“Them Pearly Gates” – Revisited

James V. Schall, S.J. (1928-2019)

THE CATHOLIC THING

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2019

Note: Yesterday marked exactly the two months since the death of our esteemed colleague Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. Tomorrow there will be a memorial Mass for him at Georgetown University, 6PM in Dahlgren Chapel, for the many students, colleagues, and friends who weren’t able to go to California for his funeral. Today we thought we’d do our bit of commemoration by bringing back one of his columns (originally published in March 2018) in his regular Tuesday slot: a typical Schallian “Thing” – clever, humorous, and somehow also profound all at once. And also poignant in that many of us are quite sure that he’s now passed through those Pearly Gates. He’s set the gold standard here at The Catholic Thing for what we strive to bring you first thing every morning. Please, help us keep that ongoing inspiration very much alive. – Robert Royal

The four “Seekers,” dressed in formal garb, with a tambourine, a bass, and two guitars, sing their bouncy rendition of the old spiritual, “Open Up Them Pearly Gates.” Most everyone has once sung this lively tune. A singer by the name of Viola Billups used “Miss Pearly Gates” as her stage name. And the name “Gates,” pearly or otherwise, is quite familiar in contemporary technological culture.

The inspiration of the words of this song probably comes from Revelation 21:21, which reads: “The twelve gates (of the New Jerusalem) were twelve pearls, each of the gates made from a single pearl; and the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass.”

We have here yet another effort, this time from a pretty good source, to imagine what heaven might be like, a topic difficult to let alone. Even the modern heathen do not reject it. They just want to locate it in their version of this world. Their “new” New Jerusalem always turns out, sooner or later, to be yet another horrendous version of the Brave New World rather than the City of God.

The first words of the song are these: “Listen all you people; / Come take a lesson from me. / Get yourself prepared for the Judgment Day. / Hallelujah Lujah. / When you hear that trumpet blast, / Then you’ll know you’re home at last. / Open up them Pearly Gates for me.”

In these days of walls, of getting some folks in and keeping other folks out, we see Revelation’s picture of the New Jerusalem to include walls with gates that need to be opened not just by anybody, but by those qualified to judge those worthy to enter.

Everlasting life does not seem to be a mixture of good and bad people, but of good – and those bad ones with sense enough to repent in time and to acknowledge the truth about their personal version of badness.

Many verses of the song are quite specific. Grandpa Jones makes no bones, as it were, about what is at stake: “Listen, all you sinners! / If you want to get to Heaven, Heaven. / Better get down on your knees and pray, / And you gambling sinners, / Better quit saying Seven-Eleven. / Get yourself prepared for the Judgment Day.” The Judgment Day – shadows of Plato – is pictured as something that needs to be prepared for, something that will be rendered in the light of our lived lives.

“Sinners,” even “gambling sinners,” are to get down on their knees to pray. And if we hear that “trumpet blast,” then “we’ll know we are home at last.” Some evidently won’t hear it. They will never make it home. They are the sinners who know that they are sinners, but who did not get down on their knees.

In the song’s narrative, what is lacking to sinners is praying for forgiveness. Even for “gambling sinners,” it is too late only when the Pearly Gates are closed to them, evidently at their death. They don’t hear the ”trumpet blast.”

This comment may be Jesuit casuistry on a basically Protestant hymn, but probably those who shoot pool for a few bucks or who play blackjack once in a while will hear the blast. It’s the high rollers with shady connections that we are worried about. And if “a little wine is good for the stomach” and is meant to “cheer the hearts of men,” probably the good and careful teetotalers will have some knee-bending drinking companions in the Eternal City.

It is remarkable to note that when we do manage to pass the Pearly Gates, when we do hear the “trumpet blast,” we do not come into some strange place. Rather we come “home,” and know that we do. We have intimation here of Chesterton’s remark on the strangeness of our life on earth. It is that, especially if we live it well, we begin most poignantly to feel “homesick even at home.” We have here no lasting city.

In recent years, we have heard much about judgment and non-judgment. The song makes it clear that we do not pass through the Pearly Gates until and unless we are judged for how we lived. This is the drama of our personal existence that is worth singing about.

It is also the sober reminder that not getting down on our knees has consequences. The primary way to make our lives meaningless is to maintain that how we choose to form our souls makes no cosmic difference to anyone, even ourselves.

