Feeds:
Posts
Comments

In 1921, Theologian Fr. E. Sylvester Berry wrote about the future of the Catholic Church using St. John’s Apocalypse. He writes about an interregnum unlike any in history:

It shall be war unto death between the Church and the powers of darkness in a final effort of Satan to destroy the Church and thus prevent the universal reign of Christ on earth…

The Papacy will be attacked by all the powers of hell. In consequence the Church will suffer great trials and afflictions in securing a successor upon the throne of Peter…

The dragon is seen in heaven which is here a symbol of the Church, the kingdom of heaven on earth. This indicates that the first troubles of those days will be inaugurated within the Church by apostate bishops, priests, and peoples,–the stars dragged down by the tail of the dragon.

The tail of the dragon represents the cunning hypocrisy with which he succeeds in deceiving a large number of people and pastors — a third part of the stars. Arianism led away many bishops, priests, and peoples. The pretended [Protestant] Reformation of the sixteenth century claimed still larger numbers but these cannot be compared to the numbers seduced by Satan in the days of Antichrist.

The dragon stands before the woman ready to devour the child that is brought forth. In other words, the powers of hell seek by all means to destroy the Pope elected in those days…

Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom. The “mystery of iniquity” gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that “withholdeth is taken out of the way.” During the interregnum “that wicked one shall be revealed” in his fury against the Church.

It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.

The Church deprived of her chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during those trying days. 

(Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of St. John [Columbus, OH: John W. Winterich, 1921], pp. 120-127)

Electronic version (free): The Apocalypse of St. John by Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (1921)

 

 

On August 17, 2021, the employees at the Catholic Center of the Diocese of Lexington were instructed by Bishop John Stowe to be vaccinated by Sept. 1 as a condition for employment. He announced that he’ll support his priests who implement the same policy. Stowe also requires masks to be worn as a condition of employment.

Stowe explained: “This is an urgent matter of public health and safety. There is no religious exemption for Catholics to being vaccinated, and Pope Francis has repeatedly called this a moral obligation. The health care system is now overwhelmed by a crisis caused primarily by those who refuse to protect themselves and others by getting vaccinated. This is unacceptable, and our diocese now joins those employers who have already made this basic commitment to the common good a requirement.”[1]

The implications of Bishop Stowe’s statement are:

  •  It’s morally obligatory to get vaccinated because the unvaccinated are the primary cause of the crisis.
  •  It’s immoral to refuse to be vaccinated.

Why would the rest of diocese be exempt from the requirement of getting vaccinated if the morality and the end of the crisis depend on getting vaccinated?

Perhaps Stowe can make a mandate by threatening a few jobs, which can be easily filled by others, but he can’t mandate the whole diocese without the threat of losing half the members of the diocese, thus losing half of the diocesan income. Therefore, you won’t see a diocesan wide vaccine mandate.

The bottom line here is morality and public health take a backseat to money with Bishop Stowe, who just proved it with his hypocritical mandate.

All that’s needed to stop the bishop’s tyranny is for enough members to stop giving money to their diocese.

As for claiming religious exemption, not only do Catholics have a right, but a duty to stand in their religious convictions against so-called vaccines known to be very dangerous. [2] There are other options, which are a much safer and more effective means against the sickness. Stowe is contradicting his own religion on religious liberty against his own flock. 

Bishop Stowe’s tyrannical mandate is not about morality and public health. It’s about control. Stowe is just another authoritarian on a mission to usher in antichrist against God-fearing people who love freedom.

The so-called crisis depends on the flow of money, which is the god of this world.  

Footnotes:

[1] Diocese Mandates COVID-19 Vaccination for Catholic Center Employees – cdlex

[2] See How to save the world, in three easy steps – YouTube

Dr. David Martin w/ Stew Peters: There Is No Virus. This Is Organized Crime. – Truth Comes to Light

The first damned souls Dante writes about in his Inferno are the cowards who are being tortured by stinging flies and wasps.

In the Apocalypse, St. John lists cowards first among the unbelievers, sodomites, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars and thieves who will go to hell. [1]

Cowards are never the heroes. They are the forgotten losers of history.

Cowardice springs from the cardinal sin of sloth, because the coward neglects his duty to God and neighbor. There are different degrees of the sin of cowardice, but the most severe degree is despair and suicide, which is a blasphemy of the Holy Ghost that’s never forgiven (Matt. 12:31-32).

Cowardice is a sin opposed to fortitude.

Fortitude is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, which is given to strengthen us to do the will of God in all things. Fortitude is also one of the four cardinal virtues, which the whole moral life hinges on. It helps man conquer fear by standing firm against evil. It may cost him his reputation, freedom, or life in the process. Fortitude enables man to endure and/or overcome trials, persecution, and martyrdom for love of God and neighbor.

The precept of fortitude is always obligatory. Therefore, it’s never lawful to be cowardly.

On Pentecost, the Holy Ghost fell upon the Apostles and gave them the courage to preach the Gospel until their deaths, most of them by martyrdom. When we receive the sacrament of Confirmation, we’ve been given the strength of the Holy Ghost. We, too, must be faithful till the end as brave soldiers of Christ in the fight against the devil, flesh, and the world.

We are the Church Militant. Cowardice is the opposite of militant.

