29 Jul 2016

At World Youth Day, Vatican releases teen sex-ed programme that leaves out parents and mortal sin

By Pete Baklinski
"More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason," Our Lady of Fatima warned the three young seers in 1917. But this message, unfortunately, is entirely absent from the Vatican’s newly released sex-ed programme for teens. Instead, sexual sins are not mentioned at all. The 6th and 9th commandments are ignored while sexually explicit images and immoral videos are used as springboards for discussion. 
The programme titled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People was released last week by the Pontifical Council for the Family to be presented this week to young people at World Youth Day in Poland. 
While the programme has been in the process of development by married couples in Spain for a number of years, it appears to have received impetus to be completed by Francis’ April Exhortation on marriage and the family, Amoris Laetitia. In the exhortation, Francis speaks about the “need for sex education” to be addressed by “educational institutions,” a move that alarmed global life-and-family leaders since the Catholic Church has always recognized and taught — often in the face of opposition from world powers — that sex education is the “basic right and duty of parents.”
The Vatican’s sex-ed is broken down into six units that are to be taught over a period of four years (grades 9-12) to male and female students in mixed classes. 
View all the lessons and teacher guides at the program's website here.
The new programme being put forward by the Pontifical Council for the Family appears to be a departure from what the Church's magisterium has long taught on sex education. For example:
  • Pope Pius XI, in his 1929 encyclical on Christian education, Divini Illius Magistri, speaks about sex instruction in a private setting by parents, not in classrooms, stating that if “some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education. ... Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard not to descend to details." He adds: “Speaking generally, during the period of childhood, it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice."
  • Pope Pius XII, in his 1951 address to fathers of families, warns against propaganda, even from "Catholic sources," which "exaggerates out of all proportion the importance and significance of the sexual element. ... Their manner of explaining sexual life is such that it acquires in the mind and conscience of the average reader the idea and value of an end in itself, making him lose sight of the true primordial purpose of matrimony, which is the procreation and upbringing of children, and the grave duty of married couples as regards this purpose—something which the literature of which We are speaking leaves too much in the background."
  • Pope John Paul II, in his 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, calls sex education a “basic right and duty of parents” which “must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them." He adds: “Christian parents, discerning the signs of God’s Will, will devote special attention and care to educate in virginity or celibacy as the supreme form of that self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality."
  • The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, in its 1983 Educational Guidelines in Human Love, writes that the “fact remains ever valid that in regard to the more intimate aspects [of sexual education], whether biological or affective, an individual education should be bestowed, preferably within the sphere of the family.”
While the new Vatican programme has many positive qualities, its defects cannot be underestimated. These include: 
  • Handing the sexual formation of children over to educators while leaving parents out of the equation. 
  • Failing to name and condemn sexual behaviors, such as fornication, prostitution, adultery, contracepted-sex, homosexual activity, and masturbation, as objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God. 
  • Failing to warn youths about the possibility of eternal separation from God (damnation) for committing grave sexual sins. Hell is not mentioned once. 
  • Failing to distinguish between mortal and venial sin. 
  • Failing to speak about the 6th and 9th commandment, or any other commandment. 
  • Failing to teach about the sacrament of confession as a way of restoring relationship with God after committing grave sin. 
  • Not mentioning a healthy sense of shame when it comes to the body and sexuality. 
  • Teaching boys and girls together in the same class.
  • Having boys and girls share together in class their understanding of phrases such as: “What does the word sex suggest to you?”
  • Asking a mixed class to “point out where sexuality is located in boys and girls.”
  • Speaking about the “process of arousal.”
  • Using sexually explicit and suggestive images in activity workbooks (here, here, and here). 
  • Recommending various sexually explicit movies as springboards for discussion (see below for links).
  • Failing to speak about abortion as gravely wrong, but only that it causes “strong psychological damage.”
  • Confusing youths by using phrases such as “sexual relationship” to indicate not the sexual act, but a relationship focused on the whole person. 
  • Speaking of “heterosexuality” as something to be “discover[ed].” 
  • Using gay icon Elton John (while not mentioning his activism) as an example of a gifted and famous person. 
  • Endorsing the “dating” paradigm as a step towards marriage. 
  • Not stressing celibacy as the supreme form of self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality. 
  • Failing to mention Christ’s teaching on marriage. 
  • Treating sexuality as a separate subject instead of as something integrated into the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church.
View Slide Show: What’s in the Vatican’s new sex-ed program? (CAUTION: Sexually explicit images.)
Positive qualities include: 
  • Drawing from John Paul II’s teachings in Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility for an understanding of personhood, the language of the body, the spousal dimension of the body, and the body/soul unity of the person. 
  • Teaching that the human person is either male or female. No gender theory here. 
  • Teaching that men and women complement each other through sexual difference. 
  • Teaching that men and woman are equal in dignity, but are different physically and emotionally. No radical feminism here. 
  • Teaching about modesty and chastity as virtues, but not until later units. Chastity is defined as the “light which guides us to give an inviolate love.”
  • Teaching the importance of freedom in the moral life. Freedom is defined as the “capacity to do what is good.”
