If you checked the news today, you likely already heard that the Vatican’s CDF, with Pope Francis’ express approval, authoritatively ruled out the possibility of the Church ever blessing homosexual unions. While any sincere Catholic would have already known full well that such a blessing is obviously radically contrary to the Faith and completely illicit, this is nevertheless certainly newsworthy, as we have lately not been accustomed to such clarity coming from the Vatican. Even secular news sources usually reported fairly accurately the main thrust of this ruling:
God cannot bless sin. The Church cannot bless sin. Christians cannot bless sin. No exceptions. Not now, not ever. Period.
Love the sinner, yes. But hate the sin. No “advanced theology” is needed here.
Heaven’s messages have lately been particularly urgent in imploring prayers from the faithful on behalf of their shepherds, and I have no doubt that this ruling is one of the fruits of those prayers. So, please, keep these prayers up. Rather, redouble them. This ruling, though a Godsend indeed, may even be the event that spurs on the prophesied formal schism — as I think we all know full well that the German Bishop’s Conference will not tolerate it — as well as the event that spurs on the formal persecution, as I think we all know equally well that the worldly powers that be will not much longer allow any dissent from their own sexual-morality-overthrowing anti-dogmas. The handwriting is on the wall.
But it is equally essential that we not allow this CDF Document to be spun, by the wolves within the Church, in such a way as to imply that its prohibitions are less restrictive than they, in fact, are. These wolves are already in overdrive seeking to enact this spin.AP News quoted the powerful Catholic nun, Sr. Simone Campbell — who most recently made headlines for praising Joe Biden’s pro-abortion stance as “developed” — as saying she was “relived [sic] the Vatican statement wasn’t worse… you could [still] have a ritual where the individuals get blessed to be their committed selves.” (Whatever that means.) Papal biographer and de-facto Pope Francis spokesman, Austen Ivereigh, is claiming “this doesn’t make [same sex unions] bad or wrong per se.” America Magazine, which I criticized strongly a few posts ago, complains that this ruling “…’was not discussed’ in the monthly plenary meeting of [the CDF],” before asserting that when the ruling finally moved “in a positive direction,” it spoke about welcoming with respect same-sex attracted persons… as if it was not a “positive” thing for the CDF to reiterate perennial, soul-saving Church Teaching. Fr. James Martin is trying to deflect attention back to Pope Francis’ (deeply erroneous) personal opinion that we should have same-sex civil unions:
[Update 2 (3/16/2021). The popular Jesuit priest, Fr. Thomas Reese, has just written,“My guess is that [Pope Francis] was given the document right before he left for Iraq and deferred to the congregation rather than subject the document to a close personal review.” This “guess” is impossible, because although we only learned of the Document yesterday, it was nevertheless signed and promulgated on February 22nd; long before Pope Francis’ Iraq trip. As we can see, this “spin” I am cautioning against is already reaching an absurd degree, as the biggest voices in the “Catholic left” are trying to pretend that Pope Francis doesn’t even agree with the very Magisterial document he just signed off on. Bear in mind that this document is a whopping 2 pages long; supposing — for any reason — that Pope Francis “didn’t carefully read it” is ridiculous.]
The truth is that, while the focus of this document is indeed the question of what the Church can (or cannot, rather) bless in the context of sacramentals, its teachings are anything but restricted to this domain; it’s teachings also rule out any sort of same-sex “civil union” or any other endorsement of homosexuality.
While the first several paragraphs of the document offer catechesis on the nature of sacramentals, the teachings contained thereafter are not presented as being restricted to describing the boundaries of sacramentals alone. The following paragraph of the ruling is the key to understanding the broader implications of this document, so I present it in full (with emphasis added):
The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God.
The CDF here makes it explicit that it is not merely condemning the liturgical, sacramental blessing of a homosexual union. Rather, “any form of blessing,” whatsoever, of a homosexual union as such, is condemned, because it would constitute an “approval” and an “encouragement” of something contrary to the “revealed plans of God.”
A “blessing,” in the broadest sense — which is the intended sense here, by virtue of the phrase “any form” — is simply any act of praise.Whatever would “praise” a sinful or disordered situation, is utterly ruled out by basic Christian common sense… and by this CDF ruling. Praising sin or disorder does not become okay merely because it is done outside of a liturgical context.
