In light of Fr. Lombardi’s recent clarification that Pope Francis was indeed speaking about “the possibility of taking recourse to contraception or condoms” with respect to the Zika virus, many are now wondering how the papal excuse-makers will spin this latest of his attacks against the Catholic faith.
What have we seen thus far?
One will have noticed that among the first lines of defense that has been offered includes a considerable effort to convince the faithful that the Church has always approved of contraception use as a means of “self-defense,” such as when there is reasonable fear of an impending rape at some point in the future.
This notion was floated, as you know, specifically with regard to Paul VI and his alleged handling of a case involving certain African nuns in the 1960’s.
Odd, is it not, that the papal defenders would find it necessary to give so much attention to this part of the pope’s comments, when indeed it has little bearing on the question he was answering about the Zika virus?
No, it’s not odd at all really, but we’ll return to that momentarily.
Catholic News Agency went so far as to quote a Catholic University professor as saying that contraception as self-defense is “not really an exception if you understand the rule.”
Strange – most well-formed Catholics that I know have never heard of this supposed “rule” until now.
In any case, even if such a “rule” has always existed, in spite of the fact that it utterly defies reason to imagine such a thing, it would have no bearing whatsoever on spouses seeking to avoid potential birth anomalies due to the Zika virus. Even CNA’s “expert” stated as much.
Those who are intent on glossing over this latest scandal are not discouraged from at least trying to make a connection, however.
National Catholic Register is reporting a new spin courtesy of Opus Dei priest Fr. Robert Gahl, Associate Professor of moral philosophy at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross:
In response to Father Lombardi’s words, Father Gahl said that if the Vatican spokesman’s words are to be considered as coming from the Pope, then Francis is considering “extreme scenarios” in which, for instance, a woman is threatened by a violent, Zika-infected husband to have sexual intercourse with her.
Let’s think about this for a moment, shall we…
Fr. Lombardi, who no doubt consulted with the pope directly before offering his clarifications to the media, made no such distinction. Clearly, had such highly limited circumstances actually been on the pope’s mind as he spoke, his spokesman would have informed us.
Fr. Lombardi did, however, make specific mention of the fact that Francis was referring not only to “oral contraception,” but also to “condoms.”
Does this mean that Fr. Gahl really expects us to imagine that a “violent, Zika-infected husband” turned rapist is going strap on a prophylactic prior to sexually assaulting his wife?
These people are shameless and not to be taken seriously.
If that’s not preposterous enough, the utterly laughable explanation given by Fr. Gahl – who makes no claim of direct contact with the pope in the matter – could easily be construed to mean that Francis was encouraging women to endure rape rather than flee from a “violent, Zika-infected husband.”
The feminists could have a field day with this one! The fact of the matter is, however, it’s not true. Francis was referring to no such thing and Fr. Gahl damned well knows it.
At this, let us turn our attention to the million dollar question that no one seems to be asking:
Why is it so very important for the enemies of Our Lord to make us believe, ludicrous though the notion truly is, that an ironclad “rule” has always existed in the Church with respect to contraception and rape, when clearly this isn’t related in the least to the Zika question?
Answer: Because Francis made a big mistake, and not just in contradicting Catholic doctrine – this he has done many times in the past. What he did the other day is something we’ve never seen before:
He betrayed the conciliar cause in a way that is tantamount to a military leader revealing classified information to the enemy.
While flying the friendly skies, Francis cracked the door just enough to give the otherwise duped an unprecedented glimpse into a Vatican gone astray; running the risk of exposing the entire post-conciliar charade for what it truly is, thereby putting his accomplices among the Captains of newchurch in a very difficult position.
How so?
You see, while so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) have long since recognized that the rush to canonize all of the post-conciliar popes is truly nothing more than a calculated attempt to give the appearance of Catholicity to the Second Vatican Council and its various departures from tradition, as if it bears little responsibility for the deterioration of the Church’s visible structures that followed, the neo-conservative “Santo Subito” crowd (which includes any number of genuinely naïve and ill-formed bishops and priests) have simply gone along with the program.
As it concerns the cause of Paul VI, however, many of them have admitted to feeling a bit uneasy, on which note – and this is very important:
Rather than confront the bitter reality of the pending canonization of a uniquely terrible pope, most have chosen to take refuge in the idea that Montini “earned” his place among the canonized by virtue of his “heroic” defense of the truth concerning contraception.
Until now, this approach has sufficed to placate such persons in their avoidance of the obvious, but thanks to Francis’ big mistake, those days may very well be numbered.
This is a far bigger problem for the revolutionaries in Rome than one might immediately realize.
I have little doubt (and neither should you) that the elevation of Paul VI to the ranks of the canonized has been a strategic goal of revolutionaries from the very moment he saddled the Church with the Novus Ordo Missae.
Insofar as the post-conciliar canonization sweepstakes are concerned, this has always been the Grand Prize; the one truly ordered toward placing the new Mass above all scrutiny even as it masterfully leads souls astray without their even knowing it.
The carefully laid plan was going oh so well until Francis blurted out a closely guarded secret the other day. (I will explain what that secret is in just a moment, as if it’s not already obvious).
