When the Church and World are One

State Street in Chicago in 1903. Picture taken from McMahan Photo Art Gallery & Archive Website. 

The year is 1903. Horse and buggy is the main way of travel. The airplane was just invented in December and could barely fly 15 seconds over a distance of 200 feet. There are no televisions or radios. Electricity and indoor plumbing are extremely rare. Homes won’t have refrigeration for another 10 years. The city of Las Vegas won’t be established for another 2 years and Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are only territories. The world has not seen the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Communism. It has not yet seen the two great World Wars. It has not seen the bomb. The rivers, lakes, and oceans are pristine, because there are no plastics and other modern contaminates to pollute the waters. Lastly, the Catholic Church is flourishing around the world and Pope St. Pius X was just elected Pope.

One would think times were pretty innocent and good, all things considering. Not so according to the newly elected pope and saint. He thought the world was going to hell in a hand-basket. He even suggested that we were entering the end of days.

Read carefully these words of Pope St. Pius X:

“We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deep-rooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is – apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: ‘For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish’ (Ps. 1xxii., 17). We saw therefore that, in virtue of the ministry of the Pontificate, which was to be entrusted to Us, We must hasten to find a remedy for this great evil, considering as addressed to Us that Divine command: ‘Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant’ (Jerem. i., 10). But, cognizant of Our weakness, We recoiled in terror from a task as urgent as it is arduous…

When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ (II. Thess. ii., 2).

Verily no one of sound mind can doubt the issue of this contest between man and the Most High. Man, abusing his liberty, can violate the right and the majesty of the Creator of the Universe; but the victory will ever be with God – nay, defeat is at hand at the moment when man, under the delusion of his triumph, rises up with most audacity. Of this we are assured in the holy books by God Himself…we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time – the substitution of man for God” (E Supremi).

We should ponder carefully the words of this holy pope and realize that if he saw how bad things were in 1903, what would he say today?

We’ve not seen a true pope in 64 years. We have a hard time figuring out how to explain the difficulty of the Church being virtually wiped off the face of the earth with all the offices vacant and no end in sight. What everybody thinks is the Catholic Church is nothing more than the greatest hypocritical organization of all time, which has been completely united to the world and its standards.

Abominations are viewed as ordinary and praiseworthy aspects of human life. Homosexuality is found as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. “Transgenderism” is everywhere. The Pentagon has recently estimated that over 14,000 military personal identify as transgender. [1] A highly decorated retired US Navy Seal has been identifying as a woman for the past 10 years and is praised for his transition by his fellow Seals. I believe these abominations have feminism as its root.

In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights.” [2] This biblical and Catholic teaching is utterly rejected by practically everyone, including traditional Catholics, who will defend voting “conservative” women into high public offices. Who condemns women working in Congress, as prime ministers, judges, police and military officers, etc.? This is one the greatest evils ever and it’s considered good and righteous by virtually everyone.

“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).

Catholics are in complete denial of the gravity of our situation. Some Catholics have a delusional belief that we’re actually coming out of this mess as we spiral faster and faster to hell. These people don’t think the great falling away really exists except on paper. It’s something that will always exist in the future. According to Pope Pius XI, the heresies of Protestantism was the beginning of the great apostasy of mankind from the Church. 

Most of us are numb to the immorality in our society and deny they are immoralities at all. Catholics are as immodest as the rest of the world as they participate in the very evils the Church has always condemned. The Church is to be counter-cultural, yet you couldn’t distinguish a Catholic from the common heathen.

We all live and eat in luxury. Not even King Henry VIII lived as good as the average citizen. We complain about everything as we fill our belly’s in a climate controlled environment on nice furniture and in the softest clothing.

We have become so soft and pathetic. Never do we take up the Cross of Christ and accept suffering. Very few Catholics truly dispose themselves to imitate Jesus. We cast suffering aside and labor to be comfortable in all things. We care little for eternal truths, but ardently seek continual indulgence of its honors, riches, and pleasures of every kind. We contemn poverty, mortification, and the Cross of Christ. Most of us think we’re following Jesus although we exert much energy in self-love and no virtues.