If, however, one insists upon interpreting “blessing” here (despite the qualifier “any form”) as being restricted to the context of sacramentals, this still makes no difference. Forthis paragraph does not say that such a blessing would merely fail to remain in keeping with the proper norms governing Sacramentals. Rather, it says that such a blessing would do something objectively wrong –– something, in other words, wrong in every single situation: sacramental or otherwise, liturgical or otherwise, from clergy or from laity, from the Church or from the secular world — namely, it would approve that which is contrary to God’s Law. No one may ever do that.
I hope this will also serve as a general reminder that personal opinions of Popes cannot overturn Magisterium. Last October, when it came to light that Pope Francis personally endorsed same-sex civil unions, Catholics should have known better than to jump on board. They should have known that the CDF already Magisterially ruled, in 2003, that “all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions” and that “laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason” and that “In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized … clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.” Instead, so many chose to reject the True Magisterium and jump on board with a fashionable opinion that the Pope personally held. Similarly, so many are pretending that Pope Francis’ personally preferred interpretation of one footnote of one of his apostolic exhortations (Amoris Laetitia) has the right to overturn a clear and direct Magisterial teaching actually within another apostolic exhortation (Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84) . Frankly, these situations are not all that confusing. How to side with the True Magisterium in these cases is not that perplexing. One simply needs to want it.
Perhaps this CDF document bearing express Papal approval was even Pope Francis’ way of repenting of his error and seeking to make amends. I do not believe it was any accident that this ruling was promulgated on the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter. Let us continue to trust in the promise that Christ gave to Peter. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail. Though we can count on more bumps along the way, we can rest assured that God will not disappoint.
Let us not forget that he is our Pope. We must continue to love him and pray for him. Prayers are powerful, dear brethren in Christ.
I had been writing this piece as an appendix to my forthcoming post on Resisting the Coming Diabolical “Quantum Leap” –– but, as it took on a life of its own, I am now instead publishing it on its own as a forerunner (a preview, perhaps) of that post.
Indeed, part of the coming Great Deception will perhaps in some way involve the notion of “aliens,” this notion being used to persuade us to change our ways and beliefs. I am concerned that this Great Deception will be hastened with the imminent release of the U.S. Government’s hitherto confidential “UFO” files — their deadline is June of this year. And I am equally concerned that many in the Vatican will do their utmost to promote this Deception (it wouldn’t be the first deception that many prelates in the Vatican have promoted lately), especially now that we have a Pope who has boasted that he would happily “baptize Martians,” and theologians in the Vatican giddy about the idea of aliens. Last year’s Vatican Nativity Scene was, I fear, more than just a hideous piece of “art,” but perhaps was also a symbol and a signal that they are ready to promote this Deception as soon as the time is ripe. I mean, just look at it:
This proposal to listen to the aliens, (“more evolved beings,” they will be called by their mediators among our elite), however, — if indeed it is offered — will be nothing other than a cover for the demons themselves to directly instruct the masses to a degree they usually can only attain with devoted Satanists themselves. It is, therefore, essential that we all right now realize that there are no aliens — that is, no extraterrestrial intelligent incarnate life (in this post I am only addressing the question of extraterrestrial intelligent life) — so that we are not tempted to dialogue with or listen to demons if they communicate under the guise of being friendly aliens. We already know that demons use any opportunity they can find to give camouflaged destructive communications to unsuspecting souls who stray from realms of safety — e.g. people using Ouija boards or participating in Séances — so there is no reason to suppose these demons won’t likewise use modern society’s fixation upon “aliens” to do the same thing.
Now, I am aware that no Church Dogmas expressly and explicitly affirm that there are no extraterrestrials (So don’t worry, I am not accusing you of being a formal heretic if you believe they exist!). But it is still quite clearly contained within Church Teaching. Read on to see why that is the case.
The word “Human.” The Church does teach that all of humanity truly descended from the two literal, and first, humans: Adam and Eve (See, for example, Humani Generis). But “human” doesn’t merely mean “those who descended from Adam and Eve.” Such a definition of the word “human” would render the aforementioned Church Teaching a mere trivial truism; an empty tautology. And we know that no Church Teachings are like that. Indeed, “human” has always been defined (in both Catholic theology and Catholic philosophy) as “rational animal” (that is, intelligent incarnate life). From this it follows that all rational animals are descendents of Adam and Eve; which, in turn, means that there are no extraterrestrials (at least, no intelligent ones).