  • Speaking about “concupiscence” as a “darkness prevent[ing] us from seeing the fullness of the person in a proper and complete way.”
  • Briefly mentioning how love can be separated from procreation, but not explaining the specific evil. 
  • Teaching about the importance of “self-control” and “self-mastery” in order to truly give yourself to another person. 
  • Speaking about “misplaced love” which manifests itself as “narcissism” and “masturbation,” but no mention of sin. 
  • Speaking about purity as the “virtue that disposes us to treat our body with ‘holiness and honour.’”
  • Briefly mentioning the “sanctity of life.”
  • Speaking about virginity as a way to “respond to the call to love.”
  • Promoting chastity before marriage. 
Of urgent concern with the programme is the number of films recommended by the programme as a springboard for discussion that cannot be construed as anything but sexually immoral. For example:  
  • Unit 4 recommends the 2013 R-rated film “To the Wonder” to discuss the “call to the donation of oneself.” Focus on the Family describes the sexual content in this way [WARNING–EXPLICIT]: “So while love is the primary focus of To the Wonder, sex becomes an integral part of its expression. Both Neil and Jane, and Neil and Marina, engage in explicitly rendered intercourse. Nudity stops just short of full; motions and sounds are passionate, erotic, titillating and extended—the blending of bodies to suggest complete intimacy. There's the visual suggestion that Neil and Marina have sex in the coach compartment on a train. An (almost) oral sex scene is used to express distance and dissatisfaction.”
  • Unit 6 recommends the 2010 R-rated film “Love & other Drugs” to “reflect[] on the part of the formula with which a man and a woman express their mutual consent to contract marriage.” Focus on the Family describes the sexual content in this way [WARNING–EXPLICIT]: "For a good chunk of the film, Jamie and Maggie seem to be in a constant state of lovemaking. They smash into cabinets, writhe on the floor, pant and moan, engage in oral sex and loudly express their orgasmic responses. Audiences see both of them completely naked. (Only their pubic regions escape the frame.) It's pretty explicit stuff…Later, after Maggie and Jamie tape one of their sexual escapades, Josh finds it and watches it. It's implied that he masturbates while doing so. And he spends the rest of the film making crude comments about his brother's anatomy.”
  • Unit 2 recommends the 2013 film "Stockholm" to raise the question, “Is it really worth it to give myself to the first person that approaches me?” Hollywood Reporter describes the film as a “cat-and-mouse” game where the man “expertly dresses up his desire for sex with her as real feeling” while “quizzes him about his real motives for his interest in her.”  After the “commitment of sex has happened,” which appears to be graphically depicted based on previews, the couple starts to find out “who they really are and that they’re seeking entirely different things.”
The film selection reveals a startling lack of moral compass in the programme creators, something that should alarm any parent thinking of allowing their child to be formed by this programme. 
One pro-family campaigner against Planned Parenthood’s explicit version of sex-ed gave this comment, under condition of anonymity, about the Vatican’s sex-ed programme: “I had a hard time deciding if the authors were trying to cleverly disguise a bad programme or if they were just thoroughly incompetent. They tried to interweave modern day movies to support the vague concepts they were trying to get across, but, how they did that was not very effective. Why the erotic pictures that bordered on porn? I thought the whole thing would be confusing to youth and frankly a large waste of time.”
In one activity, youths are asked to look at a picture of an older couple who are sitting in front of an image of a “young man and woman, joining their half-naked bodies in a hug.” They are asked: “Which of the two couples is having a sexual relationship?” The teaching guide states: “The objective is for the young person to feel ‘provoked’ in front of these two images, or even confused by the title of the topic and the image presented.” And that is the essential problem with this program: Young people will simply be confused by the conflicting messages, the explicit images and films, and the lack of moral directives. 
In the end, the Vatican’s sex-ed programme might at best be described as a mixed bag and at worst as a misguided effort that falls very much short of the mark. While the casual reader can point to various texts that suggest that the programme is aimed at promoting modesty, abstinence, and saving sexual relations for marriage, there is nevertheless something quite disturbing happening between the lines. 
Because of the programme's failure to honour the God-given role of parents as primary educator, its utter failure to name and condemn various sexual sins, and its use of sexual explicit materials and films, the programme not only fails to achieve its goal, but it could arguably have the opposite effect of awakening in youths disordered sexual desire and giving them the impetus to act out sexual fantasies. The programme attempts to instruct young people about the importance of modesty, chastity, and intimacy and does so by violating the very values it is trying to instil. In this way it is self-defeating. In short, the programme could lead youths not closer to God, but further away from him.
One might go as far as conjecturing that had the sainted Maria Goretti been formed by the Vatican’s sex-ed programme, it is unlikely that she would have had any heroic words of virtue to say to her sexual attacker. She would not have been formed to say: “No! It is a sin! God does not want it!" She would not have learned that what her attacker wanted was an offense against God. Nor would have Saint Dominic Savio, in the same vein, been able to say: “Death rather than sin,” because he would not have learned about the horror of sin. A programme in sexual morality that fails to teach young people to live the Gospel without compromise is unworthy of being taught. 
Pete Baklinski has a B.A. in Liberal Arts and a Masters in Theology with a Specialization on Marriage and the Family (STM). He is married to Erin. Together they have six children.
Contact information: 
Editor's Note: The Pontifical Council for the Family is asking for feedback about its program. Please be respectful in communications. 
The PCF may be contacted using its online platform here (scroll to bottom of page) or by using the information below: 
Production Pontificium Consilium pro Familia
Piazza di San Calisto
16 00153 Roma
Phone: +39 0669887243
Source: LifeSiteNews