The North American Martyrs were some of the bravest men the Church has ever known. In order to save souls, they braved crossing of the ocean where 1 in 7 ships sank in the treacherous waters. Once they reached America, they braved the elements and the savage dealings from the ones they were trying to save. They knew that each and every day might be their very last, but they did it for love of God and Church.

We see stories of brave Catholics all throughout history. I immediately think of the 26 Martyrs of Nagasaki, Japan, but every nation has its martyrs. [2] Just read the stories of these great black Catholics I posted several years ago.  

Cowardice is the opposite of these saints and the Church’s mission in saving souls. When Catholics are brave in their faith, the Church is made richer and stronger in faith. When Catholics are cowardly, the Church becomes weaker. This is no more apparent than with the Second Vatican Council and great apostasy, where, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, 250 bishops believed the council was filled with error, but were too cowardly to come forward and make a stand against the modernists. [3]

Fortunately, priests, such as Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga – Catholic Champion of the Late 20th Century had the courage to stand against them all. He documented the heresies of Paul VI and was “excommunicated” by the apostate. Because of his courage, he helped save the Catholic Church from cowardly bishops, who would have destroyed it, if not for Christ’s will to save it.

Satan used pride to bring about the fall of man and now uses cowardice to finish us.

Unfortunately, all of us have succumbed to cowardice at some point in our lives. I remember one particular time when in 1988, I took off my Brown Scapular in boot camp by a direct order from a superior. To repair this sin, because we must make restitution, I promote the Brown Scapular, give it away often, and have worn it every day since boot camp vowing never to remove it again.

Some people live in cowardice habitually.

Fr. Shouppe tells a story in his book “Hell” where a young man withheld one mortal sin in confession because he was too ashamed. After death, he appeared to the religious community he belonged to tell them he was in hell for refusing to confess one mortal sin.

I know many examples, but one particularly striking example is a lady I know, who believes in the truth of sedevacantism, but will only attend a Vatican 2 mass in fear of losing her marriage. The whole purpose of marriage is to help our spouse get to heaven and bring up children to do the same. In this case, the wife is actually encouraging her husband to remain in his sin. She is helping him lose his salvation rather than helping him gain it. If they had children, she would be setting a bad example and bringing them up in a false religion, where they may end up losing their salvation as well. Her cowardice could cost her and her entire family their very souls.

A common example today is found with the so-called pandemic, where many people have participated in the lie of wearing masks and getting “vaccinated” out of fear of what people will think of them. Not only has scientific truth taken a back seat, but moral truth is disregarded out of fear. Government tyranny depends on the cowardice of the people. It sickens me to no end to see so many people giving in to such nonsense, both scientific and moral. The end result will be the loss of what little freedom is left in the world. America has become a land of the slave and home of the coward. Few are willing to sacrifice a little comfort, much less, their livelihoods or their lives. We are doomed as a nation because of cowardice.   

People fear being taken out of their comfort zone and therefore, cowardice is the way for many.

Jesus counters cowardice in several examples: 22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. 23 And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come. 24 The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord. 25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household? 26 Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. 27 That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. 28 And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows. 32 Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. 34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. (Matthew 10: 28-39)

We may fear losing affection from our loved ones, of being persecuted, of suffering of all types, but God tells us to love Him above all and through our love for Him, we shall overcome and gain salvation. If not, we will lose our salvation. It’s that simple.

No one wants a coward on their side, especially Our Lord! The bottom line is the coward loves not the Lord or his neighbor, which is why he can’t go to heaven as one.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] But the fearful [coward], and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (1899 Douay Rheims – Apocalypse 21:8)

Knox translation: But not the cowards, not those who refuse belief, not those whose lives are abominable; not the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, not those who are false in any of their dealings. Their lot awaits them in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, and it is the second death.

[2] 26 Martyrs of Nagasaki – Movie – YouTube

[3] Bellarmine Forums – View topic – The Suppressed interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (strobertbellarmine.net)

1. Since you’re all divided in faith over doctrines and morals, how is your religion the Catholic Church when the first mark and article of faith of oneness identifying the Catholic Church is missing? [1]

2. What did Pope Pius IX mean when he stated:

 “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.”(Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)???

 

Footnote

[1] The Vatican 2 popes teach that non-Catholics and non-Catholic religions form the Church of Christ and Bergoglio condemns the death penalty as immoral.

That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint)

Are Protestants Christians and Members of the Church of Christ?

A Right to the Christian Name

‘Pope’ Francis’ Heresy on the Death Penalty

“While, however, man is called to share directly in the affairs of the state, female influence can be ordinarily exerted upon such matters only indirectly. Consequently, it is only in exceptional cases that in Christian kingdoms the direct sovereignty is placed in the hands of woman, as is shown by the women who have ascended thrones.”

“I. Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works: “Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators.” Public offices are those in which public authority is exercised; civil offices, those connected otherwise with municipal affairs. The reason given by canonists for this prohibition is not the levity, weakness, or fragility of the female sex, but the preservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to woman.”

Pope Leo XIII confirmed the Catholic Encyclopedia’s very canonists:

“Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.” (Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor) # 42 1891)

Now if women have been prohibited to hold public office, because of the preservation of the modesty and dignity of the woman, what’s the implication when women do hold public offices as we see today, which liberals defend as the praiseworthy advancement of women?