If one protests, “But ‘human’ actually just means rational incarnate life on this particular planet,” then the burden of proof rests on that person. Nowhere that I know of has the Church defined “human” as necessitating that distinction; everywhere we see man defined, this definition is given in a way that implies, if not outright indicates, universality; “human” simply being the word encompassing all rational incarnate life. As the Catechism itself teaches (quoting Vatican II’s binding teaching):
“Of all visible creatures [i.e. non-angels], only man is able to know and love his creator… he [man] alone is called to share… in God’s own life.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 356)
(Note: the full context also makes reference to “on this earth,” simply to distinguish earth from Heaven/Hell/Purgatory. But even if one insists upon a different interpretation of “on this earth,” it makes no difference: the clauses I present above are logically independent from that reference, which anyone will see who reads the entire section and considers basic grammatical norms.)
Now, an alien believer will protest, “Ah! So maybe there are aliens, they just aren’t able to know and love God or share in His life!” But this protestation blasphemes God’s goodness. Any rational creature, by nature, is intrinsically inseparable from the potency (and call) to know and love God. For God to create a rational being who nevertheless could not know Him would be for God to create an evil, which can never be (God can at most allow evil; never cause it). From this, too, it therefore follows that we can be certain that man is the only visible (non-angelic) creature that exists who has rationality. No aliens.
The sensus fidelium absolutely rules out aliens. We must also consider the fact that the Church does teach that sensus fidelium is infallible; the sensus fidelium being the consensus of all the Faithful. Now, if something is infallible, that means it cannot change at any time — it does not merely mean that it was “true in its day.” Infallibility is by nature permanent. This means that discoveries in, say, the year 2021, cannot possibly warrant conclusions that contradict what the sensus fidelium held in the year 1300. A batch of theologians — even if they reside in the Vatican — deciding in the year 2021 that they believe in the existence or possibility of something that the sensus fidelium held, in the year 1300, to be impossible, cannot budge that element of the sensus fidelium one iota. Up until the days of Galileo’s discoveries (and the concomitant absurd, but predictable, assumption by the giddily progress-crazed scholars of the times following that all of these newly observed planets and moons “must” have life on them just like ours… more below…), the sensus fidelium always held that human beings were the only intelligent incarnate life. I challenge anyone to find any meaningful amount of material — from the millions of pages we have which derive from any point in the Church’s history from 33 AD to 1500 AD that regards the proposition of extraterrestrial intelligent life (or any extraterrestrial incarnate life, for that matter) seriously. I’m not holding my breath. (Nota Bene: no, Aquinas and other scholastics did not posit the possibility of aliens; more on that below.)
We are, therefore, “stuck” with that element of the Sensus forever. Similarly, the Church (as far as I know) gives no clear and explicit Dogmas that Christ was celibate; and yet, we know with certainty that He was celibate, since this has always been an element of the Sensus Fidelium — and the ridiculous Dan Brown novels (e.g. Da Vinci Code) cannot budge that fact one bit, no matter how many theologians pretend it is possible that Christ wasn’t celibate.
Neither can one claim that this question of extraterrestrials is outside of the proper domain of the Sensus Fidelium, as, for example, the details of physics and astronomy are (i.e., it will not work to protest, “but for the first thousand years of Christianity, all the faithful thought the earth didn’t rotate, also!”). For the question of whether mankind (and thus the Incarnation and Redemption) is unique is no mere trifle and no mere empirical question that could be dismissed as tangential to the Faith; rather, it is a question that touches upon our fundamental understanding of the Creator’s creation, our place within it, the meaning of the Incarnation, the domain of Redemption, and on the list goes. As you will see below, the Catholic theologian alien-supporters themselves implicitly admit that this is a Faith-essential question, since they say that discovering aliens would require us to “completely re-read” the Faith. Whether the earth rotates, on the other hand (and other similar questions), has absolutely no effect on the Faith.