18 Jul 2016

Pope Benedict breaks silence: speaks of ‘deep crisis’ facing Church post-Vatican II

Pope Ratzinger
In this piece, published on March 16, 2016 by Maike Hickson of LifeSiteNews.com, Pope Benedict XVI flatly contradicts some of his previous heretical views such as questioning the Church’s dogma, “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”—meaning “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. And note that this wasn’t just the first time he’s doing this “retracting”—for example when, in the interval between the two synods on the family, Ratzinger retracted his youthful ideas in favour of communion for the divorced and remarried and rewrote the exact opposite, in a sort of preemptive contestation of “Amoris Laetitia.” I consider his present positions a warning to the Sedevacantist diehards, many of whom—always too quick to condemn—have concluded that he is already lost for rejecting some of these doctrines. The Sedevacantists put Benedict XVI and other V2 popes in the same category as the Church’s mortal enemies such as the Freemasons or the apostate Francis. Well, this biased judgement can’t be more obvious:    

Pope Benedict breaks silence: speaks of ‘deep crisis’ facing Church post-Vatican II

By Maike Hickson

On March 16, speaking publicly on a rare occasion, Pope Benedict XVI gave an interview (English translation) to Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops' Conference, in which he spoke of a “two-sided deep crisis” the Church is facing in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The report has already hit Germany courtesy of Vaticanist Guiseppe Nardi, of the German Catholic news website Katholisches.info.

Pope Benedict reminds us of the formerly indispensable Catholic conviction of the possibility of the loss of eternal salvation, or that people go to hell:

The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation.

He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope's eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”

Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”

As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, Catholics themselves, in Benedict's eyes, are less attached to their Faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” asked the pope. And he concludes: “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.”

Pope Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life.

“Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent  in their effects,” he said. In this context, he also touches upon the exploratory  ideas of the now-deceased Jesuit Cardinal, Henri de Lubac, about Christ's putatively “vicarious substitutions” which have to be now again “further reflected upon.” 

With regard to man's relation to technology and to love, Pope Benedict reminds us of the importance of human affection, saying that man still yearns in his heart “that the Good Samaritan come to his aid.”

He continues: “In the harshness of the world of technology – in which feelings do not count anymore – the hope for a saving love grows, a love which would be given freely and generously.”

Benedict also reminds his audience that: “The Church is not self-made, it was created by God and is continuously formed by Him. This finds expression in the Sacraments, above all in that of Baptism: I enter into the Church not by a bureaucratic act, but with the help of this Sacrament.” Benedict also insists that, always, “we need Grace and forgiveness.”

Source: LifeSiteNews

4 Jul 2016

How Pope Ratzinger messed up the papacy!