Perhaps, in an old cemetery in New Jersey or Iowa or even California, we come across a fading tombstone marked:

Here Lies Jefferson Zachariah Smith.
1809-1863,
Waitin’ for that Trumpet Blast.

We will someday know what he meant. Yes, one more time, everyone! – “Open up them Pearly Gates for me. Hallelujah Lujah.”

Share this:

• Facebook

© 2019 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

James V. Schall, S.J. (1928-2019)

James V. Schall, S.J. 1928-2019, who served as a professor at Georgetown University for thirty-five years, was one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. Among his many books are The Mind That Is Catholic, The Modern Age, Political Philosophy and Revelation: A Catholic Reading, Reasonable Pleasures, Docilitas: On Teaching and Being Taught, Catholicism and Intelligence, and, most recently, On Islam: A Chronological Record, 2002-2018.

Why it’s dogmatically impossible that Bergoglio be the Successor of Saint Peter

Jun18by The Editor

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

When we think or talk about the Papacy, as Catholics, we often use several words interchangeably: the Pope, the Papacy, the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff and the Successor of Saint Peter.

And in the controversies over Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, we see all these terms used. For example, in the Act of Renunciation, Benedict signs the document, Pope Benedict. He says, therein (according to my English translation of the Latin original) that:

I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me …

In the Catholic Church, these terms have a specific meaning:

The Bishop of Rome:  The one who holds jurisdiction as Bishop over the Diocese of Rome.

Successor of Saint Peter:  The one who succeeds to the Primacy of Saint Peter.

The Roman Pontiff: The Bishop of Rome.

The Pope: All of the above, in one sense or another, generally, but more correctly formally in regard to the Successor of Saint Peter.

Because, theoretically, the Pope could establish his primatial see in another place and assign someone to rule the Diocese of Rome with proper not delegated authority. — Indeed, the Cardinal Vicar of Rome already has this authority in the Italian Territory of the Diocese, that is, a delegated authority to act as the Bishop, though some voices at Rome insist that its a proper not a delegated authority, inasmuch as it does not require recourse to the Roman Pontiff for normal affairs.

+ + +

The reason why I write, however, is more pointed than discussing these terms for the Pope. While I have proven that Pope Benedict did not renounce the petrine munus — and while His Holiness has not chosen to contest the 39 arguments I marshaled to prove that — there are still some who think, that since the Pope is Christ’s Vicar, he has the authority to renounce the Papal Office in the Ministry and thus that Bergoglio is truly the Pope, Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Saint Peter, not just a Bishop of Rome.

This, however, is not just canonically impossible, it’s dogmatically impossible, since it violates the very Will of Christ, as the Church defines that Will to regard the Papal office.  And here is the proof:

There is more to the Papal Office than a Ministry!

Pope Benedict XVI still lives and when he did renounce on Feb. 11, 2013, he renounced only the “ministry which I received from the hands of the Cardinals.”

Therefore, since the office of the Papacy includes the grace not to fail in the Faithand the vocation to love and follow Christ, and the duty or charge from Christ to Saint Peter confirm his brethren and feed His sheep, there is a lot more to the Papal Office than merely the ministry which the pope elect receives from the hands of the Cardinals.

The problem is that the Pope does not receive His office from the Cardinals! — Yes, canonically, they have the authority to elect him, inasmuch as they are the chief clergy of the Church of Rome, but they do not confer that office upon him.  For as Vatican I infallible teaches:

Docemus itaque et declaramus, iuxta Evangelii testimonia primatum iurisdictionis in universam Dei Ecclesiam immediate ct directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, c. 1, 1)

Which in English is:

And thus We teach and We do declare, in accord with the testimonies of the Gospel, that a primacy of jurisdiction over all the Church of God was immediately and directly promised and conferred by Christ, the Lord, upon Blessed Peter, the Apostle. (my translation)

And further on, in Chapter II, the same Vatican I teaches:

Unde quicumque in hac Cathedra Petro succedit, is secundum Christi ipsius institutionem primatum Petri in universam Ecclesiam obtinet. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 2, 3)

Which in English is

Wherefore, whosoever succeeds Peter in this Cathedra, he obtains according to the institution of Christ Himself the primacy of Peter over all the Church.