It means the preservation of modesty and dignity for those women is lost. Does modesty and dignity of women not concern morality? 

Women are not even to be dressed as men unless there’s an extraordinary circumstance. Necessity excuses from the law.

Many who identify as Catholics are also promoting the modernist idea that it’s not immodest and undignified for  women to hold public office just as they promote immodest and undignified clothing, especially the kind we see in the hot month of July. 

Moral theologians, Frs. John McHugh and Charles Callan write in their “Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities”:

“Women should not be compelled to take up an occupation unsuited to their sex.” 

The theologians are not talking about the capabilities of women. Some women can be stronger than some men. Some women are much more intelligent than some men and can make excellent decisions. They have the ability to do most every job a man can do and do it better in many cases. The issue is not about the capability of women. The pope, canonists, and moral theologians can only mean occupations that would not preserve the modesty and dignity peculiar to women.

Those who point to Christian queens as proof women can hold public office and have authority over men make a false conclusion.

Queens are not occupations that women go out and apply for. Neither is the mother who may order and command her adult son still living at home. Queenship and motherhood require a certain type of authority unlike any other authority, which exists out of necessity. What public office requires a woman out of necessity?

Today is the feast of St. Elizabeth of Portuagal. She was a model Christian queen. After the king’s death, she retired to a monastery of the Poor Clares and joined the Third Order of St. Francis. Her whole life was devoted to the sick and poor. Her acts as queen were not commander but as servant and peacemaker.

Saint Elizabeth of Aragon in the Alvalade battlefield“, by Roque Gameiro, in Quadros da História de Portugal (“Pictures of the History of Portugal”, 1917).

In defending the morality of women holding public office, some Catholics turn to Pope Pius XII’s teaching on women [1]. The pope, however, never taught that women can hold public office. He taught that they can have political careers as members of public assemblies. Public assemblies can be nothing more than a gathering of citizens to voice opinions and vote. That’s an indirect participation in politics, a far cry from holding the position of president, governor, judge, magistrate, sheriff, military and police officer, lawyer, etc.

The Church has the 2000 year practice that women can’t hold public office, because of the perservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to women. The Church Fathers are universal on the role of women in society. Popes don’t have the authority to say after 2000 years it’s modest and dignified for women to hold public office, because the culture says so. IT’S ALWAYS BEEN FORBIDDEN and ALWAYS WILL BE! 

Accepted norms in our heathenistic world doesn’t make them okay or valid. We are not bound in obedience to an invalid civil authority. We may cooperate with the evil materially, but God only requires our obedience to lawful authority.

There’s a flawed argument that says the 1917 Code of Law must spell out that women can’t hold public office. Actually, it’s the other way around. Because it has always and everywhere been forbidden for women to hold public office (because of the modesty and dignity of women) there would have to be a canon law that would permit women to hold public office, but alas, canon law can’t permit a cultural revolutionary immoral practice. [2] It would be an argument against the Catholic Church if canon law permitted an immoral practice as morally acceptable.

It’s been argued that popes have never specifically condemned it. Therefore, it may be tolerated as permissible. For instance, when Jeannette Rankin was elected to Congress in 1916 followed by other women entering public office, no popes condemn the election and practice as immoral.

The problem with this argument is the assumption that there’s nothing wrong with something, because it’s not been specifically condemned by the Church. Throughout history, we see popes not condemning evil and immoral practices for years and there are several reasons for this. Popes may have been busy with other problems, or they could have been lazy, or they were just ignorant. For instance, the deposing of popes by emperors and empresses wasn’t condemned for hundreds of years as evil and wrong. The popes actually capitulated. Some unjust wars were never condemned. Pope Martin V didn’t condemn the English invasion of France. It was Heaven, which intervened with St. Joan of Arc to inspire the French to fight away the English. [4]

It wasn’t until modern times that women actually became involved in holding public offices. It’s completely revolutionary. Pope St. Pius X was the last pope to really stamp out modernists who wanted to introduce it. His successors were much more lax and did very little to nothing to stop them. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote in his diary about Pope St. Pius X’s successors:

“I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts. Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent. [Fr.] Ed Hanahoe, the only intelligent and faithful member of [Cardinal] Bea’s secretariat has been left off the list of the periti. Such idiots as [Mgr. John S.] Quinn and the sneak [Fr. Frederick] McManus have been put on. [Fr. George] Tavard is there as an American, God help us. From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church. The thoughts of many are being revealed. As one priest used to say, to excuse his own liberalism, which, in the bottom of his heart he knew was wrong, ‘for the last few decades the tendency in Rome has been to favor the liberals.’ That is the policy now. We can only do what we can to overt an ever more complete disloyalty to Christ.” (Oct. 19, 1962) [5]

Is there any wonder popes didn’t condemn the feminism after Pope St. Pius X?

