4 Oct 2017

The words Christ, Church, Christianity or Christian, are not mentioned ONCE in the Nigerian constitution ...but Sharia is mentioned 73 times, Grand Khadi 54 times, Islam 29 times and Muslims 10 times—Fani-Kayode.

Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Buhari, Saraki, Sambo Pray Inside Aso Rock To Mark Nigeria @ 57


“How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the words Christ, Church, Christianity or Christian are not mentioned ONCE in the constitution and when the word Sharia is mentioned 73 times, Grand Khadi 54 times, Islam 29 times and Muslims 10 times?” (Femi Fani-Kayode)

Last month, General Mohammadu Buhari-led Federal Government, after wasting the lives of defenceless Igbo youths—peaceful Biafran agitators—went ahead to declare the peaceful Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) “a terrorist organisation.” Nobody—not one “Igbo leader”—uttered a word. But a few days later only foreigners—particularly the United States Government—countered Buhari’s Islamic government of lies. (See: We don’t see IPOB as terrorist organisation – US).

From the year 2015 when he assumed office till date, General Buhari has been proving to sceptical observers like us that he is indeed a Satanic agent, whose mission is partly to exterminate, if possible, the entire Igbo race. He systematically started by first ensuring that the Igbos are kept out of his Islamic government, and by stopping several pro-Igbo projects—such as that of the River Niger Bridge—which the previous PDP government started. Still not satisfied, then he started killing us. The killings started in that very year in which he was elected. Several lives of the Igbo people have been wasted and this he does wilfully. His target is IPOB, because he knows what IPOB, unlike MASSOB and others that cannot bite, stands for. Buhari, after wasting the lives of several members of IPOB, declared the same organisation “a terrorist organisation” — but he goes about defending the deadly Islamic Boko Haram that has wasted over 20, 000 lives of innocent Nigerians between 2010 and 2017. As I wrote in a 2015 article:

“...as the 2015 election drew near, the same Buhari contradictorily asked the Federal Government to stop the clampdown of Boko Haram “insurgents”, saying Niger Delta Militants were never killed or properties belonging to them destroyed. Buhari, who spoke on a Liberty Radio programme, accused the government of killing and destroying houses belonging to Boko Haram members while the Niger Delta militants got special treatment. He said that unlike the special treatment given to the Niger Delta militants by the federal government, the Boko Haram members were being killed and their houses demolished by the government. While accusing Jonathan of failing from the beginning to address the security situation in the country, Buhari said he had never been in support of the state of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states. According to Buhari, 'what is responsible for the security situation in the country is caused by the activities of Niger Delta militants. Every Nigerian that is familiar with what is happening knows this. The Niger Delta militants started it all. What happened is that the governors of the Niger Delta at that time wanted to win their elections, so they recruited youths and gave guns and bullets to them to use against their opponents to win elections by force. After the elections, they asked the boys to return the guns, and the boys refused to do so. Because of that the allowance that was being given to them by the governors was stopped.'”   (See: Jonathan, Northern Muslims and Boko Haram Saga!)

The fact that no one has, till now, questioned Buhari over his killing of Biafrans remains a mystery, but a mystery which Chief Fani-Kayode, a Protestant and an intellectual, partly exposes in his article below.

While the killings have been going on, and while the likes of Fani-Kayode, a Yoruba, have been voicing out, the self-acclaimed "Igbo leaders" as well as "Catholic leaders" in the country, have been keeping quiet. Of course, the silence of the latter—that is, the “Catholic leaders”—is understandable: they are not just secularists but are simply worse than atheists, so they are always indifferent when it comes to religious issues of this nature. As for the former—the “Igbo leaders”—they have been keeping quiet because they are selfish persons who, over the years, have plunged Igbo land into a complete mess. Selfish leaders who don’t speak the mind of an average Igbo man or woman; selfish leaders whose business is always to protect their personal interests. These are persons who are ready to betray the entire Igbo land provided their Abuja national cake is assured—persons who, over the years, have been keeping quiet on the Igbo predicament in Nigeria ostensibly for fear of losing their positions in the country, who only murmur and agree with Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB leader, in closed circles, but condemn him any time their positions appear to be threatened. Who wants to lose his position? Who wants to lose his source of livelihood? Who wants to speak against a system that harbours him, a system that feeds him? Selfish and greedy leaders who are ever ready to sacrifice their brothers and sisters at the altar of money. Indeed Buhari appears to have been succeeding in his Satanic agenda against the Igbos because of these selfish and greedy politicians.