The import of these 2 infallible teachings of Vatican I, is that the man who is elected as the Pope, receives his office immediately and directly from Christ inasmuch as he succeeds to the Cathedra, or Teaching Office, of Saint Peter.

Succession in the Cathedra vs. Delegation of Office

Herein is the problem with Bergoglio’s claim to power and authority. Yes, he was elected by the Cardinals, but no, Benedict had not yet renounced the Petrine Munus, at the time of his election.

Now according to canon 145 §1, the munus is the ecclesiastical office:

Can. 145 — § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munusordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.

Which in English, is:

Canon 145 — §1. An ecclesiastical office is any munus constituted stably either by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance, to be exercised for a spiritual end.

And according to the Code of Canon Law of Pope John Paul II, which we have quoted, the Papal Office is likewise a munus; this is established in law by Three canons:

Canon 331  Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet.

Canon 332 —§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

Can. 749 — § 1. Infallibiitate in magisterio, vi muneris sui gaudet Summus Pontifex quando ut supremus omnium christifidelium Pastor et Doctor, cuius est fratres suos in fide confirmare, doctrinam de fide vel de moribus tenendam definitivo actus proclamat.

Hence it is, that if a Pope does NOT renounce his munus, he retains it. And if he retains it, anyone who follows him as “pope” or “Bishop of Rome” while he still lives, cannot succeed to the Petrine Munus, the Papal Office, and hence only has a delegated authority.

It is delegated, because it is NOT received directly and immediately from Christ, but rather indirectly and through the intermediary of the Pope, who has not resigned his Petrine Munus.

Therefore, since as Vatican I teaches, the Roman Pontiff or Pope receives his office immediately and directly in Peter, inasmuch as he is the successor of Saint Peter’s Cathedra, or teaching office, Bergoglio cannot be the successor of Saint Peter, since someone else — namely Benedict — not only still occupies the Chair but stands in authority between Christ and Bergoglio as the grantor of his office, whatever it be.

Pope Benedict further indicates this by calling the one to be elected by the Conclave to be convened the new Supreme Pontiff, and not the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, or the Successor of Saint Peter! — Note the precision of terminology!  (For the complete text of the Renunciation see here.)

Hence, it’s now clear, that not only did Pope Benedict not resign the Papal Office and the Petrine Munus, but that it is dogmatically impossible that Bergoglio

1. succeeded to the Office of Saint Peter’s Cathedra,
2. became by his election the Successor to Saint Peter,
3. is the Supreme Pontiff in the Catholic and traditional sense of that term, because Benedict remains such;
4. enjoys the grace of infallibility and the vocation to follow and love the Lord,which are attached to the Office of St. Peter;
5. exercises a proper office — not one at the good pleasure of Benedict — which is a charge or duty to feed Christ’s sheep and confirm his brethren — in a conceded Petrine Ministry, which he cannot possibly execute or fulfill without the other aspects of the Papal Office which Benedict by his faulty act and intention never relinquished.

These conclusions are confirmed by the teaching of Timothy Zaplena, De Ecclesia Christi, 1: Pars Apologetica, Gregorian University, 4th ed., p. 256, where he writes, commenting on the teaching of Vatican I on the Papal Primacy:

Ut vero aliquis sit successor Petri in primatu, non requiritur ut hic potestatem iurisdictionis accipiat ab ipso Petro, sed sufficit ut eidem succedat ex voluntate Christi in omnia iura primatialia.

Which in English is:

However, that any man be the successor of Saint Peter in the primacy, there is not required that he accept this power from Peter himself, but it suffices that he succeed the same (Peter) out of the Will of Christ in all primatial rights.

Hence, since Pope Benedict did not renounce all the primatial rights (i.e. the munus, the dignitas, the onus, the papacy, the grace and the vocation etc.), it follows that it is impossible dogmatically that Bergoglio be the Successor to Saint Peter, in the way Christ willed that succession to take place!

As an addendum, since the Pope is named in the Canon of the Mass because he is the Successor of Saint Peter, not because he exercises the Petrine Ministry or is the Bishop Rome — because the Office of Peter is the touchstone of unity and orthodoxy in the Church — it follows that it is not only canonically but dogmatically illicit to name Pope Francis in the Canon of the Mass, where the name of the pope is customarily enunciated.

