Friday, October 6, 2017

Roberto de Mattei: "'Correctio Filialis': A First Apraisal"




Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
October 4, 2017

Correctio Filialis: a first appraisal

On September 25th, the day after the publication of the Correctio filialis to Pope Francis, Greg Burke, the spokesman for the Vatican Pressroom, with condescending irony, denied the news diffused by Ansa, which had reported that access to the site of the Correctiohad been blocked by the Holy See: "Do you really think we would do this for a letter with 60 names?" The director of the Pressroom, who judges initiatives on the basis of the number of "followers" , might be interested to know that www.correctiofilialis.org, eight days after being put online, had more than 180 thousand individual visitors and 330 thousand page visits. 


The visits come from 200 different countries of the five continents.  Italy and the United States lead the number of accesses. Further, the letter of correction addressed to Pope Francis by 62 scholars, was shared on October 3rd, by 216 theologians, priests, professors and scholars of all nationalities, whose signatures are visible on the site. Added to these, there are thousands of adherents, who put their signature on the official site or on other Catholic sites which actively support the initiative: onepeterfive.com,lifesitenews.com, katholisches.Info. Guido Mocellin, in Avvenire of September 27th, had to admit that in "the ecclesial blogsphere" , thanks to a" modern website in six languages", "the posts on the Correctio filiale directed to Pope Francis "as a result of the propagation of heresies" have been the most present over the past few days: they constituted 30% of all those that I was able to consult between Saturday 24th and Monday 26th of September.

If we want to stay with the numbers, the number of cardinals, bishops and theologians who have risen up against theCorrectio, in defence of Amoris laetitia, is irrelevant. Even the Cardinal closest to Pope Francis, the Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, took a position of equidistance, declaring that  "people who are not in agreement voice their dissent but these things have to be discussed, in an attempt to understand".

What is missing most of all, beyond the number, is substance in the argumentation of the efforts to reply to theCorrectio. The greatest effort done, which nearly arrives at the acrobatics of the sophists, we owe to the Member of Parliament and philosopher Rocco Buttiglione on Vaticaninsider of October 3rd. The central passage of Amoris laetitiacriticized by the signatories of the Correctio, according to Buttiglione, is "something absolutely traditional, which we all studied as children at Catechism in the Catholic Church, not only in the new one by St John Paul II, but also in the old one by Pius X". It's true – Buttiglione admits that there is "an absolute impossibility of giving Communion to those in a state of mortal sin (and this rule is of the Divine law and thus unbreakable) but if, as a result of  lack of instruction or deliberate consent, there is no mortal sin and Communion may be given, from the point of view of moral theology, even to a divorced and remarried [person]."

For Buttiglione, like Pope Bergoglio's trusted theologian, Monsignor Victor Manuel Fernàndez, the basic problem would be that of  the "imputability " of the acts. An imputabilty which would be absent in the great majority of more uxoriocohabitants, since the concrete situations they are living in, mitigate there awareness and, above all, for them, render it practically impossible to observe the law of the Lord. With this the Council of Trent is, without any qualms, contradicted;  [the very Council] which anathematizes those who say "that the commandments of God are even for a man who is justified and confirmed in grace impossible" [Denz-H. n.1568). "God, in fact, does not command the impossible; but when He commands He admonishes us to do what is possible, ask what is not possible and He helps you to make it possible." (Denz-H, n. 1356).

On the other hand, the bishops who apply Pope Francis' teaching, are not inspired by Pius X's catechism, nor John Paul II's new one. In their dioceses, the divorced-remarried, perfectly aware of their situation, insist on Communion and according to Amoris laetitia, Communion is permitted to them, as a legitimate right. 