With patience and forethought the Masonic masterminds of the takeover of Rome strategized to beatify John XXIII and Pius IX together on the same day, in the hope that doing so would provide the illusion of “continuity” between the pope of the Council and the pope of the Syllabus, at least in the minds of the under-nourished.
Mission accomplished!
It worked so well in fact that “continuity” would later become the centerpiece of an entire pontificate, and even go on to serve as the mantra of the misled even after his departure.
When the time arrived to raise John Paul II to the altars, he was so popular that no such shenanigans as paying tribute to the dinosaurs of the pre-conciliar age would be necessary.
From there, his canonization raised the eyebrows of but a relative few; namely, Neo-Pelagians like us.
One can easily imagine that Benedict XVI, the conflicted liturgist, may very well have harbored some apprehension with respect to taking the next step; namely, that of beatifying Montini – the man who oversaw the destruction of the Roman rite. That, however, is just speculation.
What we do know is that the beatification of Paul VI was accomplished at the hands of Pope Francis with pushback largely confined to the “traditionalist” fringe.
On this note, one does well to recall how the beatification was spun in the months leading up to the event:
The lid that effectively covered the ecclesial and liturgical disasters that came to define the Montini pontificate was constructed of just one thing – his stance on birth control, and so it was that the skids were greased and the stage was set for his canonization at long last.
That is, until the other day.
You see, Francis let a roaring lion out of the bag when he said, “Paul VI – the great! – in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of violence.” [A more accurate rendering of the Italian text.]
Rest assured, my friends, this was not just some bumbling old man letting on that he believes a silly rumor.
No, this was the man who occupies the highest office in Rome making it known that he and those who likewise hold positions of authority in the Vatican – including in the Congregation for the Causes of Saints – are convinced beyond any doubt that Paul VI really did approve of oral contraception for nuns who felt threatened with rape.
It is every bit as likely that they have rock solid, irrefutable proof that this is the case.
The reason we haven’t heard a peep about this debacle for several decades is because it was, until the other day, a closely guarded secret.
And why so guarded?
Because its revelation would threaten to throw a gigantic monkey wrench into the cause of Paul VI, at the very least from a public relations standpoint, and more importantly, it might threaten to disrupt the plan of enshrining among the Communion of Saints the bastard rite that he foist upon the children of the Church.
Oh, well… you know what they say about the best laid plans.
Francis – the pope who simply cannot resist the allure of a live microphone – spilled the beans, and in so doing he gave millions of otherwise mind-numb Catholics a very good reason to rethink the true motives behind the “canonizations” of John Paul II, John XXIII, and any number of lower profile individuals.
It also gives Catholics the world over every reason to ask:
What else are they hiding and why? Are they also sitting on proof of Montini’s alleged homosexuality? If they’ve been hiding this for so long, why should I trust that they’re not still hiding parts of the Third Secret of Fatima? Could it be that glorifying at all costs the Council, the new Mass, and the new ecumenical church, etc. really does lie at the heart of these matters and others?
To say that Francis opened a can of worms … no, make that a pit full of serpents, is an understatement.
At present, the best they can do is pretend that it has always been the case that the Church considers contraception morally permissible in anticipation of a violent act that has yet to occur and may never occur.
The very idea is entirely ludicrous to be sure, but that’s all they got, folks.
Keep a close eye on just how vigorously this ridiculous proposition is put forth over the next few days and weeks – on the one hand by ignorant pawns, on the other, by those directly involved in the deception.
In either case, now you know why.
In regards to the upcoming “canonization” of Montini, Rabbi Bergoglio will have his way without regard to any fact of Montini’s life that, in an earlier age, would derail his being “raised to the altars.”
Even if Bergoglio had solid proof that Montini was a sodomite, was a crypto-Jew, was a 33rd degree Mason, or pulled the trigger in Dealey Plaza, he would still canonize him.
Canonization is a weapon to Bergoglio. It is just another device to further weaken what ever is left of the Faith in Rome. His mission is to destroy the Faith. Whether it’s washing Muslim’s feet, refusing to recognize Christ in the Eucharist, rejecting the Cross, or “canonizing” each and every heretical pope of the conciliar church, destruction is his goal.
We must turn our backs on him as he has turned his back on Christ’s Church. We must seek valid Sacraments wherever they may be found. We must save our souls and let the Almighty deal with Bergoglio.
I read nuns were working as prostitutes to save “sex slaves”, but article is silent on the contraception/abortion question (maybe a plant will ask PF on the next papal plane ride):
“These sisters do not trust anyone. They do not trust governments, they do not trust corporations, and they don’t trust the local police. In some cases they cannot trust male clergy,” he said, adding that the low-key group preferred to focus on their rescue work rather than promotion. “They work in brothels. No one knows they are there…”
http://www.reuters.com/article/women-conference-trafficking-idUSL1N13D0HD20151118
Louie, you spin a good tale with good backup as usual. Alas, I think you give the great blob of neoCatholics too much credit. Do you think most of them even remember the great foot-washing scandal of just two weeks ago? Do you think most of them remember what went on at the SinNod a few months ago? Do you think many of them remember the marriage tribunal scandal of not so long ago?