Pope Francis: ‘There Is No Hell’

By Michael W. Chapman | March 29, 2018 | 10:45 AM EDT 

Pope Francis. (YouTube)

* This story has been updated to include a statement from the Vatican (below).

In another interview with his longtime atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis claims that Hell does not exist and that condemned souls just “disappear.” This is a denial of the 2,000-year-old teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of Hell and the eternal existence of the soul.

The interview between Scalfari and the Pope was published March 28, 2018 in La Repubblica. The relevant section on Hell was translated by the highly respected web log, Rorate Caeli. 

The interview is headlined, “The Pope: It is an honor to be called revolutionary.” (Il Papa: “È un onore essere chiamato rivoluzionario.”)

Scalfari says to the Pope, “Your Holiness, in our previous meeting you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still out of his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished?”

Pope Francis says,  “They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.”Ad Feedback

Painting of Jesus rejecting the Devil’stemptations in the desert. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.” (1035)

The Catechism further states, “The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: ‘Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.’

“Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where ‘men will weep and gnash their teeth.'”

(YouTube)

Pope Benedict XVI said in a 2007 sermon, “Jesus came to tell us that he wants us all in Heaven and that Hell, of which so little is said in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love.”Ad Feedback

As for the human soul, the Catholic Church teaches that it is eternal, immortalin countless places throughout the Catechism.  One instance, “Endowed with ‘a spiritual and immortal’ soul, the human person is ‘the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.’ From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.” (1703)

* In a statement released on Mar. 29, after Scalfari’s report garnered worldwide attention, the Vatican said:

“The Holy Father Francis recently received the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica in a private meeting on the occasion of Easter, without however giving him any interviews. What is reported by the author in today’s article [in La Repubblica] is the result of his reconstruction, in which the textual words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.”

Feast of the Holy Trinity

“How can we know the way?”

(Jn.14:5)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Feast of the Holy Trinity celebrates the greatest mystery of our Faith, the mystery of Three Divine Persons in One God. This mystery was revealed to us by the Son, Jesus Christ. As He faced His crucifixion He prayed in these words:

“Father, the hour has come! Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee, even as thou hast given him power over all flesh, in order that to all thou hast given him he may give everlasting life. Now this is everlasting life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ” (Jn.17:1-3).

The Church introduces us to the Holy Trinity by the Sacrament of Baptism. Those who seek Baptism must believe in the Triune God, and be baptized, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Believing as the Jews do, or as the Muslims do, is not enough, even though the Vatican II documents say that the adherents of the three religions, Judaism, Islamism and Christianity, all worship the same God. This is one of the great deceptions of Vatican II, since it gives the Jews and the Muslims a false assurance of salvation.

Christian worship reaches its highest expression in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The prayer of the baptized Christian is united to the prayer of Jesus Christ. All other worship, if it is not outright evil, is only of an earthly kind, and merits only an earthly reward.

Since Vatican II, however, Catholic life and worship have suffered shipwreck. Some say the Second Vatican Council introduced Protestant doctrine and worship into the Catholic Church. But the “Church of Vatican II” has gone far beyond Protestantism. At least the reformers (or would-be reformers) still believed in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and that one must “repent, believe, and be baptized” in order to be saved.

The crisis in the Church rose to a new level with the publication of the message of John Paul II for World Mission Day, on October 20, 2002. The theme of his message was “Mission is Proclamation of Forgiveness.” Some true things are said in the document. It is true that Jesus forgave His enemies from the Cross. It is true that we must love one another as He has loved us. It is also true that we must love and forgive our enemies. Difficult, but true! But, incredibly, throughout the whole document there is not one mention of the necessity of Baptism. In fact, near the beginning of the document, Jesus is quoted as saying:

“Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt.28:19,20).

But isn’t there something missing? Our Lord’s actual words were these:

1

“Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

The part of the document that refers to Baptism has been omitted. The reason for the omission is soon apparent as we get to the heart of the document, one sentence, which gives us the sum and substance of John Paul’s message:

“Through evangelization, believers help people to realize that we are all brothers and sisters and, as pilgrims on this earth, although on different paths, we are all on our way to the common Homeland which God, through ways known only to Him, does not cease to indicate to us.”