In 1906, Pope St. Pius X told an Austrian feminist, “Women electors, women deputies? Oh, no!…Women in Parliaments! That is all we need! The men have already caused enough confusion there! Imagine what would happen if there were women there!” (Hause & Kenny, ‘The development of the Catholic Women’s Suffrage Movement’, pp. 11-30)

In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal,” said the Pope [St. Pius X], “and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.” (NYT April 22, 1909)

Sadly many Catholics think women are man’s equal. They’ll say I Timothy 2:12-13 refers only to the home and Church, while everywhere else women can rule men. Theoretically, it would mean that women can rule the whole world by holding all places of authority, except of course, the home and Church. What absurdity! The home and the Church are the perfect models for society. Such cultural “Catholics” take the separation of Church and state to whole new level.

Besides, the requirement of the wife to be subordinate in the home doesn’t mean merely in the house, but in society as a whole. It would be impossible to be subordinate to the husband and his superior in society. To be subordinate to the husband means everywhere at all times.

“As Christ is the head of the Church, and so also the husband is superior to the wife in authority (Eph., v. 23).” [3]

Is the Church ever head of Christ? It would be impossible for a wife to ever hold public office and fulfill the role of wife. Does the Church only obey Christ in Church but in society Christ may have to obey the Church? This is precisely the implication of the modernist’s argument. It’s totally absurd!

The principle extends to unmarried women, too, “For Adam was first formed; then Eve (I Tim. 2:13.)” St. Paul’s natural law argument transcends time, culture and marriage. Adam is not just Eve’s superior as husband, but as a man to a woman.

 

 

Footnotes

[1] Papal Directives For The Woman Of Today – Papal Encyclicals

[2] That a contrary custom may make another custom ineffective, is evident; for custom is law, and therefore, as a law is revoked by a contrary law, so also a custom may be revoked by a contrary custom. Only we must notice that the contrary custom must fully cover the old custom and be vested with the requisites set forth above. As to the effect which a contrary law exerts upon a custom, the canon says that it does not revoke a custom unless it contains an express clause to that effect. (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW – THE REV. P. CHARLES AUGUSTINE O.S.B., D.D.)

[3] Moral Theology by Charles J. Callan and John A. McHugh – Free Ebook (gutenberg.org)

[4] St. Joan of Arc wore men’s clothing out of necessity and was never a commander of the French army. She was more like a mascot carrying the banner, fighting, and leading the way like a fearless marine private hitting the beach at Normandy. She relayed Heaven’s commands as a messenger, not as commander. 

[5] Explosive! The Personal Diaries of Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton – Modernism & Vatican II – Novus Ordo Watch

 

My favorite book of all time is probably “Purgatory – Explained by the Lives and Legends of the Saints.”

No book has affected my life more than this one book. From time to time, I’ll pick it up and read it just to find that I’ve become too complacent in my spiritual life. Reading this book really helps to keep me in check and get back on track if needed. 

On Father’s Day, last Sunday, I opened the book and turned to an unforgettable story found in chapter 31 on page 95.

It’s about scandal.

Father Rossignoli tells a story about a famous painter in his Merveilles du Purgatoire. He writes:

“A painter of great skill and otherwise exemplary life had once made a painting not at all comformable to the strict rules of Christian modesty. It was one of those paintings which, under the pretext of being works of art, are found in the best families, and the sight of which causes the loss of so many souls.”

Before the painter died, he had spent his last years painting religious art and bequeathed all his earnings to a monastery, which was a large sum of money.

He died in “pious sentiments.”

Afterwards, he appeared in flames to a Religious and relayed his terrible fate. He tells of an immodest picture that he had painted years earlier and states,

“When I appeared before the tribunal of the Sovereign Judge, a crowd of accusers came to give evidence against me. They declared that they had been excited to improper thoughts and evil desires by a picture, the work of my hand. In consequence of those bad thoughts some were in Purgatory, others in Hell. The latter cried for vengeance, saying that, having been the cause of their eternal perdition, I deserved, at least, the same punishment.Then the Blessed Virgin and the saints whom I had glorified by my pictures took up my defence. They represented to the Judge that that unfortunate painting had been the work of youth, and of which I had repented ; that I had repaired it afterwards by religious objects which had been a source of edification to souls. In consideration of these and other reasons, the Sovereign Judge declared that, on account of my repentance and my good works, I should be exempt from damnation; but at the same time, He condemned me to these flames until that picture should be burned, so that it could no longer scandalise any one.”

The painter begged the Religious to find the owner of the picture and tell him what’s happened and how the picture must be destroyed. He relayed how the owner will lose his 2 children on account of owning the picture and that he will die a premature death if he refused to destroy the picture.

The picture was destroyed and the 2 children died as was told. The author writes about the incident as a whole:

“If such are the consequences of an immodest picture, what, then, will be the punishment of the still more disastrous scandals resulting from bad books, bad papers, bad schools, and bad conversations ? Vce mundo a scandalis / Vce homini illi per quern scandalum venit ! — ‘Woe to the world because of scandals ! Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh ! ‘ (Matt. 18:7).”

When I first read this in the mid-1990’s or so, I had remembered drawing an immodest picture of a celebrity from an album cover in 1985, which I destroyed immediately after reading this story.

I’ve been thinking about the story all week and last night, I was thinking about all the bad movies and pictures made by celebrities. What damage they’ve caused me personally just in the numbness in my thinking. I’m outside all day and the immodesty is everywhere and sometimes I don’t even notice just how evil it truly is. How terrible!