These horrors are coming thick and fast, but they are not sinking down into the pews very deeply. I use my block as a microcosm of the real world. We’ve got us, Traditional Catholics. Then we’ve got a lapsed Catholic family who have lapsed right into the ‘world.’ Then there are the lapsed protestants, the eco-buddhist socialists, and the very worldly trendy gang on the corner. On the other corner is a live-in situation with grown children, with their live-ins too. Opposite them an older lady, with her new live-in. She’s a former Catholic. They are all nice enough to wave at us when we get home from Mass on Sunday morning, before they start up the lawn mower again.
Half of these people read the local rag and listen to the CBC news. The other half read a large city newspaper which is left of the left of the local rag (which is left) and the CBC which is left, left. If they get to know what’s happening with the Catholic Church I’d bet it’s the very superficial stuff spun by most of the media, and it certainly does not make a dent in their worldly minds.
This latest scandal about contraception will come as a surprise, but only because most people (Catholics too) assume the Church has caved into this long ago. Otherwise how could we have the statistics as to how many Catholics contracept – what is it, like 85%?
While I don’t agree with your conclusion I really appreciate all that I learn from your well-thought-out posts.
Paul VI himself has already let a cat out of the bag when he said:
“… the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”
June 29, 1972 homily.
TWN, the article you link says these sisters were working in brothels, but it does not say they worked as prostitutes. If that were the case we’d be talking about something completely, mortally sinful. Even ‘modern’ nuns would balk at that.
All of this goes back to faulty philosophy. We cannot use an evil means to gain a good – that’s all there is.
P.S. Ever since, DH priests of the N.O. (that includes those at St. Alphonsus; and why not the FSSP too?) not only routinely “forgive” habitual use of artificial contraception, vasectomies & hysterectomies, they also discourage any more than 3 children as a waste of time, talent and treasure. They encourage wives to get a job outside the home so that church (priest’s) income will increase and parents have more money to send kids to Catholic school.
As St. Alphonsus of Baltimore puts it:
“On these super cold nights, please don’t forget to bring in your fur-babies!”
http://stalphonsusbalt.org/weekly-bulletin/
You should search it on the web. But my point (not made) is that what if ‘accidentally’ some man mistakes them for a prostitute and “rapes” them? Shouldn’t they be packin’ protection. Surely they are in as much danger as the Congo nuns of getting ‘raped’.
Barbara, Here’s the article from fox news w/graphics: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/12/01/nuns-pose-as-prostitutes-to-rescue-victims-human-sex-trafficking.html
What if they ‘accidentally’ get raped because some man thinks they are a prostitute and not a nun? Shouldn’t they be on contraception just in case? Surely they are in as much danger as the Congo nuns (who were dressing like nuns!).
I wish you were wrong, but you are 100% correct, John Madison.
“They” would not consider beatifying Paul VI as long as Fr. Luigi Villa lived, but the moment he died on November 18, 2012 (just a bit over 3 years ago), they went into full force with the process and will not stop till it is accomplished.
Fr. Villa wrote this 318 page book on Paul VI:
http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Paul_VI.._beatified_english.pdf
…. and if that did not stop them, nothing will.
—
I do think Louie’s conclusion is correct, however, they did panic …. momentarily. But the fans will forget all this by next week and all will proceed as planned.
I was mistaken —–
I should have said, “Nothing will stop them —–
until Our Lady intervenes in Her Most Marvelous Triumph!”
The ‘recourse’ of the Novus Ordo heresiarchs is always antichrist.
–
Here’s a comment posted on Vox Cantoris by Dr Peter Lamb (deemed too truthful for this site – I guess – only Louie and God knows why he’s banned)
–
“OK, hands up all those who know that Bergoglio is a manifest, formal, pertinacious heretic! Good! Now those who haven’t put their hands up, have a Pope, and I trust will faithfully submit to all his magisterial teaching, which includes every teaching of Vatican II, which was a dogmatic council, promulgated with all the authority of the ordinary magisterium of Pope Paul VI, of blessed memory – he said so himself. As a good Catholic you will submit to every jot and tittle of his teaching. You will never ever sift the teachings of the Vicar of Christ, Bergoglio and place your own judgement of what is acceptable, or not, or what is Catholic, or not, as the SSPX do, above the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff. If you have any doubt about this, go and read Pastor Aeternus. There is no justification for such ridiculous, absurd notions as practiced by the SSPX anywhere in Catholic doctrine – nothing, nada, zilch! They make their own rules and we will see in due course, what Our Lord says to them about this very non-Catholic habit of theirs.
–
OK, now you lot who believe that a heretic cannot be elected Pope, or that if a Pope becomes a heretic, he automatically, ipso facto loses his office and jurisdiction, where did you get that crazy idea? I suppose you sucked it out of your thumbs? You say Saints, Popes, theologians, canon lawyers and Doctors of the Church have said so? Really? OK, for brevity then, just give me a few Saints who back you up. If necessary, I’ll ask you for lengthy lists of quotes from the others, but for now just give me a few Saints – just a few mind!
–
St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
–
St. Robert Bellarmine: – “A Pope who is a manifest heretic
automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases
automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore,he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
–
St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should
fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If,
however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.”
–
St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without
any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
–
Thank you Dr Lamb. Now everyone who regocnises Bergog as ‘pope’, it is time to get on board with his ‘authoratative recourse’ to contraceptives, condoms, universalism, and the ‘heavenly’ example of Wojtyla – amongst a plethora of antichrist dung. Get on board – you have made your recognition of ‘Christ’ in ‘authority’ plain. So stop complaining.