Do we preach the Gospel to those who are already saved, or to urge them to “believe and be baptized,” that they may have what they need to be saved? Well, let’s have no more of this scary stuff about Hell! How nice to know that, although we all follow “different paths,” – Buddhism, Islamism, Judaism, Lutheranism, Catholicism, and, yes, atheism – we will all end up in the same place, our “common Homeland,” whether we want to or not. This is why John Paul could play everybody’s grandfather and be so benevolent, so ecumenical, so “respectful” of everyone’s religion, making Traditional Catholics look like mean-spirited hate-mongers by comparison.

We are faced with the heretical doctrine of Universal Salvation. The idea of Christian Universalism is that there are many paths, many religions, but they all lead to Jesus Christ, the One Way. Even without faith or religious belief of any kind, you will still go to Heaven. This was taught by the liberal Vatican II theologians, notably Karl Rahner and Karol Wojtyla, later known as Pope John Paul II. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is not the narrow way which leads to life, but the broad road that leads to destruction.

The “Church of Vatican II” goes far beyond the Protestant reformers. The document, “Mission is Proclamation of Forgiveness,” while it spoke piously about dialogue, forgiveness, and love, clearly illustrates that the “church of Vatican II” and its antipopes have abandoned the Catholic faith and have initiated a new Reformation vastly more destructive than the Protestant one. Baptism is just an unnecessary ritual. One may find salvation following the path of any religion, or no religion. The New Covenant sealed in the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ includes everyone in the world, because Jesus forgave everyone from the Cross. Go where you wish, do what you will, you are on your way to Heaven.

Many trusting Catholics have been persuaded to accept the new doctrine, and John Paul’s outrageous idea of Universal Salvation is still being taught by “Papa” Bergoglio, only with less class. But that all will be saved is far from the truth. At the Last Judgment, our Lord says otherwise. He will say to the goats on His left:

“Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt.25:41).

But to the just, the sheep on His right, He will say:
“Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you from the

foundation of the world…” (Mt.25:34). †

Father Louis Campbell

2

kassiblog.com

---

Update on Carolyn Jones Posted: 17 Jun 2019 03:51 PM PD THere’s an update on Carolyn Jones, a victim of Texas’ 10-day Rule in the Texas Advance Directives Act (“TADA”), who was literally rescued from the jaws of death by Texas Right to Life. I covered that saga here many times. It came during our efforts to repeal that part of the law which, as you know, the Usual Suspects opposed time and time and time again.   I am happy to share with you that Texas Right to Life reports that Mrs. Jones has been “moved to a long-term nursing facility where she will be allowed to heal without a countdown placed on her life – thanks to YOU!” (Emphasis by TxRTL.)  I am so happy about this. Add this to the things we can learn from how this case was handled by TxRTL, mishandled by the others, and what it showed us about who supported what in the legislature and in the real world.  Let me just re-post here what I said there as the key take-aways: So what are we to conclude; what have we learned here?That the doctor(s) who went to the medical ethics committed at MH were wrong that Mrs. Jones was futile or someone who should not be treated? Yes. That the medical ethics committee was also wrong in rubber stamping that decision? Yes. That this procedure does not yield infallible results? Absolutely. That maybe there’s a bit of an outcome based decision- making process? That’s fair. That once they make a decision, that even when it appears that they are wrong, we can’t count on them to reverse course and do the right thing even when a life hangs in the balance? I think the facts here speak for themselves. That maybe there should be a longer timeframe so that mistakes like this are not made with more Texans? No doubt about it. That maybe if there was some due rocess in the law, a check and balance, that hospitals might be more careful and mistakes would not happen? Of course, that’s why we have due process in the law when it comes to criminals. It should be here for the ill and disabled as well.  That is even more true today.  But SB 2089 still died – even in the wake of Mrs. Jones’ case – as egregious an example of the usage of TADA as we’ve seen in the public. It was opposed by the Usual Suspects even after the Jones case came to light –  which just added to the shamefulness of their positions. (By the way, did you see any of them fundraising for Mrs. Jones? Yeah, me either. As I often say, by their fruits, you will know them. All of them.) There was also no real (or even faux) commitment to life in the House of Representatives in Texas by the leadership including especially Speaker Bonnen, who thinks that working on real pro-life legislation with real pro- life groups was a waste of his time. I guess he was just being polite when he hugged a child with Downs syndrome (who testified in favor of SB 1033, no less!) and acted like he gave a care about unborn children with disabili-ties who would have been saved by SB 1033. Remember that. Bonnen reminds me very much of one of my favorite scenes from the classic movie, The Hunt for Red October: But Bonnen has not been smart. He forgot about the last part of that – he  hasn’t kept his options open. Not with the grassroots. And not with organi- zations like Texas Right to Life. Among others.  I’m honestly not sure how much commitment there was by those who are not in leadership positions but voted for this leadership. How many of them pushed behind the scenes for this legislation to get to the floor? I  don’t know, but I can’t imagine many. From what I’ve been reading, too many of them were running scared – afraid of the “Blue Wave” they foresee in the next election. They’re not being smart either. As I tweeted recently: When the Blue Wave comes, it won’t be entirely (if much at all) because voters shifted left. It will be, in a great number of cases, because the Repub-licans – including many of the so-called conservatives –  alienated their base who will stay home rather than vote Democrat/pro-abortion or for the lack-luster incumbent. It’s Lucy and the Football. A good many of us will say, “No thanks” when it comes to voting for incumbents that lost their spines once elected, if they possessed them before. What is needed is robust pri- maries in 2020 and new leadership in 2021. But Bonnen is already threat- ening people who primary others. Nice guy, huh? That seems a lot like Chicago politics to me.  God help them all. They will have blood on their hands from the death of SB 2089 as well as SB 1033 – lives at both ends of the pro-life spectrum will continue to be taken needlessly because of wolves in sheep’s clothing in political offices and who head and lobby for organizations that lie about what they represent. So, as we continue to process what happened and deal with the aftermath – yes, TADA is still being used by hospitals – let’s at least rejoice that one intended victim was saved. Not by the Texas Catholic Conference of  Bishops. Not by Texas Alliance for Life. Not by Texans for Life Coalition. Not by the Texas Medical Association. Not by the Texas Hospital Associa- tion. Not by any of the Usual Suspects.  She was saved by Texas Right to Life and its tremendous number of sup- porters who rose to the occasion with gifts of prayer and money and social networking to get the word out. Remember: We err, if we are to err at all, on the side of life. Always. TADA errs – certainly – on the side of death by passive involuntary euthana-sia. It must be stopped. Efforts are still under way. Please pray for them. Pray for those families in its crosshairs. Pray for those working to end it. Please pray for those who are lost on this issue. And, please consider adding TxRTL to those organizations to which you regularly give. They are most worthy and deserving.  Thanks for reading!  Kassi Marks