                                          by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

"The only explanation for why the Catholic world has so blithely accepted this ludicrous notion of two Popes in Rome is that Catholics just don't care anymore. The spirit of Vatican II has so stripped away the sensus Catholicus that Catholics—those still bothering to tune in to "As The Vatican Turns"—literally don't give a damn.  They have no traditions left to help keep them afloat in the veritable ocean of novelties in which they're drowning. ...Who knows? Who cares! There's nothing left to play out in this act, save for a fat lady named Chastisement to take the stage. But, alas, before we conclude that Pope Benedict is the hero in this tragedy and Pope Francis the villain, perhaps we should take a moment to try to understand and explain the warm and loving expression on the face of this Bishop in White as he greets that Bishop in White." (Michael Matt, The Remnant, June 17, 2016).
My father, Mr Charles Ifeanyi, is fondly called a “free thinker” by one of my cousins, Pius. This is because he scarcely shows interest on church-related issues—despite having taught in a seminary years ago. But I know my dad better than my cousin does, and so disagree with him on that! Yes, he doesn’t always join us to discuss or argue on church issues, but sure, you will encounter his sensus Catholicus—or what I’ve termed his “Catholic reflex action”—when the matter is a very serious one. I really had such an encounter on February 11, 2013, the very day Pope Benedict XVI announced his intention to “resign”. I was in my father’s house in Anambra State on that day. I got the news first, rushed to my father’s room and broke it to him and his first reaction was simply “Shut up!”

Pope Ratzinger
And why the “Shut up”? For Mr Ifeanyi, it is, in fact, an abomination to even pronounce such. When later he read the newspaper himself as well as heard the news on the radio, he told us plainly that for Pope Benedict XVI to have taken such a decision, “he must be an enemy of the papacy”. For my dad, nothing on this earth—not even a threat of death—can force a good pope who really loves the Church to take such a radical decision. “The papacy is holy, spiritual and monarchical”, he said. “A pope doesn’t resign...Oh! ...he wants to mess up the papacy! He wants to destroy it! God forbid him!” he lamented. (It is instructive to note that my father doesn’t know much about the lives and teachings of Vatican II popes because he doesn’t always join us to study them, hence his instant judgement of Benedict XVI was based purely on the fact before him, namely that he chose to “resign” the office of St. Peter).

Pope Ratzinger
In that same year 2013 Father Nicholas Gruner, commenting on the radical decision of Benedict XVI, stated that “He (Benedict XVI) has done what he wants”. But Father Gruner, ever anxious to get the pope to consecrate Russia (whether such a pope be the devil or not!), certainly didn’t take time to study the so-called “resignation” carefully—as Father Kramer and a few others did—but even immediately started encouraging his followers to submit themselves to the authority of the “new pope”, Francis I! The reason for this being that he recognised Bergoglio’s name from his “previous reputation” (during papal conclave of 2005) of being “a good man” and primarily because Bergoglio, prior to becoming “pope”, had once written to Father Gruner’s Fatima Center “in a very friendly way”.  “Unless we are forced to a different conclusion, we have a duty to presume this pope is exactly what he appears to be: a pious man with a deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Time will reveal any serious problems with the Pope’s intentions. Should that happen, we would then have the right and duty to convey our concerns to His Holiness”, he said!

Well, I need not state here that the only truth I picked from Father Gruner in this regard was just his statement that Benedict XVI “has done what he wants”. Although I don’t dismiss other facts regarding that “resignation”, what has actually been in my mind from day one is that—from Father Gruner’s perspective—Pope Benedict XVI “resigned” because he freely wished to do so, and—from my father’s perspective—because he is indeed an enemy of the papacy. (Of course when my dad used the word “enemy” he was just referring to Ratzinger’s “I don’t care attitude”, not an enemy in the sense of a freemason or someone with a secret intention to destroy the Church).

That Ratzinger willed this novelty is just an indisputable fact. As one commentator once put it—regarding Benedict XVI’s resignation: “If anyone wondered about Benedict’s interest, they might have found a clue in a long interview that he gave to the German journalist Peter Seewald for his 2010 book, Light of the World”. In that 2010 interview—five years after reigning as pope—in which Benedict XVI gave his most personal account of the distress caused to him by the clerical sex abuse scandal, with particular reference to Germany and Ireland, he did not consider resigning over the crisis but does raise the possibility of a pope resigning if he were to lose his mental capacities (and the reasons he eventually gave for “resigning”, old age and deteriorating health, were similar). He said, during the 2010 interview with Peter Seewald: “If a Pope clearly realises that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.” Compare this to what he said during his “resignation” in 2013: “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry”. Isn’t there a correspondence here? And this, plus Benedict XVI’s visit—in fact twice—to the tomb of Pope St. Celestine in 2009, the pope who resigned properly (and for the good of the Church) in 1294, which indicates that he probably had been harbouring this thought of resignation right before 2013, perhaps right from the very day he was elected!
Father Paul Kramer