–
Eternal Father we offer you the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in reparation for our sins, and for the wants of Holy Mother Church…..no Novus Ordite can offer this prayer, for they are out of communion with the Precious Blood.
Louie, you have the gifts not only of a talented writer but also the brains of a Sherlock Holmes. Thanks for using your gifts for the greater glory of God. I pray you stay the course.
Hey Salvemur, again, I appreciate your justified anger, but you wave your little angry stick at a tank. Don’t worry saints could look upon this madman as the pope and even attend daily the new Mass. Our Lady of Good Success promised us that a saint would ALWAYS live among the sisiters
(Continued) of the conceptionist convent in Quito, Ecuador where they only have access to the new Mass. She promised that this convent would exist until the end of the world. Just think, a saint is living there’s today. She is humble, obedient, under this pope, and just attended the new Mass. See with God, all things are possible!
If
*If I didn’t believe with all my heart and soul that the Catholic Church was true, I would think that it is just a scam to govern the masses. That is how bad this V-2 sect is.
Just hanging off the cliff by a thread ,waiting to hear from one of the princes of the church concerning this latest aberration….and believe me I’ll be happy to apologize for my sarcasm should one stand and confront Rome . Servant Of Our Lady I have frequented Chiesa Viva and had a good sobering experience reading Monsignoir Luigi Villas breakdown on the writings and actions of these VII papacies……keep the course Louie the Truth has to be shouted from the rooftops.
But again you have put up straw men and then knocked them down. Never in history has it been taught that we must obey every jot and title of what every pope has said from St. Peter on down.
We are never to obey an unjust law – never. There is a difference, and it’s not all that subtle. If the pope tells priests to tell their flock it’s ok to contracept the priest is bound by justice to disobey. This justice is justice towards GOD and this comes before any obedience due to the pope. The only difficulty I see in our day is that priests are not willing to take the consequences of their just actions.
But when the pope governs the Church we are to obey. The straw man you erect is that we are to obey all laws even unjust ones. Show me where it says that anywhere, anytime, in any document, from any pulpit and from any pope.
I might add that the main reason we don’t have legitimately ‘disobedient’ priests is because they are unwilling to suffer the consequences of their actions – from Rome, or from their flock, and certainly not from ‘the world.’
Cortez, I think you will agree that the nuns of Quito deserve better. Whenever a Tradition Catholic priest visits there and offers the TLM, I am sure they receive it like refreshing water in a dry desert. Perhaps, they consider the N.O. Mass as a penance. I pray for the day there is ONLY one Mass of the Holy Catholic Church–the Mass of All Time!
Good points, Barbara. The Catholic Church (think Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, etc) and most Catholics don’t give too hoots about abortion. A stupid statement about contraception isn’t going to shake their timbers no matter where it came from.
It is taught that we must obey and accept the teachings of those we recognise as shepherds of Christ. The last true Pope, Pope Pius XII wrote on this reiterating the voice and mind of Christ laid open to all generations. To resist the doctrine, discipline and practice of worship of one accepted as an authority in Christ is utterly un-Catholic.
–
Have you ignored every teaching posted here that belongs to the true Church?
–
http://dailycatholic.org/
–
St John Crysostom: “God drowned the world, caused Sodom to be burned by fire, and the sea to swallow up the army of the Egyptians for it is He who has stricken the guilty with tall the blows which have fallen upon them, and will do still more. But, you say, God is merciful. Then are all these things merely words? Does the rich man who despised Lazarus receive no punishment? Are the foolish virgins in no way rejected by the Bridegroom? Will not he who was at the wedding feast with soiled garments in no wise perish, bound hand and foot? Will not he who exacted the last farthing from his companion be delivered to the tormentors? Do you think that God will confine Himself to threats? To me it seems easy to prove the contrary and we may judge beforehand what God will do in the future, from what He has said and done in the past. Let us then have constantly in mind the dread tribunal, chains fastened for all eternity, outer darkness, gnashing of teeth and the gnawing and poisonous worm.”
–
VII assures you Novus Ordites that all of the above are ‘merely words’…a bluff to be embraced to whatever degree suits you. ‘Degrees’ of conformity to Catholic doctrine, discipline and worship is … protestant.
You continue to detract from the reputation of priests by making unsubstantiated claims.
I’m assuming you get your news about what happens in the Confessional from someone who has had these experiences? Even if that was the case you then turn around and give a blanket condemnation of all NO priests, and you slyly state “why not the FSSP too”.
Here’s Father Gerard Saguto’s phone number – (507) 842-4000. He’s District Superior for North America. I think he’d be very interested to hear from your personal experience that any of his priests were routinely forgiving habitual use of artificial contraception and the other mortal sins you list.
Just what did Our Lord mean when he commanded us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves? Do you love these priests as you love yourself? Would you like someone to write on the internet that you (and maybe your whole family!) were advising those you know to commit mortal sin?
I challenge you that you are a coward. Fine for you to write here, anonymously, that a certain priest, or a group of priests are sinning mortally, but it’s another thing to go to their superiors and take the consequences of your whistle-blowing. If all you have to say is detraction, SHUT UP.