An article in Scientific American published a couple weeks ago, though ostensibly refuting my point on the Sensus Fidelium here presented, actually only proves my point. The article’s very title boldly (and falsely) claims “Until recently, people accepted the ‘fact’ of Aliens in the Solar System.” The body of the article, however, confuses one small period of history — the era of modernism — with history itself, as it only refers to “the period from some four hundred years ago until the last century” harboring the widespread belief (among scientists) in aliens. The entire article contains not a single reference to belief in extraterrestrial life before Galileo. (Note: there were indeed ancient pre-Christian thinkers who believed in aliens; but, obviously, they do not get a “vote” in the Sensus Fidelium!) One thing this article does an excellent job of, however, is to demonstrate that those who blindly “trust the science,” when doing so requires leaving aside common sense, good philosophy, or good theology, are always led into error.Indeed, most — if not practically all — of the post-Galileo astronomers insisted [with their primitive telescopes to ‘prove’ it] that the Moon, and Mars, and the other planets they could see, were filled with life. “Our telescopes prove it! Look at the engineered canals on Mars!” (there were none) they would proclaim in the 1800s when telescopes were improved further still. Now, “the science” clearly proved extraterrestrial life! The 18th century astronomer who discovered Uranus, William Herschel, insisted that not only were the planets populated with aliens, but so was the sun (it has dark spots! These simply must be holes in its life-supporting atmosphere!). The 19th century astronomer and “enlightenment”-promoting Christian minister Thomas Dick went on to calculate that there were 50 billion aliens on Venus, 15 billion on Mars, 7 trillion on Jupiter, and 8 trillion on Saturn’s rings. If you dared contradict these claims with philosophy or theology, then you were, of course, nothing but a “rigid philosopher” or a “dogma-obsessed theologian” who failed to acknowledge the superiority of science. These scientists had the “evidence,” after all! They had the telescopes, the calculations, and the advanced astronomy!
Then …. came July 14th, 1965, when Mariner 4 sent us back photos and other observations of the surface of Mars during its flyby: no magnetic field, virtually no atmosphere, and nothing but a surface of dead rock. As the article there linked notes, “There were, alas, none of the canals seen by astronomers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, nor evidence of senders of messages heard by Nikola Tesla or Gugliemo Marconi. Indeed, the hazy images of a barren, crater-strewn landscape ended speculation that Mars might plausibly be inhabited by higher life forms.”
Indeed, sometimes the vindication of good philosophy and theology takes centuries. Only months before these photos were obtained, the famous skeptic (probably atheist, but at least agnostic) Carl Sagan insisted — in a formal scientific paper –– that “thepresent body of scientific evidence suggests” that there is life on Mars. This was the case, Sagan continued, because of “photometrically observed waves of darkening … [interpreted] in terms of seasonal biological activity.” Woops. Too bad Sagan saved his “skepticism” for God — Whom anyone should easily be able to conclude with certainty, and even with reason alone, exists — instead of being skeptical about scientific conjectures. But remember, Sagan wasn’t merely giving a personal opinion; rather, he was representing a “body of scientific evidence” (indeed, those waves on Mars had been observed for over a hundred years). Well, the inferences drawn from that entire “body of evidence” were garbage. We now know those waves are just from dead dust moving around. [Similarly, science itself will soon conclude that macroevolution was the biggest hoax in the history of science, despite the fact that the vast majority of scientists now believe it. (It is, however, a much newer theory than the post-Galileo Martian-life theories which were annihilated 56 years ago; centuries after they were written.) ]
Of course, we never learn our lessons. Men of a given age almost invariably arrogantly regard “our science” as somehow by nature a different kind of thing than yesterday’s science. One hears it said today, “Come on! It’s 2021!” — which is no more meaningful than reminding one of which day of the week it is — “…now we actually can allow science to overturn philosophy and theology!” What utter myopia. Don’t succumb to it. In my forthcoming post on Resisting the Coming Diabolical “Quantum Leap,” I will be writing on a number of other areas in which we must be sure to never allow “what the science says” to undermine what we should know is true by Faith and Reason.
***
A note on Aquinas and the Scholastics: Those who do not understand how Scholastic Theology works are known to take certain considerations found in the writings of Aquinas and others — whether before or after him — and pretend that these great spiritual masters thought that there are, or might be, extraterrestrials. But that is false. In pointing out that making “other worlds” is possible for God, Aquinas was just making a theological point about God’s omnipotence and the world’s finitude, not presenting a speculation about aliens. Jesus said the same to Luisa: “One single act of my Will is enough to create a thousand worlds.” (October 20, 1914) Aquinas’ point here would be in contradiction to (for example) that of Descartes, who thought that God would not even be capable of creating other worlds (cosmos), for Descartes erroneously regarded the given physical space we now inhabit as exhaustive of all possibilities.
