Muslim’s conscience might tell him to be careful about spreading a virus, or it might tell him to share food with a hungry Christian. But, according to the fundamentalists who dominate Islamic countries, the good Muslim is not supposed to consult his conscience. He is supposed to consult the book—either the Koran or a manual of sharia law—and follow the commands of Allah, no matter how arbitrary they may appear.

And he is not responsible for the consequences of his actions. Islam means “submission,” and the foremost duty of a Muslim is to obey. Indeed, the most frequently repeated phrase in the Koran is “obey God and his Apostle,” Muhammad. Fortunately, like the Pakistani activist who intervened on behalf of the Christians, some Muslims ignore the harsher mandates of their faith.

Photo: A cleric looks at an Iranian sanitary worker disinfecting Qom’s Masumeh shrine to prevent the spread of the coronavirus (Fars News Agency/AFP via Getty Images)

Tagged as Coronavirus, Iran, Islamhttps://www.facebook.com/v2.10/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=485814248461205&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df3308ce7b6d420e%26domain%3Dwww.crisismagazine.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.crisismagazine.com%252Ff3de3c0f4272cf2%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=660&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crisismagazine.com%2F2020%2Fwhy-muslim-nations-cant-handle-the-coronavirus&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&share=true&show_faces=false129

By William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily,and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com