To justify this immoral practice, we have arrived at the falsification of St Thomas Aquinas' thought. However, a valiant Italian moralist who signed the Correctio, Don Alfredo Morselli, demonstrated, on Messainlatino blogspot, October 3rd, the impossibility of harmonizing Pope Francis' Exhortation with the doctrine of St. Thomas. Don Morselli refers to some unequivocal passages by the Angelic Doctor, which affirm the contrary of § 301 in Amoris laetitia:   "A good intention is not sufficient to determine the goodness of an act: since an act can be in itself bad, and in no way can it become good" (Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 40 q. 1 a. 2 co.). "There are some, (human actions) that have a a deformity inseparably belonging to them, like fornication, adultery and other things of this kind, which cannot be considered morally good in any way whatsoever." (Quodlibet IX, q. 7 a. 2 co.).

In coherence with authentic Thomism, Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz,  presently an Opus Dei prelate, at a convention promoted to celebrate the 20 years of Humanae Vitae, recalled that "the existence of particular norms of natural morals, having universal and unconditional value belong to Catholic doctrine, and actually is a truth of the faith" (Humanae Vitae, 20 years later, Edizioni Ares, Milan 1989, p. 129). Among these, the prohibition of contraception and the prohibition of adultery.  Has the teaching of the University of Santa Croce and Navarra (promoter of that convention along with the John Paul Institute) changed or will it change?   One wonders, after the interview of September 30th at Infovaticana.com, in which the present Vicar of Opus Dei, Mariano Fazio, censures other members of the prelature who signed the Correctio, accusing them of "scandalizing the entire Church".

The interview is strange: neither the Argentine Bishops nor the Maltese Bishops, who authorize adultery in their dioceses are guilty of scandalizing the Church, but those who protest against these scandals are. The Pope, according to Fazio, can be criticized, but in private circles, never publically. In the avalanche of contrary comments, which submerged the blog Infovaticana, there is one which hits the nail on the head: "What about St. Paul?" Wasn't it precisely St. Paul who corrected St. Peter publically?  (Gal. 2, 7-14) The apostolic candour of St. Paul and the humility of the Prince of the Apostles have remained, since then, the model of the correct relationship between those who exercise authority and those who obey them with filial respect but not without discernment.

One of the most influential signatories of the Correctio, the theologian and philosopher of Science, Don Alberto Strumia, prefers discernment. In an interview on September 30th to the daily, Il Giornale, he explained: "The doctrine of the Church was not invented by theologians and not even by Popes, but is founded in the Scriptures and rooted in the tradition of the Church. The Pope is at its service, as guardian and guarantor of this continuity and cannot break it not even covertly, implying, with ambiguous formulations, that today one might think of doing the opposite of what has been taught until now by the Magisterium, regarding essential questions such as the doctrine of the Sacraments and family morality, with the motivation that times have changed and the world demands some adjustment.  For this [reason] it is a duty of charity, which has the aim of "saving souls" as it was said in the past, the  defense of the very dignity of the throne of Peter, and of the one who sits there, to highlight these ambiguities with the greatest respect." […] " To dare address a doctrinal correction to the Pope can be done and must be done only when the truth of the Faith is in danger and thus the salvation of the members of the people of God."

At a time when consciences are darkened, the Correctio filialis expresses the sensus fidei of tens of thousands of Catholics who remind their Supreme Pontiff with filial respect, that the salvation of souls is the greatest good and for no reason in the world can one do evil or make compromises with it. (by Roberto de Mattei)

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Trump's lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office."

Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain.

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today. The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

 
General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

 
Trump is fighting And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!” 

 
That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

 
Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.     

 
Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.” ... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.   

 
It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.  So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years. So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!

 
A NATION THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT
ITS VETERANS IS A NATION THAT 
WILL NOT LONG ENDURE
FOR IT HAS LOST HONOR










Tuesday, September 12, 2017

143M hacked in EQUIFAX data breach: Find out how to protect your identity

How can I protect my identity?