The Grave Dangers of Believing in Aliens
Karl Rahner, a theologian very influential during Vatican II, famously posited that aliens were possible. (While Fr. Karl certainly had some good things to say, which I am not disputing, it should be noted in considering this particular question that he is perhaps best known for his heretical teachings by which he supported artificial contraception and women’s ordination.) He said “it cannot be proved that multiple incarnations in different histories of salvation is absolutely unthinkable.” Of course it’s unthinkable, Fr. Karl. Salvation History is just that: Salvation History. Not “a” Salvation History or “our” Salvation History or “one” Salvation History. The phrase has no qualifiers because it needs no qualifiers; it enjoys a categorically and absolutely spatio-temporally/universally unique status. It is the only Salvation History and it is everyone’s Salvation History.However, if one is merely a theologian and has forgotten what is infinitely more important than advanced theology (namely, basic Christian common sense), then this absurdity is indeed quite “thinkable.”
The current Vatican astronomer, Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, tragically goes even further, claiming that discovering alien civilizations will require us to conduct a “rereading of the Gospel in light of the new data.” He is far from alone in the Vatican in believing in aliens who will, or may, require us to completely “reread” our Faith and fundamentally change our theology.
Can you not see how diabolical this is? There are no aliens. But I do not doubt that the Antichrist or his forerunners will try to convince us that there are — and that, conveniently, he has contact with them (and maybe even can “show them” to us) — and through this “contact” he will strive to compel us to “reread” our Faith, thus emptying it of its power, as St. Paul prophesied for these times. Have nothing to do with it.
But the damage is, sadly, not restricted to when the “aliens” are “introduced” to us; the damage is being done right now. To even think that it is possible (as Fr. Giuseppe and so many others in the Vatican and throughout the Church do) that something like contact with alien civilizations might one day require us to completely “re-read the Gospel” and “revise our theology” is to even now undermine the confidence and certitude we must have in our Faith — as it is understood; as it is laid out in public revelation; as it is developed by Sacred Tradition; as it is authoritatively interpreted by Magisterium.I’m not saying we should pretend we “have it all figured out.” We don’t, and we never will. God is a great mystery and we must stand in awe and humility before Him and His creation. But maintaining a posture of humility and awe, as we ought, does not imply that we should be flexible with those truths which we should know to be true.
The justification for saying aliens do exist, or might exist, is always the same: “given the incredible number of planets out there, it is likely or at least possible that life developed somewhere else as well.” But the premises of such an assertion are nothing but patently heretical Darwinism. Life cannot “develop” if merely given enough chances to do so. It can only be created by God. It wouldn’t matter if there were a trillion times as many planets out there as modern astronomers now think there are and if the universe were a trillion times as old as they think it is– the chance of life “developing” would still be zero — mathematically, scientifically, and logically impossible — as demonstrated in part 1 ofThe Crown of Sanctity.
A few footnotes:
I’m aware that there is one small passage in Maria Valtorta’s writings that seem to speak of aliens. It’s not the only error in her writings. (I’m making no claims regarding Valtorta’s authenticity here; even authentic mystics’ private revelations can, and often do, contain errors! I do not know much about Valtorta, so I cannot comment on her, but I do know that many people I love and trust regard her highly, so please don’t take my insistence that she is wrong on one small thing as an attack on her or her mystical writings. Even St. Catherine of Siena’s private revelations had at least one glaring error! [i.e. that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived])
I’m also aware of the many claims of UFO/Alien phenomena. Although the vast majority of these can be explained by military testing/ atmospheric phenomena/ optical illusions/manipulated media/ weather balloons/ mentally unstable people “seeing” things/etc., it is also true that some testimonies are not so easily cast aside. I am not one to ignore what a person — who by all accounts appears trustworthy — insists that he himself directly observed. Indeed, we must take such testimonies seriously. However, when one reads these testimonies, they almost universally include elements of incredible darkness and evil. The people themselves who give the testimonies usually speak of some horrible, dark, evil feeling pervading them when they witnessed the “UFO” or the “alien.” Often heinous sexual things are described. All of this just confirms my thesis: yes, there may well be alleged “aliens,” but, again, they aren’t aliens at all; rather, they are demonic manifestations. This just redoubles the importance of rejecting the possibility of actual aliens, so that we may remain firm in our insistence to have nothing to do with these “aliens” when they appear.
Consider as well that any alien race would either be 1) Unfallen, or 2) Fallen, thus in need of Redemption. If they were 1) Unfallen, then they would each be Immaculate Conceptions, which would itself be contrary to Catholic Dogma on Our Lady being the only Immaculate Conception. If they were 2) In need of Redemption, then this would be abhorrent, since they could not receive it — it is Catholic Dogma that there is one and only one Incarnation (which itself is necessary for Redemption).