In May 2000 Chief Ralph Uwazuruike, founder of new Biafran movement, stated rightly that the need for a “New Biafra” is motivated by the “unprovoked and organised killing of our people in Nigeria”. The killings are being carried out by the Hausa/Fulani Islamists—Buhari’s people—of course. Now—with regards to these killings—just to mention one out of innumerable cases because of space: On June 2, 2016, Bridget Agbahime, an Igbo woman, was brutally murdered in Kano by northern Muslim youths over allegations of “blasphemy.” The killers of Bridget Agbahime, led by one Dauda, were caught and arrested but were quickly set free by a Kano State magistrate court. Then they went after the life of Bridget’s husband, Mr Agbahime. Of course, the plot to kill Mr Agbahime was because he was a principal witness to the murder of his wife. He was present at the scene of the murder and knows the suspects one on one. Hear him:

“I want justice done in the matter. They killed my wife in my presence, yet the court presumed them innocent. The south east governors, the Senators, and interest groups should rise up to get the culprits re-arrested and tried. I know Dauda and all those that killed my wife but now, they are telling me they are not guilty. Based on what law did they pronounce him innocent? The suspects confessed and Dauda mentioned those that participated in the killing but up till now, they have not been arrested since police has finished investigation. On that day, the group of boys chanting Alla kubahu overtook that shopping plaza, climbed upstairs, pulled down the iron with which they killed my wife.” (Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/12/life-danger-husband-igbo-woman-killed-kano-cries/ and http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/214435-court-frees-suspects-kano-blasphemy-killing.html).

Today that case, among other innumerable cases, has been buried—just like several cases of Igbo bloods shed by Buhari from 2015 till date are being buried!
           
Last month Buhari’s Islamic government declared to the world that IPOB is “a terrorist organisation”. Was it surprising that terribly dishonest Arewa Youths, just about two months earlier, after giving the Igbos residing in the north “a quit notice” to vacate the region, asked the UN—in their so-called letter to the UN, dated 12th of July, 2017—to “pronounce Kanu and IPOB as terror outfits, proscribe their activities and initiate criminal actions against them.” (Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/07/arewa-youths-ask-un-pronounce-ipob-terror-group-say-kanu-finally-crossed-boundaries/).

Of course the UN ignored them, then Buhari acted two months after. 

Do we see the correlation between the statement made by the Arewa Youths about two months ago and that of Buhari-led Federal Government a few weeks ago?

Do you wonder why things are happening this way in Nigeria? Fani-Kayode tells us the reason in the article below, which he wrote about a month ago. “How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the words Christ, Church, Christianity or Christian are not mentioned ONCE in the constitution and when the word Sharia is mentioned 73 times, Grand Khadi 54 times, Islam 29 times and Muslims 10 times?” he asks. 

Of course, Nigerian “Christians”—both “Catholic leaders” who clamour for a “secular State” and are, as secularists, indifferent when it comes to religious issues, and the Protestant “clergy” whose main reason for being "Christian" is money—don’t just have the time to ask a question like this, and others below. (Note: the British who colonised the country were also secularists and atheists and that’s why they didn’t bother about the religious issues before merging the different tribes together). Chief Fani-Kayode poses the questions not just because he is an intellectual but because he cherishes his Protestant "Christian" Faith, and because he is just fearless. It is also because of things like these that Biafran agitation started. IPOB members as well as other agitators for Biafra recognise Nigeria for exactly what it is—an Islamic State—and that’s partly the reason why they want a secession. Buhari understands this very well—hence the very reason why he declared them “terrorists”!   