Father Gruner didn’t take time to study the so-called “resignation” carefully. Father Paul Kramer did just that—from his own words it is clear that Benedict XVI only resigned the active ministry, not the contemplative aspect of the papal munus, he maintains. Note that this—together with the fact that Bergoglio is indisputably a public heretic—has been Father Kramer’s major reason for rejecting the current “pontificate”. The other idea of some mafias wanting to force Benedict XVI to resign is simply not a fiction as well, but it’s just secondary.

Take it or leave it: Ratzinger, who is just “the best” among all V2 popes, is a real modernist—an innovator who is responsible for the suffering the church is going through currently. As Father Kramer stated: “Judging by Benedict's own words, he appears to have deliberately done exactly what Mons. Gänswein described: attempting to “enlarge” the petrine office to be filled by two men, one exercising the active ministry, and the other the contemplative aspect of the papal munus.”

In his article THE CASE OF THE DUAL PAPACY -- "DEUX PAPES VERMOULU", Father Kramer writes:

“In order to understand the precise scope and extent of Benedict XVI's "renunciation" (not "resignation" or "abdication"), one must focus on his words which explain exactly what he renounced:

“ " Qui permettetemi di tornare ancora una volta al 19 aprile 2005. La gravità della decisione è stata proprio anche nel fatto che da quel momento in poi ero impegnato sempre e per sempre dal Signore. Sempre – chi assume il ministero petrino non ha più alcuna privacy. Appartiene sempre e totalmente a tutti, a tutta la Chiesa. Alla sua vita viene, per così dire, totalmente tolta la dimensione privata." ... " Il “sempre” è anche un “per sempre” - non c’è più un ritornare nel privato. La mia decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo."

“ "Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated." ... "The 'always' is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this."

“Here Benedict XVI states explicitly that the gravity of his decision to accept the papacy consisted in the fact that he was thereby engaged in a commitment, received from Christ, which is "for always", and his "decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." Thus, Benedict did not renounce the Petrine office or its ministry, but only the active exercise of the ministry. He then goes on to say that he will no longer wield the power of office, but will remain "within the enclosure of St. Peter": " Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro. San Benedetto, il cui nome porto da Papa, mi sarà di grande esempio in questo. Egli ci ha mostrato la via per una vita, che, attiva o passiva, appartiene totalmente all’opera di Dio." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.") 

“Hence, the intention expressed by Pope Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfil the function of a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Thus, Benedict's clearly expressed intention was not to abdicate the office, but only to vacate the cathedra in the qualified sense of handing the seat of power of governance to one who will succeed him in the active governance, but not abdicating from the office itself. This solves the apparent mystery and explains why Benedict XVI refused to revert to being Cardinal Ratzinger; and why he retains his papal coat of arms and papal attire”.

Last month, the highly respected Italian journalist, Sandro Magister—no ‘traddie’ and certainly no ‘conspiracy nut’—vindicated Father Kramer: “It is the unprecedented innovation that Ratzinger seems to want to put into practice. It has been announced by his secretary, Georg Gänswein. Redoubling the already abundant ambiguities of the pontificate of Francis”.  

In his brilliant piece, Not One Pope But Two, One “Active” and One “Contemplative”, Sandro Magister writes:

The resignation of the papacy was not his last act. Already in his withdrawal from the see of Peter, in that memorable February of 2013, Joseph Ratzinger made sure to say that in his election as pope there had been something that would remain “forever.”

Sandro Magister
“In fact, he continues to wear the white tunic, continues to sign himself “Benedictus XVI, pope emeritus,” continues to live “in the enclosure of Saint Peter,” continues to have himself called “Holiness” and “Holy Father.”

“And most recently the archbishop in closest contact with him, Georg Gänswein, has told us that Benedict “has by no means abandoned the office of Peter,” but on the contrary has made it “an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member,” in “a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a shared ministry”.”