The typical Catholic response to this question these days, i.e. “Well, there’s no Church teaching on this, so who knows,” may not, after all, be accurate. Pope Zachary may indeed have condemned this notion. Here is an excerpt from Ireland and the Antipodes: The Heterodoxy of Virgil of Salzburg, by John Carey.
Now, the cleric in question, “Virgil,” did later become a Bishop (and was canonized a saint!), so we can presume he recanted this view — plenty of saints have believed errors and then recanted. Nevertheless, Pope Zachary evidently regarded this error of positing the existence of “other men” in “another world” beneath the earth (or perhaps even on the sun and moon) as such an egregious opposition to God that it was “abominable,” a detriment to one’s very soul, and a just cause for expelling this priest from the Church and stripping him of his priesthood. Perhaps Pope Zachary was particularly condemning the ancient Irish pagan belief in elves who existed in “fairy mounds” underground; in any event, this condemnation clearly covers aliens as well. So, dear Catholics, weigh what we have here: on the one hand, an extremely strong denunciation, in a Papal letter, of aliens as an “abominable teaching,” and, on the other hand, Pope Francis making a verbal remark that he’d “baptize Martians.” Discerning which is the weightier teaching is not difficult. Obviously I am not claiming we can have certainty in Pope Zachary’s condemnation merely from John Carey’s work here quoted, but we should presume its validity absent legitimate reasons to doubt it.
As we sink more deeply still into the darkest and most confusing abyss that both the Church and the world have ever had the misfortune of straying into, the question of who is worthy of trust has become more pressing than ever. Before matters become even more bewildering, therefore, we must have a list in mind of whose wisdom to seek out moving forward. For not one of us can figure it all out on our own.
Of course, not even anyone on this “list” I will present below should be considered an oracle — each is a fallible person, and I’m sure that each one is mistaken on some points. But when their views on some matter converge and form a consensus, then we would be foolish to reject that consensus.
But first, let us consider what and whom we should not trust.
At this point it has become rather obvious that the majority of mainstream voices promoting the mainstream narrative are unworthy of trust. As Our Lady just allegedly said to Valeria Copponi, “Do not trust the great [among you]: whether they be politicians or lesser figures, you have no need of their vain counsel.” Indeed, many of the great, rich, and powerful of the world are acting in pure malice or at least with ulterior motives — and when their counsel flatly contradicts Faith, Morals, or Reason (as it usually does), we certainly must reject it, no matter how much civil disobedience this rejection requires. Those among the elite who are not acting out of malice are usually at the minimum acting out of a completely twisted Utilitarian notion of the good – an approach that will never actually be conducive to the good itself, and will instead only ruin lives, souls, families, and societies. As Our Lady also just allegedly said to Gisella Cardia, “there are so many pointless deaths in the world, because you are bowing your heads to the world’s elite.”
Let us get more specific, and be brutally honest in so doing: when considering which public figuresto trust, do not forget that if someone is foolish enough to fail to realize that there are two, and only two, sexes/genders, and that one’s sex/gender cannot change, then that person is foolish enough to believe anything. If one is immoral enough to support the legality of killing of unborn children, then he is immoral enough to support anything. If a Catholic is sufficiently unfaithful to Scriptural and Magisterial teaching to suppose that homosexuality itself may be in any way endorsed, then that Catholic is unfaithful enough to endorse any sin or disorder. And if a priest or Bishop will endorse one heresy, he may at some point endorse any heresy.
But it is time to get more specific still. While I avoid (and recommend that others avoid) naming names — calumny and detraction are grave sins and we mustn’t risk committing them — occasionally names must be named, and there is no risk of calumny or detraction when our criticism applies to what those whom we criticize openly admit to doing, saying, or believing. I will take just two examples of individuals/groups unworthy of trust: one from the Church, and one from the secular world, to better illustrate the admonitions I present in this post.
The Untrustworthy: Dr. Fauci
Today, one can actually see bumper stickers that read, “In Dr. Fauci we trust.” (May God have mercy on us.) Indeed, recent polls have indicated that Fauci is among the most trusted men, if not the most trusted man, in America. People seem to want him to be the one making the nation’s most important decisions, no matter how manifestly absurd his statements are – contrary to both Faith and Reason. Each semester, when teaching my undergraduates about Plato’s Republic, I discuss the perennial philosophical wisdom which rightly holds that experts (e.g. scientists) have expertise in means, not in ends; and means must always advise – only ends may direct. If only I had known in the past that medical tyranny would soon seek to override everything else, I would have been able to make my lectures even more specific.