You keep making the same kinds of point by using different quotes – quotes that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Please answer this point:
“But when the pope governs the Church we are to obey. The straw man you erect is that we are to obey all laws even unjust ones. Show me where it says that anywhere, anytime, in any document, from any pulpit and from any pope.”
“The Bastard Rite”. How perfectly that says all that we need to know about the Novus Ordo ! It is poisonous , faith-destroying and above all, odious to Almighty God. I pray for all the fools that still attend it, remembering that I spent decades going to this parody of the mass before the grace of God finally got thru.
My2cents, yes I agree with you.Our Lady of Good Success came in the 1600s especially for these extremely bad times during which Our Church is being persecuted. Still the convent remains under this pope and the VII new mass. Obviously we are ALL being persecuted. I wonder what stirs in the heart and mind of the saint who resides there today. Sorry. None of us can escape this persecution because we are all here today living through it. So my point was directed at Salvemur – we cannot run away from this persecution. Also, VCR, be careful not to call a saint living in that convent in Quito, Ecuador a fool.
Likewise i dont know where or who this ‘straw man’ is you write about. The point is surely people do want to know what the Church teaches? That the Papal Magisterium is not something to sift and decide upon for oneself. There have been bad Popes but not one of them publicly perverted the doctrine and dogma of the Church. There really is no such thing as a heretic with Papal authority. And yet folks decide to ‘recognise’ the ‘authority’ of a Bergoglio, and decide for themselves to resist it. This is in no way Catholic.
–
The St John quote is what it is. Who really believes God keeps His word? Bergoglio publicly teaches against everything St John assures us God isn’t kidding about.
–
The Church isn’t defective and Popes cannot have an un-Catholic magisterium.
–
At any rate, if I’m no good at explaining the truth’s of the Church regarding authority, and how we are protected from the wolves, it is plainly laid out here:
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/true-or-false-popes.htm
This is what the duped Catholic world gets for defending NFP when NFP teaches that one can plan to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. Artificial contraception and this most certainly includes the bastard NFP teachings on contraception has been taught and supported by the counterfeit faithful for close to eighty years. Wake up and smell the coffee. This all began with Pius XII opening the door to accepting in act, word, and deed the separation of the conjugal act from procreation when he said to the Italian midwives that one can plan to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children for grave reasons such as genetics, social , financial and psychological. Who cares whether one now hears the anti “go green” word artificial. If you don’t see the blantant artificiality of NFP than you are definitely blind and deaf to truth and reality.
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.–On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542): “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN…WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, A.D. 419: “It is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating [children]: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault [that is, venial sin as long as one is not against procreation].” (Book I, Chapter 17.–What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)
St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? … He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God and of his wife].” (Book 1, Section 20; 40)
St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, A.D. 396: “Since, therefore, the institution of marriage exists for the sake of generation, for this reason did our forebears enter into the union of wedlock and lawfully take to themselves their wives, only because of the duty to beget children.” (Book II, Chapter 12)
Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.): “But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.” (Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)
Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.” (A Plea For the Christians, Chapter XXXIII.–Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage)
St. Finnian of Clonard (470-549), The Penitential of Finnian #46: “We advise and exhort that there be continence in marriage, since marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin, and [marriage] is permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for the sake of children, as it is written, ‘And the two shall be in one flesh,’ that is, in unity of the flesh for the generation of children, not for the lustful concupiscence of the flesh.”
St. Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373), On the Moral Life: “The law of nature recognizes the act of procreation: have relations with your wife only for the sake of procreation, and keep yourself from relations of pleasure.”
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): “For it [the Holy Scripture] regards it not right that this [sexual intercourse] should take place either in wantonness or for hire like harlots, but only for the birth of children.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XVIII.–The Mosaic Law the Fountain of All Ethics, and the Source from Which the Greeks Drew Theirs)
St. Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30, A.D. 400: “For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.”
Lactancia, The Divine Institutes 5:8, A.D. 307: “There would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, if it were known to all, that whatever is sought beyond the desire of procreation is condemned by God.”
Lactancia, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Moreover, the passion of lust is implanted and innate in us for the procreation of children; but they who do not fix its limits in the mind use it for pleasure only. Thence arise unlawful loves, thence adulteries and debaucheries, thence all kinds of corruption. These passions, therefore, must be kept within their boundaries and directed into their right course [for the procreation of children], in which, even though they should be vehement, they cannot incur blame.” (Chapter LXI.–Of the Passions)
Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Let lust not go beyond the marriage-bed, but be subservient to the procreation of children. For a too great eagerness for pleasure both produces danger and generates disgrace, and that which is especially to be avoided, leads to eternal death. Nothing is so hateful to God as an unchaste mind and an impure soul.” (Chapter LXII.–Of Restraining the Pleasures of the Senses)
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to “be fruitful and multiply.” [Gen. 1:28] He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: “Put away your fornications.” [Eze. 43:9] Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.” (The Paedagogusor The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.–On the Procreation and Education of Children)
St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage, Section 11, A.D. 401: “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.” (St. Gregory the Great, “Pastoral Care,” Part 3, Chapter 27, in “Ancient Christian Writers,” No. 11, pp. 188-189)
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 597 A.D.): “Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties.” (Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli [English], Book XI, Letter 64)
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her. And the same is true with regard to other things and one’s conceptual images of them.” (Second Century on Love, 17; Philokalia 2:67-68)
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “There are also three things that impel us towards evil: passions, demons, and sinfulness of intention. Passions impel us when, for example, we desire something beyond what is reasonable, such as food which is unnecessary or untimely, or a woman who is not our wife or for a purpose other than procreation.” (Second Century on Love, 33; Philokalia 2:71)
St. John Damascene (c. 675-749): “The procreation of children is indeed good, enjoined by the law; and marriage is good on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to be inflamed into unlawful acts. Marriage is good for those who have no continence; but virginity, which increases the fruitfulness of the soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer, is better. “Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” [Hebrews 13:4].” (St. John of Damascus, also known as St. John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chap. 24)
Gratian, Medieval Marriage Law (c. 1140): “Also, Jerome, [on Ephesians 5:25]: C. 14. The procreation of children in marriage is praiseworthy, but a prostitute’s sensuality is damnable in a wife. So, as we have said, the act is conceded in marriage for the sake of children. But the sensuality found in a prostitute’s embraces is damnable in a wife.”