Indeed, this is sad! And how thoughtless today’s “Catholics” can be! They eat and drink even while the Church is being destroyed by the enemies! As Michael Matt rightly stated in The Remnant, “The only explanation for why the Catholic world has so blithely accepted this ludicrous notion of two Popes in Rome is that Catholics just don't care anymore. The spirit of Vatican II has so stripped away the sensus Catholicus that Catholics—those still bothering to tune in to “As The Vatican Turns”—literally don’t give a damn.  They have no traditions left to help keep them afloat in the veritable ocean of novelties in which they're drowning.” In six words, they have just lost the faith! 

The article by Sandro Magister reads:

“These staggering statements from Gänswein, made on May 20 in the aula magna of the Pontifical Gregorian University, have sown dismay among Ratzinger’s admirers themselves. Because no one doubts that they correspond to his thought and were authorized by him. But no one would have expected from him such an unheard-of act of rupture in the history of the papacy, totally without precedent, “a sort of exception willed by Heaven,” as Gänswein himself has called it, after a pontificate that is also “exceptional,” an “Ausnahmepontifikat.”

“The absolute innovation is not the resignation, but the sequel.

“When on December 13, 1294 Celestine V announced his abandonment of the pontificate, as the story goes “he came down from the throne, took the tiara from his head and put it on the floor; and mantle and ring and all he took off in front of the astonished cardinals,” after which he went back to being an ordinary monk, in complete withdrawal from the world.

“This is what even the most authoritative of Catholic canonists, the Jesuit Gianfranco Ghirlanda, envisioned in “La Civiltà Cattolica” immediately after the resignation announcement of Benedict XVI: that he would indeed remain a bishop, more properly “bishop emeritus of Rome,” in that sacred ordination is an indelible act, but would “lose all his power of primacy, because this did not come to him from episcopal consecration but directly from Christ through the acceptance of legitimate election.”

“But then Ratzinger’s behavior contradicted this order of things.

“And right away appeared some who justified him theoretically. Like the other canonist Stefano Violi, who maintains that Benedict XVI did not by any means renounce the office of Peter, but only his active exercise of governance and magisterium, keeping for himself the exercise of prayer and compassion. Precisely what Gänswein gave as fact one month ago: a double papacy “with an active member and a contemplative member,” Francis and Benedict, “almost a shared ministry.”

“Now, that there could be two popes in the Catholic Church, of different profiles but still more than one, is something that expert theologians and canonists like Geraldina Boni and Carlo Fantappiè judge as not only unheard-of but “aberrant,” as well as being a source of conflicts.

“But there is more. Violi even theorizes the hypothetical superiority of the “contemplative” pope over the “active,” in that he is closer to the example of Jesus who despoiled himself of everything, even his divinity. 

“And then it is not at all true that the distinction of roles between Francis and Benedict is so clear.

“Ratzinger has repeatedly broken the silence that he had foreshadowed after his resignation. Roughly ten times already he has said or written something in public, each time requiring the study of what is or is not in accord between him and the magisterium of the “active” pope.

“For example when, in the interval between the two synods on the family, Ratzinger retracted his youthful ideas in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried and rewrote the exact opposite, in a sort of preemptive contestation of “Amoris Laetitia.”

“In the magisterium of Francis ambiguity triumphs, but the “papacy emeritus” of Benedict is an unsolved enigma, too”. (The article is here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351317?eng=y).

On this year’s Feast of the Pentecost, One Peter Five wrote the following: 

“Today, on the Feast of Pentecost, I called Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a German priest and former professor of theology in Brasil, who is now quite elderly and physically weak. He has been a personal friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for many years. Father Dollinger unexpectedly confirmed over the phone the following facts: 

“Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.  Father Dollinger gave me permission to publish these facts on this High Feast of the Holy Ghost and he gave me his blessing...” 

One Peter Five concludes that “This information also might explain why Pope Benedict XVI, once he had become pope, tried to undo some of the injustices that are directly related with this Dollinger revelation, namely: he freed the Traditional Mass from its suppression; he removed the excommunication of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX); and lastly, he publicly declared in 2010 in Fatima: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.”  (See: Our Lady warned of "a bad Council and a bad Mass..."published by Paul Anthony Melanson. 

But then, is that enough? It’s just a fact that no one is more familiar with Fatima than Pope Benedict XVI who for many years controlled all access to Sister Lucy and did himself read all the Secrets. Why did he not consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, as requested by Our Lady of Fatima?

The above “revelation” by Dollinger is of course what Father Gruner spent almost all his years shouting everywhere while he was alive. But he was ignored by Ratzinger and co. Early in 2015, shortly before his death, Father Gruner—I call him the Great Fatima Prophet—visited Rome. According to him, “...while I was there, something happened—something soul-shaking!—that I did not expect!” 