Justice Clarence Thomas: Supreme Court Should Reverse “Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents” Like Roe v. Wade

LIFESITENEWS

NATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER   JUN 17, 2019   |   6:06PM    WASHINGTON, DC 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas hinted at his willingness to overturn the infamous abortion ruling Roe v. Wade on Monday in an opinion about a gun rights case.

Reuters reports the conservative justice questioned the high court’s tendencies to lean on precedent for its decisions.

“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it,” Thomas wrote in his decision Monday.

He said the court should not “elevate” court precedent over the U.S. Constitution, and some precedents are “demonstrably erroneous.” At one point in his decision, he mentioned the abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The 1992 case, which upheld Roe, says that states cannot place an undue burden on women’s access to abortion. Thomas dissented in the case.

Here’s more from the report:

The Thomas opinion focused on “stare decisis,” a Latin term referring to the legal principle that U.S. courts should not overturn precedents without a special reason.

While stare decisis (pronounced STAR-ay deh-SY-sis) has no formal parameters, justices deciding whether to uphold precedents often look at such factors as whether they work, enhance stability in the law, are part of the national fabric or promote reliance interests, such as in contract cases. …

Thomas said the court should “restore” its jurisprudence relating to precedents to ensure it exercises “mere judgment” and focuses on the “correct, original meaning” of laws it interprets.

“In our constitutional structure, our rule of upholding the law’s original meaning is reason enough to correct course,” Thomas wrote.

Speculation is growing about whether the high court will hear an abortion case in the future and overturn Roe v. Wade. The justices recently refused to hear an Indiana caseinvolving a law that protects unborn babies from discriminatory abortions based on their race, sex or a disability. Though the ruling was disappointing, the Supreme Court did uphold a second part of the law that requires abortion facilities to cremate or bury aborted babies.

Thomas wrote an opinion urging the court to consider laws that protect unborn babies from eugenics.