Venerable Luis de Granada (1505-1588): “Those that be married must examine themselves in particular, if in their mind thinking of other persons, or with intention not to beget children, but only for carnal delight, or with extraordinary touchings and means, they have sinned against the end, and honesty of marriage.” (A Spiritual Doctrine, containing a rule to live well, with divers prayers and meditations, p. 362)
I was thinking the same thing today, Theresa —– when will some Prince of the Church speak up?! It is past the point of insanity.
Chiesa Viva is sobering, as you say.
Yes, Cortez.
Hate heresy, not its victims.
Hate the heresy that the NO is, but not its victims. Some are trapped in the NO with no alternative, like the saint among the nuns of Quito, Ecuador. I know of others who are living holy lives in similar circumstances with their only option being the NO Mass.
Didn’t Paul VI introduce some evil into his “wonderful” encyclical, Humane Vitae, Anastasia?
Was there not some subtly regarding “planned pregnancies” introduced into that famous encyclical? ————— A drop of poison mixed into the supposed “staunch defense of traditional teachings on marriage”?
His encyclical is not all that it is thought to be. Is that correct?
That is correct.
The Holy Bible, Tobias 6:22; 8:9 “And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said:] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.”
Tobias 6:16-17 “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.” (Tobias 6:16-17)
We are not to obey unjust laws, true. But the magisterium cannot teach universal error (unjust laws) either. This premise is a Catholic IMPOSSIBILTY. This is what is glossed over so often. We are not talking about some rogue cleric teaching heresy, we are talking about the entire Church universally promoting heresy. We not only cant follow this heresy, but those promoting it cannot be Catholic. When what masquerades as the Catholic Church, the vatican 2 church, promotes UNIVERSAL error then the vatican 2 church is obviously not Catholic. This false idea that the the true Church can possibly teach universal error as long as the good old “infallible” stamp hasnt been applied is, again, not a Catholic concept.
Do you remember what paragraph it was in?
John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” (TOB) further corrupted the beauty of the truths what you have written above. TOB is “ecclesiastical pornography.”
Randy Engel exposes the modernism of JPII’s TOB.
http://newengelpublishing.com/products/Theology-of-the-Body.html
Anastasia, here is a very good paper written on the subject of NFP by Father Brian Harrison.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html
He shows using Church teaching that while using NFP as Catholic contraception is always wrong there are two instances where the Church has said it may be used: 1) grave health of the wife, and 2) dire poverty – destitution.
These two would be the ‘grave’ reasons talked about. It’s a good article and worth reading even if you disagree with Father Harrison’s point – he does use Church teaching which is always worth a look. The way NFP has become mainstream is a real shame of the Church. Grave reasons used to have meaning – no more.
I beleive it is chapter 16. I will have to verify that.
Barbara you disappoint me. I thought I was making some leeway with you on this. With all the quotes I have given to you from Scripture, the magisterium, and Church Fathers prior to Pius XII letter and Paul VI’s Humane Vitae and even from something John Paul II said in Love and Responsibility you still think one can for grave reasons separate procreation from conjugal intercourse in act word or deed by exclusively having recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. Father Harrison’s, and I hesitate to call him that, article supports this heresy. I have read this article by him years ago and he goes against the Church teaching on the hierarchy and purposes of marriage by espousing the separation of sex from procreation by exclusively planned recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. Now if his article said that one can abstain completly from sex in order to avoid having children for grave reasons than I would say he was correct. But he doesn’t say this. You know that and I know that. Where is the logic in refering this article to me. I really don’t get it.
Thank you Servant of our Lady.
You have been a stalwart on this matter since I first met you via this blog….and you have never wavered on the matter as it pertains to true Catholicism. I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your efforts.
Chapter 16 is correct.
Anastasia, thank you for fulfilling your call to duty in this area of teaching of the evils of NFP.Anyone with eyes that not ONLY can see but even just to read, after everything you’ve handed us, should find this to be a NO BRAINER! This is just another rotten fruit from the wicked tree. Think of all the great saints who were born into very large and extremely poor conditions- many times within these families babies died because of poor conditions or health reasons. And what did the parents do? Give up? NFP? NO – simply their duty. Thankfully, through their sacrifices the Church has been given MANY great saints. Imagine how many people Our Lord would have given us if it weren’t for this NASTY FALSE PREVENTIVE! This too is a punishment. My family, itself has fallen into error to this evil serpent and between numbers 5 and 6 there is a gap of just over four years. There in this missing space there is a DOG!!! Lord have mercy on me, a sinner. By the way what IS extreme poverty today? I guess it’s whatever WE as individuals choose it is. Whatever we think is “grave reason”. Just like so many other things today-vague mushy dung.