Father Gruner
In his letter of 12 March 2015, Father Gruner wrote: “I spoke with Father Gabriel Amorth, the world’s most famous living exorcist. His words shook me as few things ever have! Father Amorth told me that we have but a SHORT TIME left before the chastisements predicted by Our Lady of Fatima begin to rip our world apart in ways we can hardly imagine!  HOW LONG? LESS THAN 8 MONTHS! Father Gabriel Amorth told me that unless the consecration of Russia is done—as Our Lady asked—by the end of October, 2015, the dark prophecies of Fatima may well come to pass any day after that.”

Father Nicholas Gruner, Our Lady's loyal ambassador and Priest Son, was called home. Why? Was his race won? Did he cross the finish line and earn the hero's crown? I believe he did. As one commentator, James Cunningham puts it—commenting on Father Gruner’s death:

“To me it is a clear sign that the time for the great suffering is immanent. How long and extensive the violence, disease and chaos will last is unknown but, I think, like you, it will end with a new era, the era of Our Lady complete with the cleansing and purification of the Holy Catholic Church. Somehow, by the Grace of God, the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart will take place to Her satisfaction and all the errors of modernism and the Second Vatican Council and Novus Ordo will end. I believe the restoration of the Church will be so great and beautiful that our imaginations cannot as of yet conceive of such beauty. I believe that Our Lady will have a special role in its decoration. It will rival the greatest arts of the counter-reformation. Please God, let me live to see it.

“Who knows whether Pope Benedict XVI will outlive Pope Francis? I am 75 years old and yet three of the four men who died just this past year on my block were younger than me. No one knows when God requires a soul.

“I sense a similarity between Noah locked away in the Ark with the whole new world of creation and Pope Benedict XVI locked away in the Vatican (an Ark of another spiritual creation) and releasing a dove. The dove returns with an olive branch, (Gloria olivae). ...The world is so full of evil that the Chastisement will actually be a blessing ending the deluge of souls pouring into Hell. Viva Cristo Rey!”



1 Jul 2016

EWTN panel: Pope’s remarks on marriage, cohabitation were ‘reckless,’ depart from Church Tradition

The drama continues to unfold as Catholics continue to study “the pope’s words”. Formerly, “his words” were usually “taken out of context”! But now it seems things are beginning to change gradually as some—both priests and the lay faithful—are beginning to open their eyes to the stark reality before us—the Enemy is here! But, for them—in fact for the majority—he is still the “Holy Father”, the “Pope of Mercy” who is merely  “trying to be welcoming and... to open the doors as wide as he possibly can...”!

Claire Chretien of LifeSiteNews writes, on the responses of learned Catholics to Francis’ recent attack on the Sacrament of Matrimony:

EWTN panel: Pope’s remarks on marriage, cohabitation were ‘reckless,’ depart from Church Tradition

By Claire Chretien

On EWTN’s June 23 World Over program hosted by Raymond Arroyo, canon lawyer Father Gerald Murray and author and editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal respectfully yet candidly dissected Pope Francis’s recent comments on the validity of Christian marriages, cohabitation, and certain priests being “animals.”

Arroyo’s thoughtful questions prompted Murray and Royal to offer their takes on Pope Francis’s recent claim that the “great majority” of Christian marriages are invalid yet some cohabitating couples show “fidelity” and are in “real marriages.” Murray and Royal reiterated their respect for Pope Francis and his office, but spoke plainly about what they perceive as his “reckless” and errant words. 

Arroyo began by pointing out that Pope Francis’s claim that the “great majority” of Christian marriages are invalid “is at odds with the traditional Church teaching on marriage and the nature of that commitment involved.”

“Yes, the great majority of Catholic marriages are not null, they’re valid,” said Murray. “For the pope to say that is to express, I think, an unacceptable opinion. I regret he did it, because it causes uncertainty among people now: is my marriage valid? The pope is not following the canonical precision that’s present in the law about what it takes to get married. In order to be married validly, you simply have to know that this is a relationship between a man and a woman in view of having children and by nature, it’s a permanent relationship.”

The pope’s remarks were a “departure from tradition,” Royal said, and send “a paradoxical message that, you know, if you’re not happy, you see somebody else that you’re interested in, there’s a way out for this.” 

“I think a line was kind of crossed here,” continued Royal. “Edward Peters, the great American canon lawyer, said that it’s preposterous to put forward that the vast majority, or even a large number of marriages are null because the culture is bad.”