What will be the fate of all these celebrities if they are saved at all? You can’t destroy all the copies that have been distributed over the years including the internet. I know a famous Catholic celebrity with some very immodest material. What can he do? How can he repair the damage he’s done now?

I know what we can do. Stop wearing immodest clothing. Get rid of the shorts, short skirts, and tanks, and especially the yoga pants!

Too rigid? I seem to remember reading how Fatima’s Jacinta Marto was in the hospital shortly before she died and one of the nurses had a  somewhat revealing outfit. She told the nurse that many souls go to hell for dressing immodestly as the nurse was dressed. This was around 1920. How much worse is it now in 2021?

Too rigid? Only a lost soul would say such a thing. Learn the lesson of the painter once in Purgatory and amend your life now!

We are in my favorite month of the year. In June, the days are the longest, work is plentiful, the first batch of honey is ready to be harvested, and the delicious tart cherries, blueberries, strawberries, mulberries, etc are ready to be picked and eaten. Most importantly, this is the month of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

In honor of Our Lord and the Catholic Church, I designed a banner and made bumper stickers out of it. They come in two sizes. Small ones are roughly 3.5 by 7 inches and the large ones are 7 by 14 inches. The actual stickers are much brighter and cleaner than pictures shown below.

If you are interested in having one for your car or truck, you may email me at catholicwarrior@juno.com for pricing, which will vary depending where you live.

 

 

“Extreme Unction” part of The Seven Sacraments by Rogier van der Weyden (1445-1450)

The most important moment of your life is arguably the moment of death. Your eternal destiny is determined by the state of your soul at that moment. Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Extreme Unction or Last Rites for those sick and dying. However, the Vatican 2 religion has changed the sacrament to nothing more than a blessing for the sick and changed both the matter and form of the sacrament. It appears to be no longer valid. This is absolutely tragic for those ignorant Catholics who need this invaluable sacrament.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a wonderful explanation of the doctrine, power, and effects of this awesome sacrament. [1] Also, the late Fr. Coomaraswamy MD wrote a nice piece on Extreme Unction from which I used to write this study.

From the very beginning since St. James’ explanation in Holy Writ, it has ever been the custom to employ pure unadulterated olive oil, sometimes with a mixture of balm, water, or wine depending on which Catholic rite that’s used. This oil is blessed by the Bishop at the magnificent Mass of Maundy Thursday in Holy Week, a Mass so sacred that the Bishop is traditionally attended and assisted by twelve priests, seven deacons, and seven sub-deacons in order to say it properly. The bishop blesses three oils: Oil of Catechumens (Oleum Catechumenorum O.C. or Oleum Sanctorum), Oil of the Infirm (Oleum Infirmorum O.I.), and Holy Chrism (Sacrum Chrisma S.C.). The prayer reads: Emitte, quaesumus Domine, Spiritum sanctum tuum Paraclitum de coelis in hanc pinguedinem olivae, quam de viridi ligno producere dignatus es and refectionem mentis et corporis…(“Send forth we pray, Your Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, from heaven into this rich substance of oil…”)

Pope Eugene IV’s 1439 Bull “Exultate Deo” of the Council of Florence declared that the matter for Extreme Unction is “olive oil.”

Fr. Nicholas Halligan, O.P. tells us on p. 344 in his 1963 book, Administration of the Sacraments, (which is an instruction for priests):

The valid matter of Extreme Unction is olive oil duly blessed for this purpose by a bishop or priest who has obtained the faculty to do so by the Apostolic See. Although for lawfulness it must be pure, an admixture of extraneous matter renders it invalid, if it is no longer olive oil. If the supply of blessed oil (O.I.) becomes too diminished, other olive oil may be added, even repeatedly, but in a less quantity. Although it is not certain that the oil of the infirm alone renders the administration of Extreme Unction valid, in practice and outside of necessity the proper oil of this sacrament is to be used. In a case of necessity and in the absence of the proper oil (O.I.), another sacred oil (S.C.) may be employed under the condition (si haec est materia valida), but the sacrament must be conditionally repeated with the proper oil.

The matter specified by Paul VI in his new Vatican 2 Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick (promulgated November 30, 1972) is the oil of any plant. The new blessing of the oil, which may come from any plant, no longer invokes the Holy Ghost. It reads,May your blessing come upon all who are anointed with this oil, that they may be freed from pain and illness and made well again in body and mind and soul.” Interestingly, the blessing is also devoid of “forgiveness of sins” and emphasizes pain and illness only. One might interpret illness of soul as sinfulness, but it doesn’t actually say it.

It wasn’t enough for Paul VI to change the matter of the sacrament. He also changed the form as he did with all the other sacraments.

The traditional form of the sacrament reads, PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM, INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS QUIDQUID PER… DELIQUISTI(“Through this Holy Unction or oil, and through the great goodness of His mercy, may God pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed [by evil use of sight – smell, touch etc. – depending on which organ is anointed.”)

The new Vatican 2 rite of Paul VI reads, PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM ADIUVET TE DOMINUS GRATIA SPRITUS SANCTI, UT A PECCATIS LIBERATUM TE SOLVAT ADQUE PROPITIUS ALLEVIAT(on the forehead – “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit”, and on the hands – “May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up”)

Since Pope Leo XIII declared, “All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify,” it’s reasonable to presume that “INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS” (God pardon thee), “QUIDQUID DELIQUISTI” (whatever sins) and “SANCTAM UNCTINEM” (Holy Unction)are the essential words.