The article:


by Chief Femi Fani-Kayode

“I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves”- Harriet Tubman

How can anyone describe Nigeria as a free nation when Sheik Othman Dan Fodio, the hero of the core Muslim north, the father of the Fulani Caliphate and the first Mahdi of Nigeria once said,

“Allah has bestowed on me and my people the historic duty to spread the holy faith of the Prophet throughout the Caliphate and convert these pagans. If they refuse to accept Allah and his Prophet we will wash the earth, the forests, the mountains, the rivers and the streams with their pagan blood. Ours is a holy and righteous calling. We are doing the work of Allah”?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as a free nation when Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Saurdana of Sokoto, the Premier of the Northern Region and the second Mahdi of Nigeria once said,

“The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate of our great grandfather Othman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the minorities in the north as willing tools and the south as conquered territory and never allow them to rule over us and never allow them to have control over their future”?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when General Muhammadu Buhari, the indisputable King of the north, the avenging sword of the Caliphate, the almighty President of the Federal Republic, the unquestionable leader of the African Mujahadeen and the third and last Mahdi of Nigeria once said,

“It is my intention to spread sharia to every part of Nigeria” and that “why should Christians bother when Muslims chop off the hands of Muslims in the name of sharia?” and that “Muslims should only vote for Muslims” and finally that “an attack on Boko Haram is an attack on the north”?

What portion do those of us that are southerners and Middle Belters have in this so-called “free country” and why have we been consistently denied the right to decide whether we wish to remain in it by having a referendum?

Were we born to be slaves whilst others were born to rule? God forbid it. My Christian faith teaches me that I am the head and not the tail.

It teaches me that it is a sore sight and a great evil under the sun to see the sons of slaves riding on horseback whilst the sons of the King walk around on bare feet.

It teaches me that we are the head and not the tail and that light is meant to overcome darkness and not that darkness overcomes the light.

The truth is that whichever way you look at it Nigeria is not free and Nigeria is not one nation.

We are in bondage and servitude to the sons and daughters of Futa Jalon and we are badly divided. That is the subject of this essay.

Permit me to share some bitter truths here.

I repeat, Nigeria is not a nation. As a matter of fact she was NEVER a nation. She is and has always been a monumental fraud and a manifestation of colonial Britain’s doublespeak and deceit.

In 1947 she was rightly described as a “mere geographical expression” by Chief Obafemi Awolowo but since then she has degenerated even further.

Today she is is no longer a “mere geographical expression” but instead a fully-fledged and dysfunctional vassal state and a colony of timid slaves that is owned lock, stock and barrel by the all-powerful, all-seeing and all-knowing Fulani hegemonists.

Yet in their pitiful delusion and blissful ignorance some still claim that we are a free modern nation-state where all are equal.

My questions for those that actually believe this nonsensical assertion and that espouse this erroneous notion are as follows:

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when Christian Religious Knowldge (CRK) is removed from the curriculum and Islamic Arabic Studies (IAS) is made compulsory?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when Christians are banned BY LAW from buying land to build churches in most parts of the core north?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when every single security and intelligence agency in the nation except for the Navy is headed by a northern Muslim?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when there are NO Christian commanders (i.e. those that have operational control over troop deployments) in charge of STRATEGIC commands in the Nigerian Army today?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when ALL the STRATEGIC commands in the Nigerian Army are in the hands of Muslims?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when ALL the units under the Education Ministry are headed by northern Muslims and the Minister of Education himself is a Muslim?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the words Christ, Church, Christianity or Christian are not mentioned ONCE in the constitution and when the word Sharia is mentioned 73 times, Grand Khadi 54 times, Islam 29 times and Muslims 10 times?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when, since Buhari came to power, any mention of Jesus or God is censored out of Nigerian films by the Nigerian Censors Board whilst the word Allah is mentioned freely?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when there is an obvious and relentless attempt to islamise the country?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when there was an attempt by President Buhari to quietly pass a law that will give large tracts of land to Fulani herdsmen in every state of the Federation so that they can infiltrate, settle down in, breed with and eventually overwhelm and take over all the communities in which they were given that land?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the Federal Government refuses to arrest the elderly Professor Ango Abdullahi and the rebellious, recalcitrant, blood-baying and bloodthirsty Arewa youths and lock them ALL up for their implicit threat to commit genocide against the Igbo if they don’t leave the north by 1st October?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the Arewa Youths can send an open letter to the Acting President describing the entire Igbo race as ingrates who have “not learnt their lessons from the past” and who “ought to be thrown out of the north” and “out of Nigeria?”