You don't have to wait to enroll in Equifax's program to start protecting yourself right now. We put together a guide on what you can do, including this:
  1. Get a free credit report. Federal law guarantees your one free credit report per year from the three major bureaus (yes, including Equifax). Head to this website to get your most-recent credit report and evaluate it to find any malicious activity.
  2. Freeze your credit. Credit freezes make it harder for criminals to open credit cards in your name. You'll need to call each of the credit bureaus -- Equifax (1-800-349-9960), Experian (1‑888‑397‑3742) and TransUnion (1-888-909-8872) -- to freeze your credit. 
  3. Set a fraud alert. Anyone can sign up for a free, 90-day fraud alert. Here's how. (Don't use Equifax's site for this, as it may be vulnerable to hacking.)

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Josef Seifert on the "terrifying" conclusion drawn from Amoris Laetitia

"If our conscience can know (not only falsely opine) that God wants us to commit in a certain situation intrinsically bad, adulterous or homosexual acts, then pure logic must draw the consequences that the same applies to contraception (HV), to abortion, and to all other acts which the Church and the divine commandments excluded “absolutely”.

Full article: https://onepeterfive.com/the-church-after-amoris-laetitia-an-interview-with-josef-seifert/

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Charlottesville and Aftermath: Friends on the Left, Enemies on the Right? An Interview