The new form omits all these essential words, which leads to a different meaning.

Paul VI specifically forbade the use of the traditional rite after Jan. 1, 1974 in his Apostolic Constitution. [2]

Traditionally, the sacrament is executed very reverently, as the priest carries Our Lord in his pyx and only speaks when necessary. Lighted candles and bells are used accompanied by an acolyte. Catholics keep silent, kneel, and pray as the priest passes by. On arrival, the priest will pray, hear confession if possible, and administer the Viaticum. He will pronounce an exorcism over the patient and invoked the Holy Trinity, Our Lady, Angels and Archangels, saints, etc., and anoint the patient with the holy oils with the prescribed prayers, who will then return as quickly as possible to the sacristy.

Not so in the new rite.

Priests are no longer required to wear priestly vestments, no longer are reverent or silent. Rarely if ever are candles and bells or acolytes used. The Confiteor is omitted along with other traditional prayers. “Catholics” no longer are silent nor do they kneel before Our Lord and priest. On arrival, hands are laid and the anointing is limited to forehead and hands. Afterwards, all run down for coffee and donuts in under 15 minutes, much like any weekend novus ordo mass.

In the traditional rite, the priest will administer the sacrament conditionally to a person who had already died within a period of three hours. The reason is that we don’t know precisely when the soul leaves the body.

In the new rite, the instruction says that, “when a priest is called to attend those who are already dead, he should not administer the Sacrament of anointing. Instead, he should pray for them, asking that God forgive their sins and graciously receive them into the Kingdom.”

It should be noted that the Church has never had any objection to blessing the sick. The Roman ritual contains three such blessings. One of those blessings uses a relic of the true Cross in honor of St. Benedict and St. Maurice. These three blessings prove that Extreme Unction is not just another blessing as in the new rite.

I’ve personally heard Fr. Malachi Martin repeatedly say in public interviews that the new rite is a joke and confers nothing. It came sort of as a shock to me at the time. Now that I’ve held to the position of sedevacantism for the past 2 decades and looking back, I’m surprised the Vatican 2 religion even has an “anointing of the sick” for the dying. They act as if everyone goes to heaven anyway, except maybe the really, really bad people, like the Hitler’s and Stalin’s. 

In the 1970’s, Hutton Gibson gave the following explanation of Paul VI’s “sacrament”:

According to the new rite “the priest takes the oil and anoints the sick person on the forehead” (new, perhaps for professional wrestlers who head-butt) “and the hands” (and that’s all) “saying: ‘Through this holy anointing and his great love for you, may the Lord fill you with the power of His Holy Spirit’ (This approximates the new “ordinations”.) ‘Amen. In his goodness may He ease your suffering and extend his saving grace to you, freed from all the power of sin. Amen.’ There follow the prayer best suited to the person’s condition,”* (Now I lay me down to sleep?) the Lord’s Prayer recited by all, and the blessing. Try as I will, I can determine no specific intent or form in this new “celebration.” [3]

I have from a reliable source that the late Most Rev. Bishop Richard Ackerman C.S.Sp., S.T.D. (notable Vatican 2 conservative and Bishop of Covington, KY and part founder of the Sisters of St. Joseph the Worker who live and work in my hometown Versailles, Ky) refused the new rite and requested that Fr. Joseph Greenwell, a SSPV sedevacantist priest, to administer the traditional rite. The bishop obviously knew how ineffective the new rite is and wanted no part of it.

Lastly, my own priest Fr. Michael Oswalt has told us some actual miracles he’s witnessed from the administration of Extreme Unction. For instance, after Father gave the sacrament to a person about to die, the patient immediately got up and remained physically healthy.

The bottom line is that the new rite is highly doubtful, which means Catholics are forbidden to take part in it. The traditional rite is not only the rite used from time immemorial; it has proven itself effective with miracles.

What’s more, the Catholic Church can’t give doubtful sacraments, which proves the Vatican 2 religion is not the Catholic Church. The Vatican 2 religion is an evil counterfeit religion that’s not interested in saving souls, since it already holds in practice that nearly everyone is saved. Its administration of the “sacrament” is merely a theatrical performance that has little to no meaning.

 

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Extreme Unction (newadvent.org)

EXTREME UNCTION (the-pope.com)

[2]  The Sacrament Of Anointing Of The Sick – Papal Encyclicals

[3] Hutton Gibson – Is the Pope Catholic – PDFCOFFEE.COM

Communium Rerum – On St. Anselm of Aosta – Pope Pius X – April 21, 1909

More bitter shall be the consequences of these threats when the vices of society are being multiplied, when the sin of rulers and of the people consists especially in the exclusion of God and in rebellion against the Church of Christ: that double social apostasy which is the deplorable fount of anarchy, corruption, and endless misery for the individual and for society.