Just last month, Dr. Fauci announced to the world that (thanks to our new “Catholic” president), America’s abundant riches will be back at work funding abortion around the globe. But this didn’t stop a “Catholic” Jesuit university, Georgetown, from inviting him to speak at a prestigious annual lecture. Indeed, this happened just yesterday (February 19th); Fauci was interviewed by Father Sheehan. During his talk, Fauci revealed something about himself that we should have known all along: he completely lacks a moral compass. He could not think of a single example over the course of his entire 50+ year medical career wherein his conscience was at odds with anything in his job:
(Note: This is authentic, unedited video of Dr. Fauci and Fr. Sheehan. I excerpted it directly from a conference I was invited to via my PhD studies. Although for some days you likely will not find this footage anywhere else, Georgetown will likely soon themselves post video of the whole lecture, at which point you can see for yourself that any claims that what I’m presenting is “misleading” or “out of context” are false. I am only including a brief excerpt here to ensure I do not run afoul of any copyright or other legal claims.)
But enough about Fauci. I hope that this example will simply illustrate just how much of a crisis of trust we have in the world today, and how utterly dire and essential it is that we not succumb to trusting the untrustworthy in the world.
The Untrustworthy: America Magazine
Let us now move on to an example from the Church of a source of information and opinions completely unworthy of trust: America Magazine (and especially their notorious Editor at Large, the Church’s most well-known promoter of homosexuality, whom I have criticized before).
Just yesterday, as the Jesuit above was interviewing Fauci, America Magazine published an article insisting that vaccinations must be made mandatory for Catholics to return to Mass. Yes, you read that right. This “Catholic” publication is demanding that assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the source and summit of our lives as Catholics, be subjected to one’s willingness to receive an abortion-tainted vaccine for a disease with a survival rate much higher than the seasonal flu – a vaccine which will not even prevent infection or transmission, but which is only expected to reduce symptoms. (They care not that the Vatican itself – cf. §5 — has insisted that vaccination must be voluntary.) This “Catholic” publication has the audacity to claim that failing to so mandate would be “morally irresponsible.”
I cannot even find the right superlatives to describe the spiritual insanity on full display here. We rightly revere all our ancestors in the Faith who gladly risked life and limb for the Mass, but today so many of our leaders in the Church relegate Christ’s Sacrifice to a position of inferiority beneath the “moral duty” to avoid, at all costs, catching a cold.
“And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.” Matthew 24
(As a side note, it is interesting that the very day before posting this article I here condemn, America Magazine posted another article about a parish in my own hometown: Albany, New York. Fr. James Martin himself extolled this article on his Twitter account. This parish is – contrary to Canon Law — “run” by a lay-woman, and in the article about it, Canon 517 is quoted but blatantly twisted, contrary to all journalistic principles – inserting bracketed remarks into it, putting a period where none exists, and omitting the clause that made sense of the Canon in question — to mean the very opposite of what it actually says. Yet another testimony to America Magazine’s complete untrustworthiness.)
Yesterday, America Magazine posted a podcast by the new-age Franciscan priest, Fr. Richard Rohr (who laments that Christians focus on Jesus instead of the “Universal Cosmic Christ”), about how we should give up nothing for Lent. Today, America Magazine published an article entitled “Catholics, must we be so obsessed with Jesus’ death and suffering this Lent?” The utter blasphemy here is enough to make one weep. The author, a Jesuit, recommends the “Stations of Light” instead of the Stations of the Cross. He writes that, in being devoted to Christ’s Passion, “the Catholic Church [is] like some crack squad of crime fighters chalking bodies and detailing every trace of blood.” Let us do reparation for this outrage by dedicating ourselves more than ever this Lent to the Stations of the Cross and to reading, every day, the Hours of the Passion. For indeed, neglect of the Passion of the Christ destroys both the Church and the world. As Jesus said to the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta:
“With all the good of my Passion, one can see souls who are weak, blind, deaf, mute, crippled – living cadavers, such as to be disgusting – because my Passion is put into oblivion. My pains, my wounds, my Blood, are strength that removes weaknesses, light that gives sight to the blind, tongue that loosens the tongues and opens the hearing, way that straightens the crippled, life that raises the cadavers. All the remedies that are needed for the whole of humanity are in my Life and Passion. But the creature despises the medicine and does not care about the remedies; and this is why one can see, in spite of my Redemption, the state of man perishing, as though affected by an incurable consumption. But what grieves Me the most is to see religious people who tire themselves out in order to acquire doctrines, speculations, stories – but about my Passion, nothing. So, many times my Passion is banished from the churches, from the mouths of the priests; therefore, their speech is without light, and the peoples remain more starved than before.” — October 21, 1921
Enough with America Magazine. Each additional moment I consider it is making me more nauseated.