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the Northern Youth Leaders Forum (NYLF) can tell the Federal Government that “Nigeria will boil”, that there will be “a crisis that will spiral beyond control if the Arewa youths are arrested” and that “the Presidency will not be allowed to go to the south under any circumstances in 2019”?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when well-armed Fulani militants and herdsmen commit genocide against whole communities and yet not one of them has been arrested?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when cows (yes cows!) drive children out of their classrooms in Edo state and drive worshippers out of their churches in Benue state?

How can Nigeria be described as being free when Miyetti Allah appears to be above the law?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when we are about to enter a season of carnage, chaos and anomie and when the Federal Government has shown no desire or inclination to deliver our people from those who believe that they own Nigeria and who wish to drink our blood and eat our flesh?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when those in power today together with the entire Hausa-Fulani ruling class have consistently said no to restructuring?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the cabal that know that Buhari’s health will not allow him to come back to rule wish to use the slaughter of the Igbo as a reason and a scapegoat to cause CRISIS in the country and truncate our democracy rather than allow a Southern Christian President to continue in power?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the leaders of the ruling APC are considered as being above the law and continuously commit all manner of crimes and acts of corruption with impunity whilst dissenters, opposition figures and the perceived enemies of the government are subjected to horrendous persecution, media trials and the brazen violation of their human rights and civil liberties?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the welfare of cows and the interest of cattle-rearers are more important than that of hard-working and productive patriots and innocent young school children?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when, since Buhari came to power, it is very difficult for a northern Christian to get admission into Ahmadu Bello University, the leading institution of higher learning in northern Nigeria?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when there is a strange Arabic insignia and unintelligible Arabic words apparently depicting Othman Dan Fodio’s battle cry inscribed on the coat of arms of the Nigerian Army?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when English is replaced with Hausa in Nigerian army parades?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when President Muhammadu Buhari openly expresses his disdain for the Igbo and encourages the hate-speech and threats that they are being subjected to today?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when Acting President Yemi Osinbajo will allege that there is corruption in the Church but dare not allege that there is corruption in the mosques?

How can anyone describe Nigeria as being free when the Acting President condemns what he describes as “hate speech” yet refuses to arrest and detain those who not only kill Christians, southerners and Middle Belters but who also incite their murderous footsoldiers against them every day?

I could go on and on.

What those that continuously threaten others with violence and carnage fail to appreciate is as follows: for every Mujahadeen there is a crusader. For every tyrant there is a deliverer. For every oppressor there is a freedom fighter. For every globalist there is a nationalist.

For every integrationist there is a separatist. For every lily-livered and chicken-hearted coward there is a courageous and valiant hero and for every Goliath there is a David.

Yet despite our collective and pitiful servitude there is a silver lining on this very dark cloud.

The demand for restructuring or, failing that, self-determination and full-blown independence is now very strong amongst the progressive forces and the long-oppressed ethnic nationalities in the land.

This, coupled with the demand by the leaders of the three southern zones that the Arewa youths must withdraw their threat to the Igbo, is commendable and historic.