“… this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics,” he wrote. “Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope.”

Thomas said he believes the court needs to “percolate” on the abortion issue more before hearing a major abortion case.

ALETEIA

Italian priest concelebrates his 100th birthday Mass with his 4 sons, also priests

Share 4973Matthew Green | Jun 17, 2019

A spiritual son of Padre Pio, Fr. Vaccarini hasn’t wasted a minute of his century-long life.

Father, priest, father of priests, centenarian, author, disciple of Padre Pio, Veteran of World War II … Perhaps we could think of Fr. Probo Vaccarini as a sort of spiritual Forrest Gump: someone who has received all 7 sacraments—some from his own children—and conferred most of them as well, and who has seen some of the most significant events and personalities of the 20th and 21st centuries first-hand.

He turned 100 years old on June 4, and he celebrated the occasion by concelebrating a Mass presided over by Bishop Francesco Labiasi, of Rimini, Italy (the diocese where Fr. Vaccarini ministers), and with his four sons who are also priests. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Vatican, sent a message relaying a message of congratulations and a papal blessing from Pope Francis, read aloud during the Eucharistic celebration.

His story has, unsurprisingly, gone viral, with coverage in Vatican News, Vatican Insider, and other news outlets around the world. The information they provide would make for a great movie script.

Vaccarini was born in Italy in 1919. Like many young men of his generation, he was sent to fight in World War II, serving in a campaign in Russia; unlike many, he lived to return to his home and start a career.  One day, he ran into a friend and fellow war veteran, who was “handsome and had everything” but was “always sad … always distressed,” he recounts in an interview on Italian Catholic television station TV2000it.” This time, he was “happy, changed!” Vaccarini asked him what had happened, and his friend told him he had gone to confession with Padre Pio.

He took his friend’s advice and went to meet Padre Pio himself, who became his confessor. During one of Vaccarini’s visits, Padre Pio told him to get married and have a “big and holy family.” He answered, “Big is easy, but holy …?” Vaccarini’s tone in the interview is as if to say, “Easier said than done!” He went back to see Padre Pio again a while later, still single, and the saint told him, “Get a move on!”

Anna Maria Vannucci caught Vaccarini’s attention when he saw her regularly at Mass and around town. They married, and set about fulfilling Padre Pio’s advice about their family being big. They had 7 children—4 boys and 3 girls—and Vaccarini says, “It wasn’t by chance; I wanted all of them!” Sadly, his wife died in 1970, after only 18 years of marriage.

Nonetheless, Vaccarini continued to fulfill the second part of Padre Pio’s advice: making sure his family was holy. All four of his sons entered the priesthood: the first was ordained in 1979, and the last and youngest more than 20 years later (after his father). One of his daughters also entered the lay consecrated life.

In the meantime, Vaccarini himself became a permanent deacon. Assigned to a parish (San Martino in Venti), he was happy to carry out his duties, but “the problem was always finding some priest to come celebrate Mass,” he told his local diocesan newspaper, Il Ponte. It was then that that during a Mass at San Giovanni Rotondo he heard Padre Pio’s voice in his heart telling him, “You’ll become a priest.” Sure enough, in 1988, at the age of 69, he was ordained to the priesthood. He’s celebrated Mass every day since.

This has created a unique relationship between Fr. Vaccarini and his family. In the TV2000it interview, one of his sons explains how Fr. Vaccarini has been, in a way, his father, his son, and his brother: his biological father, by birth; his spiritual son, when (not yet a priest) he went to his own son for confession; and then his brother in the priesthood, when he was also ordained a priest. “In the faith, there are no limits,” his son says.

Fr. Giuseppe, one of his sons, told Il Ponte that even today as a priest, his father always refers back to his wife, saying, “My wife used to tell me …” which, his son says, may have made people who don’t know him yet “give him strange looks.”

Despite his age and many accomplishments—besides what we’ve already mentioned, he’s published more than 15 books, including an autobiography in Italian titled Husband, Widower, Priest—Fr. Vaccarini hasn’t retired. He’s the oldest active priest in the diocese, and possibly in all of Italy, but he says he still feels “like a newly ordained priest.”

“Day by day, I’m waiting for the Lord to take me,” he said during the 2013 TV200it interview. “I’ve had a wife, I’ve had children, and spiritual children too … Now, I’m waiting for the Lord to call me.”