But I hope that these two illustrations will aid in training your intuition to likewise reject — as potentially untrustworthy — anything similar to this spiritually destructive “Catholic” source of news and opinions and this medical “expert” whose real motives are anything but clear. In a word: Does it smell like America Magazine? Steer clear. Does it smell like Dr. Fauci? Do not assume it is in your real best interest, no matter how much apparent “expertise” lies behind the claim.
Now, on to the trustworthy.
I do not want to attempt to present a comprehensive list of all trustworthy persons here. Instead, I will focus on promoting, for now, just a few of our greatest shepherds. The Successors of the Apostles always have been and always will be our primary leaders. You can rest assured that, even if many Bishops have fallen victim to the Great Apostasy and even if many more continue to fall victim (and they will), we will always have enough Good Shepherds around to keep the remnant faithful to Christ.
And I believe that you can also rest assured of the truth of any consensus or near consensus among them on any issue that in any way touches Faith or Morals:
There are, of course, plenty more trustworthy and faithful Bishops out there – do not infer anything from the absence of a name from this list – my aim here is only to present a few to be sure to keep an eye on.
Another Katechon Removed
But I should also note that today, Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Cardinal Sarah. No, Sarah was not “fired,” though it is unfortunate that Francis did not have him stay on longer. Alas, Sarah remains a Prince of the Church, and my hope and prayer is that his exit from his position as Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship will now free him to be even more outspoken in defending the truth. Keep a close eye on what he has to say moving forward. (And I also recommend his books).
Let this resignation also serve as yet another reminder to stay awake. The prophetic consensus has always held that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will soon be attacked like never before. Satan’s minions within the hierarchy will seek to distort it to the point of rendering the Consecration itself invalid. Cardinal Sarah, I believe, was a Katechon (a holy restrainer) against these diabolical efforts. With him no longer serving as the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship, there is no knowing how much longer Satan’s plans will be able to be held at bay.
The True Magisterium
The Antichrist is coming soon. In the coming days I hope to publish a lengthy post with some detailed advice on avoiding his snares (subscribe with your email address on the upper right hand sidebar to be alerted when it is posted). But his tentacles are already spread about the Church and the world. Among his primary objectives? Opposing the True Magisterium. The extreme importance of faithfulness to the True Magisterium has become a clarion call of Heaven’s messages to many living seers, to the point where it is more than safe to say that this call is now a constituent of the Prophetic Consensus. Pedro Regis, Gisella Cardia, Our Lady of Zaro, Luz de Maria. Message after message after message. Clearly, the inclusion of the word “true” implies that discerning what actually is Magisterium has unfortunately become difficult. We can no longer simply trust that our priests, Bishops, and even our Pope, are actually speaking the true Magisterium in their preaching and teaching. But do not take this admonition in the wrong sense. This Heavenly call to “remain faithful to the True Magisterium” does not mean that we must now sift through the actual text of the Magisterial documents themselves (e.g. Vatican II) in order to ascertain which content, within them, is and is not “True” Magisterium. Though the “rad trads” would have you do that, that is not the right approach, and will only lead you to schism (which, along with heresy, is also a mortal sin). Instead, what we must do is heed only what is actually written within the actual text ofthe actual Magisterial Documents. This requires reading. Above all, read and heed the Bible and the Catechism; if anything contradicts what is clearly contained within these two sources, then reject it, no matter from whence the contradiction comes. This will increasingly require being at odds with more and more priests, Bishops, Conferences of Bishops, and, yes, even the Pope himself in his personal non-Magisterial opinions (e.g. his endorsement of homosexual civil unions). But fear not:
If what Heaven has been warning us about for years now is true – and indeed it is – then we should not have expected anything else. Stay close to the Bishops I listed above (and others like them). Keep listening to Heaven’s Messages. Repent, pray, and read Scripture. God will not leave us as orphans – no, rather, He will only vastly increase His grace in the coming days; in even greater proportion than the corresponding escalation of evil we will witness around us. And He will send The Warning before we are out of options. Remain Faithful. He is near.
Daniel O'Connor's Blog 