How many of us “glory in tribulation knowing that tribulation worketh patience” (Rom. 5:3)?

“Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). Can we say that we truly do, when we can’t even go one night without having a nice supper?

St. Paul wrote to the Romans, “And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God…For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live…For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him” (Roman 8:8,13,16-17).

How many of us suffer with Him by imitating His life of meekness, humility, mortification, and submission to God’s Will in order that we may go to heaven?

Not even the scariest prophecies are as scary as the state of our world today. The great falling away is more devastating than any pope or prophet could have imaged.

I don’t know if the following prophecy by St. Antony of the Desert is authentic, but the accuracy is close.

“Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, Faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day’s problems. When the Church and the world are one, then those days are at hand because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of the world. A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, ‘You are mad, you are not like us”. [3]

My own Catholic brethren think I’m mad for posting “extremist” and unpopular ideas. Yet, they were commonplace when the world was Catholic. The false prophets of the world have steered Catholics away from Catholic thinking.

We’re more concerned about who’s conservative or liberal, democrat or republican. We care more about the latest ballgame winner or what celebrity is sleeping with who than with the four last things; death, judgment, hell, and heaven. The devil’s bread and circuses keep man aloof. His greatest lies are that most people go to heaven, sin is not that bad, and God is not that severe. 

“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Matt. 24:11-13).

We’re in a living nightmare. It’s frightening to think just how many will perish for all eternity. Man is oblivious to his path of destruction. Catholics aren’t far from the rest of mankind.  

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Apoc. 3:16).

Fr. Leo Haydock explains this Apocalypse verse in his biblical commentary, “A dreadful reprehension, whatever exposition we follow. According to the common interpretation, by the cold are meant those who are guilty of great sins; by the hot, such as are zealous and fervent in piety and the service of God; by the lukewarm or tepid, they who are slothful, negligent, indolent, as to what regards Christian perfection, the practice of virtue, and an exact observance of what regards the service of God. On this account they are many times guilty in the sight of God of great sins, they forfeit the favour and grace of God, fancying themselves good enough and safe, because they live as others commonly do, and are not guilty of many scandalous and shameful crimes, to which they see others addicted. 

The Church and world are one, because lukewarmness is universal.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] 14700-Transgender-Troops-.pdf (palmcenter.org)

[2] NYT April 22, 1909

[3] [Disquisition CXIV] Quoted in Voice of Fatima, 23 January 1968

Read Full Post »

Catholic Teaching on Women Holding Public Office

“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

 

Read Full Post »

Feminism, the First Sin?

One of my pet peeves in the world today is feminism. I have a particular hatred for it as one can deduce from an article I posted as First Timothy 2:12: The Bible Verse that Nobody Believes In.

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. But what is meant by the equality of the sexes and how is it defined?

The only true equality between the two sexes exists in the fact that when Baptized in Christ, we make up one Body (Gal. 3:26-29). We are equal in human dignity. Within the realm of human dignity, women should have a right to work and have a higher education. However, we are not equal in authority (II Tim. 2:12-14).

The “women’s rights” which are advocated in society by the feminist movement necessarily place women in an equal or higher authority. These so-called rights attack the dignity of the human person. The unborn are murdered, motherhood is downgraded, and masculinity is frowned upon and rejected. Feminism of the feminist movement is a rejection of truth. It is in this understanding of feminism which I’m referring to in this study.

My daughter recently asked, “When did feminism first begin?” I immediately thought of Eve. The story found in Genesis is one of the most fascinating and mysterious found in the Bible. I’ve thought about it intensely over the years. When I began to explain the account in Genesis in relation to feminism, I came up with an idea that seems to make sense to me. The following is only my opinion which I’ll gladly renounce if found to be at a variance with the decision of the Church.