They have also issued a timely warning that an attack on the Igbo would be deemed as an attack on the entire south. This gives us hope.

This indicates to us that the tree of liberty will soon be watered by the blood of the patriots and tyrants as it once was in the history of each and every one of the great western democracies.

This proves that we are finally ready to pay the terrible price for our collective freedom and to make the necessary sacrifices.

Simply put, the yoke and affliction of slavery and bondage shall soon be broken and Nigeria shall soon be free.

The first Nigerian civil war was about keeping Nigeria one. The second will be about winning our freedom.

6 Sept 2017

Renowned Catholic philosopher: “Francis’ AL is a ticking theological atomic bomb capable of destroying all Catholic moral teaching.” His bishop: “I dismiss you from the university”!

Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
Archbishop Fernández and Seifert

Dr. Josef Seifert, a renowned Catholic philosopher, has been
removed from a Catholic university in Spain by a local archbishop after publishing a critique of “Pope” Francis’ scandalous “Exhortation” Amoris Laetitia. 

Seifert was removed last week from his post at the International Academy of Philosophy in Granada by Archbishop Javier Martínez Fernández.

In an article published online last month, Seifert called Francis’ scandalous Amoris Laetitia a ticking “theological atomic bomb” that has the capacity to destroy all Catholic moral teaching. If Francis believes that adultery—to quote the exhortation—“is what God himself is asking” of couples in “irregular” situations, he argues, then there is nothing stopping any other intrinsically evil acts from eventually being justified.

He writes, in his article: Does pure Logic threaten to destroy the entire moral Doctrine of the Catholic Church?:

“If this is truly what AL affirms, all alarm over AL’s direct affirmations regarding matters of changes of sacramental discipline refer only to the peak of an iceberg, to the weak beginning of an avalanche, or to the first few buildings destroyed by a moral theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the whole moral edifice of the Ten Commandments and of Catholic moral teaching.”  

Fernández, Seifert’s scandalous bishop, reacted by dismissing him from the university. Fernández related in an August 31 public statement that Seifert’s removal was spurred precisely by his recent article, which he said “damages the communion of the Church, confuses the faith of the faithful, and sows distrust in the successor of Peter, which, in the end, does not serve the truth of faith, but, rather, the interests of the world.”

He said while Seifert was removed from his teaching duties last year after his “first critical writing” on the “exhortation”, he is now being entirely dismissed from the university. 

Hear him:

“And right now, concurring with the precise and fuller reasons for it, his retirement from the above-mentioned International Academy of Philosophy is now being processed.”

Last October, the scandalous archbishop stated that his archdiocese would adopt the Buenos Aires interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, endorsed by anti-Pope Francis, that allows Holy Communion to be given to couples living in habitual adultery.

Seifert’s article:

Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church?

Josef Seifert
August 5, 2017

The question in the title of this paper is addressed to Pope Francis and to all Catholic cardinals, bishops, philosophers and theologians. It deals with a dubium about a purely logical consequence of an affirmation in Amoris Laetitia, and ends with a plea to Pope Francis to retract at least one affirmation of AL, if the title question of this little essay has to be answered in the affirmative, and if indeed from this one affirmation in AL alone pure logic, using evident premises, can deduce the destruction of the entire Catholic moral teaching. In a Socratic style, the paper leaves it up to Pope Francis and other readers to answer the title question and to act upon their own answer.

Amoris Laetitia has no doubt created much uncertainty and evoked conflicting interpretations throughout the Catholic World. I do not wish to present this entire controversy here nor to repeat – or develop further – the position I have defended on this matter in previous articles (See Josef Seifert, “Amoris Laetitia. Joy, Sadness and Hopes”) I might still do this in a reply to some critical comments I have received from my personal friend Buttiglione, with whom I agree on almost all other philosophical matters, and others. 