As a catechist at the seminary, I am most concerned about Pope Francis.  If only twelve cardinals could get up the courage to assemble in Rome and ask him just two questions:

 1.  According to Father Rosica, you do not consider yourself bound to Scripture or Tradition.  Can you explain this in detail so that we understand how you can reconcile this with the vows that you took when you became pope, which bind you to upholding both Scripture and Tradition?

2.  Can you tell us in just one sentence what you consider to be the mission of the Church?  Do you believe that the Church exists for the salvation of souls or do you believe that we are now beyond that stage and need to look for other reasons as to why the Church exists? 

It seems to me that these two questions really get to the heart of the matter of what is at stake right now, the disappearance of the Deposit of the Faith not only through the distortions of liberalism but also through an exaggerated idea of papal authority that supposedly makes Catholics subject to the personal whims of whoever is pope.  And the other thing, of course, is the danger of changing the Church’s mission so that it evolves into something its Founder never intended.  I hope what I have written makes sense. 

FROM A FAITHFUL READER OF ABYSSUM IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Please see the recent report below. The support for immigration propagated by our WA Archdiocese is another example of the leftist Catholics whose efforts are counterproductive for the best interest of our country, to say the very least. Most certainly, this is in stark contrast to what you have rightfully written; THE WASHINTON TIMES REPORTS ON THE WORSENING CRISIS ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER.  

There is a hidden agenda in bringing immigrants into the country. A requirement to being released into the populace, the legal aged immigrants must obtain an ID card at the DMV, enabling them to register for benefits. In doing so, little do they know they have become an organ donor and are entered into the DMV/UNOS database ‘Donor Pool.’ Since the US Government transplant industry reaps billions of dollars annually at the expense of taxpayers, the immigrants are viewed as a valuable commodity. 

Another important issue is the volume of drugs that are brought into our country annually. The illegal immigrants are responsible for this travesty as well. Again, this is beneficial to the transplant industry. Throughout the country, hospitals have reported the opioid epidemic in the USA as being the “silver lining” in increasing the number of organ donors. 

The issues of opioids, human trafficking for the purpose of sex and vital organs, cannot be separated nor can our government’s direct involvement.

Last but not least is the fact, Catholics hospitals are collectively the largest ‘health care providers’ in the USA. They own and operate the most hospitals and medical clinics. 

In 1998 the Federal Government mandated all hospitals to comply with the OPO. The Catholic hospitals and all other medical entities complied without complaint. 

This unholy effort to collapse our country from within is underway and deeply immersed in political jargon are those involved who pretend to be concerned about the “crisis on our southern border.”

From: Northwest Catholic <nwcatholic@seattlearch.org>
Reply-To: Northwest Catholic <nwcatholic@seattlearch.org>
Date: Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM
To: Bernice Jones <bjones@lifeguardianfoundation.org>
Subject: [NWC] This weekend: Third annual Catholic Immigration Summit in Seattle

Plus: A eucharistic craft and a swimsuit that could save your life  View this email in your browser.  JUNE 6, 2019  |  VOL. 5  |  NO. 11‘Sharing the Journey’    June 8 immigration summit seeks to inspire local Catholics Although Pope Francis’ “Share the Journey” initiative comes to an official close in mid-June, Catholics in the Archdiocese of Seattle will continue supporting and advocating for local immigrants and refugees. On June 8, the archdiocese and partner organizations are hosting “Sharing the Journey,” the third annual Catholic Immigration Summit, at St. Catherine of Siena Parish in Seattle. Read more.

Thursday, June 06, 2019

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

5 Dubia Questions for 1P5’s Steve Skojec

Here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren’t too complicated for Steve Skojec, publisher of the One Peter Five website, to answer.

To make it really easy for the publisher of One Peter Five it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.

1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.

Please feel free to answer these dubia questions in any manner you decide, Mr. Skojec, except for the following ways:

1. Do not answer the dubia questions by posting a comment in the Catholic Monitor comment section because you are banned until you allow a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five comment section.

If you attempt to post on the Catholic Monitor comment section before you allow a free forum at your website your post will be deleted.

2. Do not answer the dubia questions by emailing the publisher of the Catholic Monitor until you allow a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five comment section.

If you attempt to email me before allowing a free forum at your website your email will be deleted and unread.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 10:07 PM