Thank you Rich.
Very well said Cortez. Thank you for supporting this essential and crucial mission and calling we all should have – Honoring and glorifying God by remaining faithful to upholding God’s order and laws on purity and the sacrament of marriage.
Comments on this will greatly be appreciated !!! I am really confused about all of this ????https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp9vQJhJE8o
I think it’s time to stand back and look at the big picture. (Even we could be SO blind to what is in front of us) How could we forget- the Church is run by evil free masons who change rules and introduce new ideas in order to DESTROY the Catholic Church and drag as many souls to hell as possible and to laugh, mock, and spilt in Our Lord’s face.EVERYTHING they have done since V2 we could see is evil . Sorry if you’re still blind to it, but this includes NFP. HELLO MCFLY! THIS NFP was planned as an evil and yes it is evil. They knew how they would manipulate this tool. Oh it has many uses AND is now helping to amp up the agenda against God which often times in history has gone after women and babies. This NFP is V2 evil. End of story.
Hello ock.
A Catholic Thinker put this link on Louie’s blog on 2/19/16:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantistwatch-pope-is-elected-you.html
I did not read all of it, so I can’t say I agree with it, but it may help you to discern.
Everything is so confusing now. We must follow Our Lady Who is our Leader now, as She has clearly been appointed by Almighty God to get us through these times.
She has asked in these times to be known under the title of Our Lady of Good Success. The “Good Success” will be the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart as She promised at Fatima, the Great Event!
http://ourladyofgoodsuccess.com/frames-3-4-2005/aaa.htm
I would highly recommend the 4 books about OLGS: “The Remarkable Life of Mother Marianna” (Volumes 1 and 2) and Stories and Miracles, and Prophesies for Our Times. She came then (1600’s) for US NOW!
We must all do what we can to save our own souls now. Crazy as it sounds, this will be different for each person (within the laws of our Holy Catholic Church, of course.)
I don’t think we will know exactly what to do for sure until Almighty God intervenes. And this confusion and lack of direction is also part of our punishment, which we deserve.
As we all know here on this blog, the NO Mass is from hell. Yet, as Cortez said above, there is a nun in the convent in Quito, Ecuador, who Our Lady of Good Success prophesied would be a “saint,” and she has access only to the daily NO Mass in her convent. Does that defy reason to my mind? Yes!
Yet, Our Good Mother has taken all of these limitations to which we are subjected into consideration and is helping each of us who have recourse to Her to save our souls.
Praise be to our Triune God!
Within the bounds of Catholic morality, how could ‘dire poverty’ be an excuse for contraception if the very act of having children is an inestimable wealth in itself. Perhaps “wealth” should be viewed from the point of view of a lifetime and not in an instance.
Who is to determine what is ‘dire poverty’? Perhaps it presupposes the bodily functions will collapse.
(Human rationale pales before divine creation.)
Thank You Servant of Our Lady for all the good info !!! I attend S.S.P.V. and feel very much at home there. I do say a prayer for Pope Francis when attending Mass in hope of covering all the bases !!! Phew !!! talk about diabolical dosorientation!!!!!
After I wrote the above to you, ock, I read the traditional Mass readings for the day today —- the Feast of the Chair of Peter. The Epistle is 1 Peter 1 : 1-7. Here are the words of St. Peter so pertinent to us today:
1:1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, elect,
1:2. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto the sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace unto you and peace be multiplied.
1:3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy hath regenerated us unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead:
1:4. Unto an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled and that cannot fade, reserved in heaven for you,
1:5. Who, by the power of God, are kept by faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time.
1:6. Wherein you shalt greatly rejoice, if now you must be for a little time made sorrowful in divers temptations:
1:7. That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ.
————
How about verse 6-7 (above) for a direct answer to your question? —- from the Great St. Peter himself!
How eager God is to help us in these evil times!
Amazing how you figured this out, Louie. I have to agree with Cortez that this article you wrote took “the brains of a Sherlock Holmes.”
I had to read each of the articles 2 times and go back to the article “Spinning the latest…” to follow your logic. But I do believe you have the answer! They did panic.
Dear Anastasia, It would be very good if you could put all the relevant material on the matter of marriage and chastity on a dedicated website.
I have thought about doing something along those lines. I know I have to do more than I am presently doing on these blogs. It overwhelms me at times though.
Dear Ock, Read Siscoe’s and Salza’s book explaining, inter alia, how the external office of the papacy continues until the Church makes a formal finding of formal heresy on the part of the officeholder. Obviously, the loss of the spiritual is at the earlier point of the sin of heresy, and the attendant loss of membership of the Church in the interior forum. We suffer while we await holy men, successors of the apostles, to call for formal warnings and due process in respect of Francis’s continual public attacks on Faith and morals. We have been abandoned by the leaders of the visible Church who are acting against God and His Holy and Eternal Church.