There is a single affirmation in AL, however, that has nothing to do with a recognition of the rights of subjective conscience, by reference to which Rocco Buttiglione seeks to demonstrate the full harmony between the moral magisterium of John Paul II and Pope Francis, against Robert Spaemann’s and other assertions of a clear break between them. Buttiglione argues that, regarding their contrary teaching on sacramental discipline, Pope John Paul II is correct if one considers only the objective content of human acts, while Pope Francis is right when one accords, after due discernment, to subjective factors and missing conditions of mortal sin (deficient knowledge and weakness of free will) their proper role and recognition.

The assertion of AL I wish to investigate here, however, does not invoke subjective conscience at all, but claims a totally objective divine will for us to commit, in certain situations, acts that are intrinsically wrong, and have always been considered such by the Church. Since God can certainly not have a lack of ethical knowledge, an “erring conscience,” or a weakness of free will, this text does not “defend the rights of human subjectivity,” as Buttiglione claims, but appears to affirm clearly that these intrinsically disordered and objectively gravely sinful acts, as Buttiglione admits, can be permitted, or can even objectively be commanded, by God. If this is truly what AL affirms, all alarm over AL’s direct affirmations, regarding matters of changes of sacramental discipline (admitting, after due discernment, adulterers, active homosexuals, and other couples in similar situations to the sacraments of confession and eucharist, and, logically, also of baptism, confirmation, and matrimony, without their willingness to change their lives and to live in total sexual abstinence, which Pope John Paul II demanded in Familiaris Consortio from couples in such “irregular situations”), refer only to the peak of an iceberg, to the weak beginning of an avalanche, or to the first few buildings destroyed by a moral theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the whole moral edifice of the 10 commandments and of Catholic Moral Teaching. 

In the present paper, however, I will not claim that this is the case. On the contrary, I will leave it entirely to the Pope or to any reader to answer the question whether or not there is at least one affirmation in Amoris Laetitia that has the logical consequence of destroying the entire Catholic moral teaching. And I must admit that what I read about a commission convened in order to “re-examine” Humanae Vitae, an Encyclical that put, like later Veritatis Splendor, a definitive end to decades of ethical and moral theological debates, has made this title question of my essay a matter of extreme concern to me.

Let us read the decisive text (AL 303), which is being applied by Pope Francis to the case of adulterous or otherwise “irregular couples” who decide not to follow the demand addressed in the Encyclical Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II to such “irregular couples”. Pope John Paul II tells these couples to either separate entirely or, if this is impossible, to abstain entirely from sexual relations. Pope Francis states, however:

Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God (Relatio Finalis 2015, 85) and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (AL 303).

From the previous as well as from the later context it is clear that this “will of God” here refers to continuing to live in what constitutes objectively a grave sin. Cf., for example, AL 298, Footnote 329:

“In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’.” 

In Gaudium et Spes, 51, from which the last quote is taken, the thought is taken as an invalid objection against the moral demand never to commit adultery or an act of contraception. In AL it is understood in the sense explained above, as a justification, even known to correspond to the objective will of God, to continue to commit objectively speaking grave sins.  

In other words, besides calling an objective state of grave sin, euphemistically, “not yet fully the objective ideal,” AL says that we can know with “a certain moral security” that God himself asks us to continue to commit intrinsically wrong acts, such as adultery or active homosexuality. I ask: Can pure Logic fail to ask us under this assumption:
If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted and even willed by God, must this not apply to all acts considered ‘intrinsically wrong’? If it is true that God can want an adulterous couple to live in adultery, should then not also the commandment ‘Do not commit adultery!’ be reformulated: ‘If in your situation adultery is not the lesser evil, do not commit it! If it is, continue living it!’?

Must then not also the other 9 commandments, Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and all past and present or future Church documents, dogmas, or councils that teach the existence of intrinsically wrong acts, fall? Is it then not any more intrinsically wrong to use contraceptives and is not Humanae Vitae in error that states unambigously that it can never happen that contraception in any situation is morally justified, let alone commanded by God?