Royal pointed out that early Christians were able to marry and live “a Christian life in a very paganized, masculine-dominated culture.” 

“The early Christians were in a culture that was pretty sexually saturated and marriage was, was sort of a light thing,” he said. 
Watch the full EWTN segment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLFyB-DxzmQ

Pope’s comments are a ‘landmine that exploded’

“I don’t agree with the pope,” said Murray. “I think most people are naturally capable of marriage…and the fact that you are 18 years old doesn’t per se mean you’re immature as regards being able to marry…what you need to know to get married is very simple. Boy, girl, ring, vows, and you consummate the marriage—you’re married.” 

Royal said he thought it was a good thing that the Vatican seemed to retract the pope’s remarks in their official transcript because it meant “somewhere in the Vatican,” someone realized that “this caused a firestorm around the world.”

The Vatican partially walked back what Pope Francis said because “they understood this was a landmine that exploded,” Murray suggested.

‘Once you start to go down this road, there’s no guardrail’

Royal said in alleging that cohabitation can be real marriage, Pope Francis is treading “on very dangerous ground.” 

“It’s very odd that on the one hand the people who are married are told, you know, probably you’re not really married, and the people who are cohabiting, ‘I see elements of fidelity there and those are, those are marriages,’” said Royal. “It’s as if the culture—the sexual revolution of the culture is recalibrating the Church at both ends.”

“For the pope to say that [cohabitation is] a real marriage—anything before they get married in the Church—it’s just not accurate,” Murray added. “If you’re not married, you’re not getting the grace of the Sacrament, and you’re not in a real marriage.”

“Pastoral charity demands truth,” Murray continued. “If you tell everybody in the world, ‘look, a lot of people cohabiting are in real marriages,’ that’s not something good.”

As part of his justification for the claim that cohabitation can be “real marriage,” Pope Francis said that he’d seen “a lot of fidelity in those cohabitations.”

“If you haven’t given the vows before God, then there is no vow to be faithful to,” responded Murray. “A vow made before a civil official is subject to the laws of the state, which permit divorce, so it’s not—it’s not a conditionless vow as it is in the Church.”

“[Pope Francis] says at one point that priests shouldn’t stick their noses into the moral lives of people,” said Royal.  He continued:

…this is virtually to say that the Church cannot counsel people about what they’re—they’re to do in their moral lives. I hear from people very strange reactions like this. Why do we stop then with marriage? Why is that the only Sacrament the culture has rendered invalid? Why not ordination to the priesthood? You know—are Confessions invalid? Are Communions invalid…?  Once you start to go down this road, there’s no guardrail. I mean, we understand that the pope is trying to be welcoming and he’s trying to open the doors as wide as he possibly can, but there’s a danger in this direction, that in opening the doors, you lose the substance of what the faith is there to teach.

Arroyo also pointed out that in the same address, Pope Francis jokingly asked the audience to not “tell Cardinal Müller on me.” Cardinal Gerhard Müller is the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, the Church’s doctrinal watchdog.

“Cardinal Müller works for him,” said Murray. “Cardinal Müller’s there to help him in his mission to teach the authentic purity of Catholic doctrine…quite frankly, Cardinal Müller shouldn’t be the butt of jokes. He is there to help [with] exactly what the pope needs.”

‘Incalculable’ shockwaves

Another papal remark that has recently caused many veteran Vatican observers dismay is Pope Francis’s labeling of some priests as “animals” for refusing to baptize children conceived out of wedlock. 

Canon law allows for children whose parents are not married to be baptized provided they will be raised according to the teachings of the Catholic faith. 

“I’m a priest, I make mistakes,” Murray responded. “I wouldn’t wanna be called an animal if I make a mistake…I think he let his temper get him there, and that’s unfortunate … because people pay attention” to what the pope says.

Murray and Royal both stressed that as the leader of the Catholic Church, the world closely watches what Pope Francis says, and his words carry weight and influence.

“For a pope to speak, seemingly, to demote marriage as it exists and to elevate cohabitation as it exists, and, and on and on, this sends out shockwaves that are just incalculable,” said Royal.

“The pope, in his charity, is trying to steer people in some directions,” concluded Murray. “I disagree with some of his analysis, obviously, but we should never give people the false notion that, number one, sin is good, or number two, the sacraments are ineffectual because we live in a troubled culture. And number three, we should always say what is true yesterday is true today and tomorrow. We can’t change the Church’s teaching.”

Source: LifeSiteNews