Editae Saepe – On St. Charles Borromeo – Pope Pius X – May 26, 1910

9. This wonderful working of Divine Providence in the Church’s program of restoration was seen with the greatest clarity and was given as a consolation for the good especially in the century of Saint Charles Borromeo. In those days passions ran riot and knowledge of the truth was almost completely twisted and confused. A continual battle was being waged against errors. Human society, going from bad to worse, was rushing headlong into the abyss. Then those proud and rebellious men came on the scene who are “enemies of the cross of Christ . . .Their god is the belly…they mind the things of earth.”[18] These men were not concerned with correcting morals, but only with denying dogmas. Thus they increased the chaos. They dropped the reins of law, and unbridled licentiousness ran wild. They despised the authoritative guidance of the church and pandered to the whims of the dissolute princes and people. They tried to destroy the Church’s doctrine, constitution and discipline. they were similar to those sinners who were warned long ago: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.”[19] They called this rebellious riot and perversion of faith and morals a reformation, and themselves reformers. In reality, they were corrupters. In undermining the strength of Europe through wars and dissensions, they paved the way for those modern rebellions and apostasy. This modern warfare has united and renewed in one attack the three kinds of attack which have up until now been separated; namely, the bloody conflicts of the first ages, the internal pests of heresies, and finally, in the name of evangelical liberty, the vicious corruption and perversion of discipline such as was unknown, perhaps, even in medieval times. Yet in each of these combats the Church has always emerged victorious.

17. The reformers that Borromeo opposed did not even think of this. They tried to reform faith and discipline according to their own whims. Venerable Brethren, it is no better understood by those whom We must withstand today. These moderns, forever prattling about culture and civilization, are undermining the Church’s doctrine, laws, and practices. They are not concerned very much about culture and civilization. By using such high-sounding words they think they can conceal the wickedness of their schemes.

18. All of you know their purpose, subterfuges, and methods. On Our part We have denounced and condemned their scheming. They are proposing a universal apostasy even worse than the one that threatened the age of Charles. It is worse, We say, because it stealthily creeps into the very veins of the Church, hides there, and cunningly pushes erroneous principles to their ultimate conclusions.

19. Both these heresies are fathered by the “enemy” who “sowed weeds among the wheat”[29] in order to bring about the downfall of mankind. Both revolts go about in the hidden ways of darkness, develop along the same line, and come to an end in the same fatal way. In the past the first apostasy turned where fortune seemed to smile. It set rulers against people or people against rulers only to lead both classes to destruction. Today this modern apostasy stirs up hatred between the poor and the rich until, dissatisfied with their station, they gradually fall into such wretched ways that they must pay the fine imposed on those who, absorbed in worldly, temporal things, forget “the kingdom of God and His justice.” As a matter of fact, this present conflict is even more serious than the others. Although the wild innovators of former times generally preserved some fragments of the treasury of revealed doctrine, these moderns act as if they will not rest until they completely destroy it. When the foundations of religion are overthrown, the restraints of civil society are also necessarily shattered. Behold the sad spectacle of our times! Behold the impending danger of the future! However, it is no danger to the Church, for the divine promise leaves no room for doubt. Rather, this revolution threatens the family and nations, especially those who actively stir up or indifferently tolerate this unhealthy atmosphere of irreligion.

20. This impious and foolish war is waged and sometimes supported by those who should be the first to come to Our aid. The errors appear in many forms and the enticements of vice wear different dresses. Both cause many even among our own ranks to be ensnared, seducing them by the appearance of novelty and doctrine, or the illusion that the Church will accept the maxims of the age. Venerable Brethren, you are well aware that we must vigorously resist and repel the enemy’s attacks with the very weapons Borromeo used in his day.

21. Since they attack the very root of faith either by openly denying, hypocritically undermining, or misrepresenting revealed doctrine, we should above all recall the truth Charles often taught. “The primary and most important duty of pastors is to guard everything pertaining to the integral and inviolate maintenance of the Catholic Faith, the faith which the Holy Roman Church professes and teaches, without which it is impossible to please God.”[30] Again: “In this matter no diligence can be too great to fulfill the certain demands of our office.”[31] We must therefore use sound doctrine to withstand “the leaven of heretical depravity,” which if not repressed, will corrupt the whole. That is to say, we must oppose these erroneous opinions now deceitfully being scattered abroad, which, when taken all together, are called Modernism. With Charles we must be mindful “of the supreme zeal and excelling diligence which the bishop must exercise in combating the crime of heresy.”[32] · 

29. Matt. 13:25. · 30. Conc. Prov. I, sub initium.·  31. Conc. Prov. V, Pars I. ·  32. Ibid.

Notre Charge Apostolique

Our Apostolic Mandate – Pope Pius X – Aug. 15, 1910

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.” And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

Rerum Omnium Perturbationem

St. Francis De Salles – Pope Pius XI – Jan. 26, 1923

Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.

An old 2012 First Things article by Thomas Pink is making a second round among some recognize and resist folks, like my younger anything but sedevacantism brother. [1] Apparently, they’re waking up to their error of resisting (rejecting) magisterial documents. Therefore, they’re taking another look to see if the documents of Vatican 2 can really be interpreted with the “hermeneutic of continuity.” After all, if an ecumenical council ratified by a pope can be heretical, what’s the foundation to believe anything outside of dogmatic definitions? Perhaps, some recognize and resist folks realize they can’t really be recognizing and resisting as they are.

Their first obstacle to overcome is the religious liberty issue from Vatican 2’s Dignitatis Humanae. They turn to Professor of Philosophy at King’s College London, Thomas Pink who spins the Vatican 2 document to make it mean exactly opposite to what it says.