Must then not, to begin with, the new commission on Humanae Vitae Pope Francis instituted, conclude that using contraception can in some situations be good or even obligatory and willed by God? Can then not also abortions, as Mons. Fisichella, then President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, claimed, be justified in some cases and ‘be what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal’?

Must then not from pure logic euthanasia, suicide, or assistance to it, lies, thefts, perjuries, negations or betrayals of Christ, like that of St. Peter, or murder, under some circumstances and after proper “discernment,” be good and praiseworthy because of the complexity of a concrete situation (or because of a lack of ethical knowledge or strength of will)? Can then not God also demand that a Sicilian, who feels obligated to extinguish the innocent family members of a family, whose head has murdered a member of his own family and whose brother would murder four families if he does not kill one, go ahead with his murder, because his act is, under his conditions “what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal”? Does not pure logic demand that we draw this consequence from this proposition of Pope Francis?

However, if the title question of this paper must be answered in the affirmative, as I personally believe to be the case, the purely logical consequence of that one assertion of Amoris Laetitia seems to destroy the entire moral teaching of the Church. Should it not, therefore, be withdrawn and condemned by Pope Francis himself, who no doubt abhors such a consequence, which, if the title question needs to be answered affirmatively, iron and cool logic cannot fail to draw from the cited assertion of Pope Francis?

Thus I wish to plead with our supreme spiritual Father on Earth, the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena called one of the Popes, under whose reign she lived, while she criticized him fiercely (if Pope Francis agrees with this logical conclusion, and answers the title question of this essay in the affirmative) to please retract the mentioned affirmation. If its logical consequences lead with iron stringency to nothing less than to a total destruction of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, should the “sweet Christ on Earth” not retract an affirmation of his own? If the mentioned thesis leads with cogent logical consequence to the rejection of there being any acts that must be considered intrinsically morally wrong, under any circumstances and in all situations, and if this assertion will tear down, after Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor, likewise Humanae Vitae and many other solemn Church teachings, should it not be revoked? Are there not evidently such acts that are always intrinsically wrong, as there are other acts, which are always intrinsically good, justified, or willed by God? (See John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor. See also Josef Seifert, “The Splendor of Truth and Intrinsically Immoral Acts: A Philosophical Defense of the Rejection of Proportionalism and Consequentialism in ‘Veritatis Splendor’.” In: Studia Philosophiae Christianae UKSW 51 (2015) 2, 27-67. “The Splendor of Truth and Intrinsically Immoral Acts II: A Philosophical Defense of the Rejection of Proportionalism and Consequentialism in ‘Veritatis Splendor’.” In: Studia Philosophiae Christianae UKSW 51 (2015) 3, 7-37.) And should not every Cardinal and Bishop, every priest, monk or consecrated Virgin, and every layperson in the Church, take a most vivid interest in this and subscribe this passionate plea of a a humble layperson, a simple Professor of Philosophy and, among other subjects, of logic?

Another Dubia Cardinal, Carlo Caffarra, Dies at 79!


“It should be noted that a lot of good people—defenders of the Faith—have been dying since Francis’ emergence. Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Our Lady’s Loyal Ambassador, died in 2015; the great Italian Cardinal, Giacomo Biffi, died in July 2015; Fr. Gabriel Amorth, the world’s most famous exorcist who told Fr. Gruner in March 2015 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.”, died in September, 2016; Mr. John Vennari, Fr. Gruner’s co-worker, died in April this year—just to name those I can easily remember.”

Now, once again, another Dubia Cardinal, Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, has passed on! Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register  reports:
           
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra Dies at 79 
Widely thought to be the Church’s leading expert on marriage and the family and one of the four ‘dubia’ cardinals, the Italian cardinal passed away this morning after a long illness.


Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, the archbishop emeritus of Bologna and one of the original four cardinals to sign the dubia sent to Pope Francis, has died suddenly at the age of 79.

The cardinal, who led the diocese of Bologna for nearly 12 years from late 2003 until October 2015, passed away this morning after a long illness, according to the Italian bishops' newspaper, Avvenire.  The sound of the bells in the Bologna archdiocese announced news of the cardinal's death. 