Charlottesville and Aftermath: Friends on the Left, Enemies on the Right? 
By Father Kevin M. Cusick
“Wars and tumults fill the earth; men the fear of God despise; retribution, vengeance, wrath, brood upon the angry skies.” –Hymn to Saint Pius V, Pope and Confessor. The Raccolta
A young well-read and devout traditional Catholic, using the pseudonym Daniel Stephen, I recently interviewed believes it is a folly at this moment to “punch right.
What are your thoughts on the Charlottesville protest and its tragic consequences?
As public discourse has continued to deteriorate, two opposing factions are fighting over the expiring corpse of Western Civilization. The alt-Right, a loosely affiliated group of mostly young people who have become disaffected with the disastrous political, cultural, and economic results of the liberal globalist hegemony are opposed by the Antifas, who—lacking a truly coherent worldview or any semblance of philosophical nuance—view those holding any reactionary, traditionalist, or conservative positions as fascists who need to be ‘shut down.’”
Can you say something about the so-called “alt-Right”?
While those in the alt-Right generally favor more authoritarian forms of government, they tend towards monarchist or constitutionalist sympathies and the defense of traditional values.  De Maistre is certainly more of an influence in these circles than Mein KampfThis is not to say that there are not any White Supremacists or even neo-Nazis who identify as alt-Right, but these are mostly hangers-on who have not had significant influence among the serious thinkers within the movement.”
Shouldn’t we condemn the KKK? Weren’t they part of the alt-Right group?
The unfortunate events in Charlottesville were not, as it has been portrayed in the media, the result of vicious Klansmen spewing “hate” and terror, but a clash between elements of rightist and leftist political movements which are both outside of the increasingly irrelevant “mainstream” of American politics. If there were Klansmen in the crowd, they were either hangers-on or plants.
Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Is President Trump right? Were their good and bad people on both sides?
Leaving their respective ideologies aside, the circumstances of the day, objectively, were that the right-wing protesters, who had received a permit to assemble, were ordered to disperse by riot police who forced them into an angry crowd of counter-demonstrators of leftist sympathies, who verbally and physically attacked the retreating rightists. The fatalities late in the day seem to be the result of the flagrant mismanagement of a volatile situation by the Mayor of Charlottesville, or possibly even a planned event.
So, should we be aware of the mainstream media slant on the news?
While it was entirely predictable that the mainstream media accepted the narrative presented by the Antifas and their allies, it is perhaps slightly more surprising that, in their official statements responding to the Charlottesville incident, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops repeated uncritically the denunciation of the alt-Right protestors as White Supremacists and neo-Nazis, and even lauded the Antifa mob as “brave souls who sought to protect us from the violent ideology displayed yesterday.” A Jesuit publication, apparently referring to a group of women clad in polyester albs and stoles who joined in the fray, approvingly identified these people as ‘local clergy and people of faith.’ I withhold comment on the theological merits of this description.
So, it’s easy to paint different elements of the “right” with the same brush?
The alt-Right is generally denounced as “racist,” and while this may be interpreted as true according to the ever-shifting contemporary definition of the term, it would not be true according to authentic Catholic moral theology. It is entirely unhelpful to condemn those who are concerned with preserving their ethnic and cultural identity as being inherently “hateful.” Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani generis unitas, which condemned genuine race-based hatred, statesIt is quite legitimate for nations to treat their differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs.” 
What is the context provided by Church history?
“The Roman Pontiffs have historically had no difficulty recognizing as threats to the Christian order and the good of souls, the imprecations of barbarous and dangerous peoples. They would see nothing contrary to the Gospel of Christ in opposing the contemporary bureaucratic imposition of massive Islamic “immigration” on the West. Pope Saint Pius V had no concerns for “welcoming the migrant” at Lepanto. “Thine it was, O Pontiff brave! Pontiff of eternal Rome! From barbaric yoke to save terror-stricken Christendom,” says the hymn to this Holy Pope recorded in The Raccolta. In the Bull of Indication for the Council of Trent, Pope Paul III experienced no scruplesin referring to the Turks as “our cruel and perpetual enemy,” who “sacked and ravaged” Italy while Christian princes engaged in domestic squabbles and infighting. The same Pope Paul might rightly observe, viewing our present circumstances, that there is nothing new under the sun.”
What can you say about the two sides present at Charlottesville?
While the alt-Right, being a nascent and disorganized political movement, is hampered by discordant streams of thought including neo-Nazism and neo-Paganism, it is comprised largely of faithful Catholics of traditionalist sensibilities, adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy, and protestants and agnostics who are at least somewhat friendly to the true Faith. Catholics in positions of spiritual authority would do well to demonstrate that the Church has—and has always had—an answer to the genuine ills which plague modern society, and would find willing allies and loyal sons in the great work of restoring Christendom. 
The Antifa movement, on the other hand, is unabashedly communistic, and gleefully—if one could use the term in reference to such aggressively dowdy and unpleasant people—rejects the entirety of the Christian social order and would see that even among the ruins not one stone remains upon another. What common ground can we find with those who have openly declared war on God? Why give moral support to the same elements who are pushing gender theory on children and demanding that abortion be protected as an intrinsic human right?”
Give us some historic context.
During the French Revolution, following the promulgation of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, half of the French clergyapostatized and became abjuring priests, compelled by force to accept and promote the principles of the Enlightenment. Today,the official statements of the USCCB carry water for the leftist agenda—which is animated by precisely the same spirit as the Revolution of 1789by unequivocally supporting Communist street-fighters and indiscriminately condemning those in the alt-Right as violent and dangerous ideologues. It is impossible to know if they are motivated by fear of violence of the mob, or out of concern for human respect, or simply because they have accepted the worldview of cultural Marxists as being compatible with—or even identical to—the principles of the Gospel of Our Lord.”
Where does all this leave us?
As the rabid leftists who now are hell-bent on toppling Confederate monuments and “punching Nazis continue their work to deconstruct white privilege their outbursts will, if nature runs its course unimpeded by Divine intervention, become more violent and less discriminating in target selection. Statues of Joan of Arc and the recently canonized Saint Junipero Serra have already been marked out for demolition by the mobin Louisiana and California. What will happen when the Revolution decides that Bishops Conferences are institutional apparatuses of oppression and privilege? 
Do the Bishops believe that they will save their heads by blessing the guillotines?
Thank you for reading and praised be Jesus Christ. @MCITLFrAphorism









Thank you for visiting.

Followers

Kamsahamnida, Dziekuje, Terima kasih, Doh je, Grazie, Tesekur, Gracias, Dank u, Shukran

free counters