Take another look at Genesis 3:

3 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Notice that Satan went to Eve first, why?

I suspect that it’s because Satan was inferior to God and he understood that his own fall could best be applied to one who like himself was an inferior. God through St. Paul made it clear that Adam was Eve’s superior by natural law in creation (I Tim. 2:12-14). Keep in mind that Adam and Eve were made perfect and enjoyed preternatural gifts and wisdom that surpasses our own today. Also, noteworthy is the fact that Satan (whose intelligence was given to him by God) knows that the best way to get to Adam is through Eve. Don’t we know that the best way to go to Jesus, the Second Adam, is through Mary, the New Eve?

The devil first attempted to make God out to be unreasonable when he asked Eve, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” because what else were Adam and Eve going to eat but fruit from the trees in the garden? However, Eve knew her faith well. She countered the devil with God’s reasonable command that it was only from one tree in the garden they couldn’t eat from. Eve added, “nor even touch it,” because she knows to stay away from it completely.

Now Satan presents the lie and deception that eating the fruit from that tree of knowledge would bring wisdom that would make one like God. It was Satan’s desire to be like God, too. Eve knows that if she eats of the tree before Adam believing the devil’s lie is true, she will possess wisdom and power over and above that of Adam. She will be like God, but Adam will not. She will no longer be his inferior but rather his superior. Hence, the fruit looked appealing.

Eve should have consulted Adam before making such a big decision but she didn’t. This was her big chance to get ahead and become like God and Adam’s boss.

Once she ate, she immediately knew it was a mistake. Whenever a soul loses sanctifying grace, he is aware of it and feels the pain of loss. In Eve’s case, it would be even greater because of the preternatural gifts and the state of grace she was conceived in. Her loss would have been devastating to her. Not only did she lose God and sanctifying grace, but she became even lesser to Adam than before. If Adam never sinned, I wonder what the relation between men and women would be like today.

Instead of preventing Adam from making the same mistake, she had to bring him down to her level. The profound humiliation for Eve was too much. She can’t be the only fool. Eve became like Satan and seduced Adam, who listened to a woman over God. It’s bad when a woman thinks she ought to be boss, but it is worse when a man lets her. Adam should have consulted God first but he didn’t. He let Eve make a decision for him as one who had authority over him and God. Perhaps, Adam was more concerned about what Eve thought of him rather than what God thought of him. He was a woman-pleasing coward at that moment and became less than what he was created for.

Feminism is a form of pride whereby man thinks he knows better than God. Feminism is an affront to God’s order of creation. Therefore, the First Sin is pride which is the root of feminism. Other vices stem from feminism, such as abortion, homosexuality, and so-called transgender-ism.

What I find most interesting about the story of Adam and Eve and feminism is that we don’t see feminism on a grand scale throughout history as we do in today’s world. It’s as if Satan was saving this one vice for the end of time, which first brought mankind down in the first-place. I firmly believe that the problem doesn’t lie in the woman as much as with the man. Feminism only reigns when men become feminists or compromisers.

The consequences of the fall are greater with the sin of Adam because Original Sin is contracted because Adam fell, not Eve. If men today give in to feminism the consequences are feminism reigns in the world. If men don’t give in, feminism exists only in the minds, hopes, and dreams of evil women. Alas, feminism reigns in our world because men are feminists and/or cowards. So while feminism concerns the First Sin, it is the compromise of Adam that sealed our fate. Today, men compromising with women either through acceptance of feminism or the fear of feminists, keep the abomination going.

Pope St. Pius X declared in E Supremi on the “the distinguishing mark of Antichrist” “man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ (II. Thess. Ii., 2).”

Pride is the key vice of Antichrist. Mankind rejects God’s order of creation in accepting feminism. In other words, mankind is telling God that His Way and Will is not how it shall be, and this is how mankind puts himself in the place of God. The distinguishing fruits of Antichrist are feminism along with the other vices that stem from pride. Thus, the first sin becomes the last.

Read Full Post »