Arguably the Church’s leading expert on marriage and the family for decades, Pope John Paul II gave Cardinal Caffarra the mandate to found the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in 1981. 

Benedict XVI elevated him to cardinal in 2006, and together with Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke and Joachim Meisner (who died in July), he signed the dubia— five straight-forward questions put to Pope Francis last September aimed at clarifying parts of his apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

Both he and Cardinal Meisner died without receiving an acknowledgement or any form of reply to the dubia. His letter to Francis on behalf of the four cardinals requesting an audience also received no reply. 

Born in Samboseto di Busseto, in the province of Parma but in the diocese of Fidenza, Cardinal Caffarra was ordained priest in 1961, specialized in canon law and moral theology before focusing on exploring themes of marriage, family and human procreation in the 1970s.

He stressed he was driven to devote his time to this area due to requests made "by many married and engaged couples who wanted to be introduced to the great Christian view of marriage” in the years of discussion that followed the publication of Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae. 

He held various august positions associated with marriage and family, teaching medical ethics, especially its theological and anthropological aspects, and serving as a member of the International Theological Commission, a position he held for two successive five-year periods. 

Author of books on fundamental moral theology and numerous articles, later translated into major languages, he wrote a carefully annotated edition of all John Paul II’s catecheses on human love.

In 1980, John Paul II nominated him as an expert at the Synod of Bishops on marriage and family, which led to John Paul’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio. He served as dean of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute from 1981 until 1995, and was a consultant for five years to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith led by the then-Prefect (and future Pope) Joseph Ratzinger. 

At the same time he taught courses and lectures at various foreign universities: from Chile to Sydney, from Navarra to Madrid, and oversaw the expansion of the John Paul II Institute internationally.

He succeeded Cardinal Giacomo Biffi as Archbishop of Bologna, and retired at the age of 77. He continued to be a member of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and was made an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy for Life in June.

Pope Francis personally chose him to take part in the two synods on the family, in 2014 and 2015.

But he died disturbed by the aftermath of Amoris Laetitia and the disparate interpretations of the document by bishops around the world. “Only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty and insecurity in the Church,” he said in a recent interview. He was particularly vexed by the confusion felt among priests which he said was immense.

In one of his last talks on the state of marriage and family in the West today, Cardinal Caffarra said Satan is hurling at God “the ultimate and terrible challenge,” to show he is capable of constructing an “anti-creation” that mankind will be deceived into thinking is better than what God has created.

He warned that societies elevating abortion to a “subjective right” and equating a homosexual relationship to marriage represented the destruction of “two pillars of creation.”

In supplementary remarks, he recalled a letter he received from Sister Lucia when he was facing trials in establishing the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family.

He said he would “never forget” the last words of her letter, “words that are engraved in my heart,” in which Sister Lucia wrote “there will come a time when the decisive confrontation between the Kingdom of God and Satan will take place over marriage and the family.”

He said she underscored that those who are going to work for marriage and the family “will undergo trials and tribulations” but added: “Do not fear, Our Lady has already crushed his head.”

Cardinal Caffarra told the conference that his talk was “based on these words of Sister Lucia, and therefore on the conviction that what Sister Lucia said in those days are being fulfilled in these days of ours.”

***

The cardinal gave one of his last interviews in May this year, in which he told the Register why education is the key to protecting life, marriage and the family. See the interview here. 

In January, he gave an interview to Italy's Il Foglio newspaper in which he explained why he and the other three 'dubia' cardinals consider clarification of Amoris Laetitia to be so vital. See the full interview on Catholic World Report here, and my summary of the interview here. 

Cardinal Caffarra was a firm opponent of same-sex 'marriage'. In 2010, he issued this doctrinal note warning legalization of it would be "devastating" for society, and that Catholic politicians who support such legislation can no longer call themselves Catholic.