Well said, Rich. Plain and straightforwardly Catholic. A rarity.
–
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20981956&postID=1663434220919096192&isPopup=true
Thank you for your service to the Church and mankind. It might be easier to have it all together on a link-able site. God bless.
Speaking of Our Lady of Good Success, what do these two quotes mean?
“How the Church will suffer during this dark night! Lacking a Prelate and Father to guide them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger. This will mark the arrival of My hour.”
“Therefore, clamor insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the privacy of your heart, imploring our Celestial Father that, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity and the profound bitterness and sufferings of His cruel Passion and Death, He might take pity on His ministers and bring to an end those Ominous times, sending to this Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of its priests.”
Dear Truth Seeker,
Could the Prelate spoken of above be the pope who will finally consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
—-
It has been said that Our Lady came to Quito to circumvent the evil enemies who would hide the 3rd secret of Fatima from Her children, that they are the same message.
Fr. Gruner used to say that we must beg God for the consecration of Russia. Our Lady says at Quito we must
“clamor insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the privacy of your heart… to bring an end to those Ominous times….”
How could it have gotten this bad?
We must beg and “clamor” more intensely for Almighty God to restore His Holy Church.
——
Regarding this part:
“Lacking a Prelate and Father to guide them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger. ”
We certainly do not have a pope who is guiding us with love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and PRUDENCE!
Heaven, help us!
What are your thoughts?
I think the reason we are in a crises is because we have no Pope. I think that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio hints that the abomination of desolation has something to do with heresy and the papal office. I think the plan of Alta Vendita is success. Everyone if following Bergoglio not hell because they think he’s Pope. I think the third secret warns about V2 as a trigger for the Great Apostasy, and because it is evil and heretical it points out the ones pushing it are heretics and are therefore outside the Church.
Barbara, women don’t obey the pre-VC2 dress code at FSSP chapels unless they want to (i.e. priests don’t enforce it or even talk about modesty & chastity), the priests & congregation follow the discipline of VC2 (i.e. 1 hour fast before communion, only abstaining from meat on Fridays of Lent, & only fasting on Ash Wednesday & Good Friday), but in the confessional the priests are upsetting all the women (& men) by telling them they can’t use contraception (?)… don’t make sense to me. Msgr. Bastress served in many Baltimore parishes prior to St. Alphonsus — not sure why he would change his confessional policy simply because an EF parish. Could be it is not confessed as much, doesn’t mean wouldn’t be forgiven (or referred to the individual conscience)–and even worse suggested/proposed in the confessional. Seems to me the burden of proof would be on you to prove FSSP priests don’t conform to Vatican policy. W/88% of U.S. Catholics self-reporting use of artificial birth control and 30% abortion rate while no sermons on sinfulness of birth control think you should shut up (your ignorance only fools yourself).
Personally, I know a great many people, including family and friends, plus my own experience in the confessional where have been told not only artificial contraception but sterilization and other sexual sins such as masturbation are not sinful unless one thinks they are a sin–and have been encouraged to think acts are not sinful. What a priest will tell you outside the confessional is the TEACHING of the Church vs what he will say in the confessional (and in fact has been ordered/agreed to say) are two different things.
It also doesn’t make sense that nuns can “pose” undercover as prostitutes in a brothel, but somehow not perform the work of prostitutes. Wouldn’t that blow their cover?
Dear Truth Seeker,
What does this sentence of yours mean?
“Everyone if following Bergoglio not hell because they think he’s Pope.”
Also, forgive my ignorance, but what does this mean?
“….Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio hints that the abomination of desolation …..”
Could you provide a link to show that please?
As you can see I do NOT know AN AWEFUL LOT, and I have no authority in Our Lord’s Church, so I am waiting with “childlike confidence” for My Mother to take care of this whole mess, like She said She would when She said, “In the end My Immaculate Heart will Triumph.”
I meant “following Bergoglio into hell”. My machine autocorrected it.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
Excerpt from Cum Ex:
“1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. “
Thank you for the link.
I have read it before, but glad to have it again. I will print it out.
What do you think about the fact that the following holy people have all referred to the post V2 popes as “pope’?
Padre Pio
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PIOPOPE.HTM
Msgr. Luigi Villa
(In all his books, he refers to them as “pope.”)
Father Gommar de Pauw
http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm
Father Nicholas Gruner
—
All of these people may have had private suspicions, but still referred to these men publically as “pope.”
Who am I to act differently? I know much less that they do/did. They provide a model of how to act in these times.
Also, Our Lady of Good Success said that there would always be a “victim soul,” a “saint” in the convent in Quito, Ecuador, where Our Lady watches over the convent until Her Triumph which She predicted at Fatima and in Quito. This little nun has only the daily NO Mass (which I agree is detestable). This little nun is under this “pope.”
Your thoughts?
I don’t know how much they knew. With knowledge comes responsibility. You can’t commit a mortal sin unless you know it’s a sin. Those who do know that heretics cannot hold office and that Vatican II has taught errors and that for fifty years heresy has been taught cannot tell God that they were ignorant. With knowledge comes responsibility. I cannot in good conscience follow Bergoglio into hell knowing what I do know. Neither can someone choose not to learn the truth because it would be inconvenient–that would be vincible ignorance.