He begins by giving examples from Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII and said they, “taught that the state should not only recognize Catholic Christianity as the true religion, but should use its coercive power to restrict the public practice of, and proselytization by, false religions—including Protestantism. Yet in its declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council declared that the state should not use coercion to restrict religion—not even on behalf of the true faith. Such coercion would be a violation of people’s right to religious liberty.”

Professor Pink explains: The declaration is not a statement about religious liberty in general but about a specifically civil liberty: religious liberty in relation to the state and other civil institutions. It does not oppose religious coercion in general, but coercion by the state. The state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence.”

Pink encapsulates his point: We can now see how Dignitatis Humanae does not change doctrine after all. Religious coercion by the state is now morally wrong, and a violation of people’s rights, not because religious coercion by any authority is wrong, but because the Church no longer authorizes it. The Church is now refusing to license the state to act as her coercive agent, and it is from that policy change, and not from any change in underlying doctrine, that the wrongfulness of religious coercion by the state follows.”

First of all, Popes Gregory and Leo condemned freedom to error in religion publicly declaring that it is not a right given by nature of man. [2] This is the key issue, a person’s God-given right by his nature as a human person. Not even the Church can violate a God-given right by nature of man. Professor Pink is saying something entirely different than Vatican 2. Pink makes Vatican 2 out to be merely changing policy on civil matters when, in fact, Vatican 2 is changing the doctrine based on the rights of man.

Vatican 2 defines what is meant by coercion:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

It’s true that neither the Church nor the state can force someone to be Catholic, but that’s different from granting freedom to be publicly anti-Catholic. That’s precisely what Vatican 2 continues to teach by granting false religions to publicly profess and spread heresy and error as a God-given civil right. [3] According to Vatican 2, the foundation for this right is the dignity of the human person:

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. [4]

Gaudium et spes of Vatican 2 reinforces the above teaching in Dignitatis Humanae. [5] Ratizinger wrote in his Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected…”

Professor Pink is proven entirely wrong. It is a doctrinal change and it’s about the intrinsic rights of man, which necessarily condemns the Catholic doctrine taught by Popes Gregory and Leo.

Regardless, the state does not need the Church to grant authorization to prohibit public error against God. The Church does not govern non-Catholics, the state does. Pope Leo XIII declared that it was quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.[6] That means the state must NOT demand, defend, or grant such freedoms, regardless whether it’s a Catholic state or not, because it contrary to divine law. Pink’s explanation that the state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence IS CONDEMNED by the very pope he cites. 

Vatican 2 is clear that religious liberty is a human right that not even the Church can prohibit. It declared that this “right” be made into constitutional law. The results were dissolving the Catholic Nations and Catholic Constitutions around the world. The Catholic State is being declared by the Second Vatican Council as a violation of the rights of man. Countries, such as Spain and Colombia, were forced to give up their Catholic constitutions and follow this document.

Vatican 2 implies religious liberty for non-Catholics is a right by nature of man because of the dignity of the human person. The teachings of Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII say it’s not a right given by nature of man, just the opposite.

The dignity of the human person concept is the basis for Vatican 2 popes to condemn capital punishment, too.

Francis declared: Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. [7]

The Vatican 2 religion is attempting to raise the dignity of the human person to the level of God Himself. According to the council, man has an intrinsic right to publicly blaspheme God’s Name, His Nature, His Church, His Mother (which all heresy does) and he can never be put to death for any cause.  

 IT TRULY TOUCHES UPON THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICHRIST.

 

Footnotes

[1] https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

[2] Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor.  We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.”

      Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature of man.”

[3] Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

[4] Dignitatis humanae (vatican.va)

[5] 28. Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.

This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.(10) God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.(11) Cf. Matt. 22:37-40; Gal. 5:14.

60. It is now possible to free most of humanity from the misery of ignorance. Therefore the duty most consonant with our times, especially for Christians, is that of working diligently for fundamental decisions to be taken in economic and political affairs, both on the national and international level which will everywhere recognize and satisfy the right of all to a human and social culture in conformity with the dignity of the human person without any discrimination of race, sex, nation, religion or social condition. Therefore it is necessary to provide all with a sufficient quantity of cultural benefits, especially of those which constitute the so-called fundamental culture lest very many be prevented from cooperating in the promotion of the common good in a truly human manner because of illiteracy and a lack of responsible activity.

THE LIFE OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

73. In our day, profound changes are apparent also in the structure and institutions of peoples. These result from their cultural, economic and social evolution. Such changes have a great influence on the life of the political community, especially regarding the rights and duties of all in the exercise of civil freedom and in the attainment of the common good, and in organizing the relations of citizens among themselves and with respect to public authority.

The present keener sense of human dignity has given rise in many parts of the world to attempts to bring about a politico-juridical order which will give better protection to the rights of the person in public life. These include the right freely to meet and form associations, the right to express one’s own opinion and to profess one’s religion both publicly and privately. The protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active part in the life and government of the state.

However, those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to be reproved which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves.

Gaudium et spes (vatican.va)

[6] Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888.

[7] New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty – Rescriptum “ex Audentia SS.mi” (vatican.va)