To Tickle Itching Ears One Must Abandon The Holy Cross

Two recent articles on this site (Going the Way of All Heretical Sects and “There’s Been This Division”) have discussed Jorge Mario Berogolgio’s apostate program on the family in light of “pastoral realities.” This apostate program, however, is nothing new as it started with Martin Luther in Germany and King Henry VIII in England in the Sixteenth Century.

What began in the Sixteenth Century in the West, around half a millennium after the Orthodox broke from Rome and eventually established their own “doctrine,” if you will, on Holy Matrimony, had to spiral out of control in subsequent centuries. The Protestant Revolution was all about lust and divorce. The “theology” was added by Luther and others, including John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley and John Knox and Ulrich Zwingli, to justify the satisfaction of sinful desires at all times without guilt or shame. Families were bound to suffer terrible consequences from the instability introduced by this revolution. Disorder and chaos in the family has led to disorder and chaos within nations.

This degeneration was inevitable. Luther and Calvin and Cranmer and Wesley and Knox and Zwingli sought to tickle the itching ears of men who wanted to persist in their sins of carnal pleasures outside the context of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and, ultimately, without being “worried” about “unwanted pregnancies” and, in our own day today, without any concern for the natural use of the generative powers God gave to man to continue the species and thus to give Him adorers here on earth as members of His Holy Church. Fornication, adultery, contraception, abortion and sodomy lead to nations that wind up being brought to their knees as the obsession of their populace with carnal pleasures as the sole end of human existence on earth rot from inside, thus making them ripe for easy pickings by other nations whose leaders desire to take advantage of such moral licentiousness.

The cultural decadence of the Rome under the Caesars was matched by the increasing growth of confiscatory taxes, the growth of governmental bureaucracies and the regulations spawned thereby and a proliferation of foreign wars. The attention of the public was diverted from the growing power of the state by the “bread and circuses” offered by the Caesars in the form of the persecution of our own spiritual ancestors for their refusal to “blend in” with the rest of the populace. Indeed, Edward Gibbon, no friend of the Catholic Faith whatsoever, listed the following in his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as contributing factors to Rome’s demise:

  1. The rapid increase of divorce; the undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society.
  2. Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.
  3.  The mad craze for pleasure; sports becoming every year more exciting and more brutal.
  4. The building of gigantic armaments when the real enemy was within, the decadence of the people.
  5. The decay of religion — faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life and becoming impotent to warn and guide the people. (As summarized by Dr. Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order.)

Sound familiar?

Much as they were in 67 A.D. when the decadent Emperor Nero began the era of persecution, Catholics were blamed by many in Rome for the decline of the empire as it was collapsing under the weight of its own captivity to the devil. Catholics were considered to be “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “judgmental,” “unpatriotic” for their adherence to the true Faith, to which they bore a heroic witness. Quoting Saint Augustine, Pope Leo XIII wrote in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, of the calumnies uttered against our spiritual ancestors, calumnies which are being repeated in our own day as repressive actions are being taken to prevent believing Catholics from professing their Faith publicly or even to educate their children in their own homes according to its holy precepts:

And yet a hackneyed reproach of old date is leveled against her, that the Church is opposed to the rightful aims of the civil government, and is wholly unable to afford help in spreading that welfare and progress which justly and naturally are sought after by every well-regulated State. From the very beginning Christians were harassed by slanderous accusations of this nature, and on that account were held up to hatred and execration, for being (so they were called) enemies of the Empire. The Christian religion was moreover commonly charged with being the cause of the calamities that so frequently befell the State, whereas, in very truth, just punishment was being awarded to guilty nations by an avenging God. This odious calumny, with most valid reason, nerved the genius and sharpened the pen of St. Augustine, who, notably in his treatise, “The City of God,” set forth in so bright a light the worth of Christian wisdom in its relation to the public wealth that he seems not merely to have pleaded the cause of the Christians of his day, but to have refuted for all future times impeachments so grossly contrary to truth. The wicked proneness, however, to levy like charges and accusations has not been lulled to rest. Many, indeed, are they who have tried to work out a plan of civil society based on doctrines other than those approved by the Catholic Church. Nay, in these latter days a novel conception of law has begun here and there to gain increase and influence, the outcome, as it is maintained, of an age arrived at full stature, and the result of progressive liberty. But, though endeavors of various kinds have been ventured on, it is clear that no better mode has been devised for the building up and ruling the State than that which is the necessary growth of the teachings of the Gospel. We deem it, therefore, of the highest moment, and a strict duty of Our apostolic office, to contrast with the lessons taught by Christ the novel theories now advanced touching the State. By this means We cherish hope that the bright shining of the truth may scatter the mists of error and doubt, so that one and all may see clearly the imperious law of life which they are bound to follow and obey. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

One of the saddest spectacles we have seen in the past forty years is that of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s embrace of the very “novel theories now advanced touching the State” that were condemned by the Catholic Church so repeatedly and so forcefully in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. This has made it more and more possible for the new Caesars of varying stripes, including but not limited to those in Western “democracies” as well as the practitioners of varying forms of overt totalitarianism (National Socialism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Castroism), to substitute their own secular belief systems as absolutely binding upon their citizens under penalty of the civil law.

The gradual acceptance by Catholics and non-Catholics alike of increasingly higher doses of evil over the course of the past five decades has been made possible largely, although certainly not exclusively, by the “reconciliation” that the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have made with the lords of Modernity in the world. Jorge Mario Bergolio and his fellow Jacobins/Bolsheviks in the conciliar church have permitted themselves and their “pastoral ministries” to be dictated by the “realities” of the world in which they live, which are in large measure the rotten fruit of the failure of most conciliar priests and presbyters to use the pulpit to exhort the faithful to reject the wiles of the world, the flesh and the devil. Indeed, the twenty-five percent or so of Catholics who bother to show up at the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Saturday afternoon/evening or on Sunday have had, at least for the most part, men after the Modernist heart of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez and Walter Kasper preach to them.

Condemnations of contraception?

Condemnations of abortion?

Condemnations of sodomy?

Condemnations of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Condemnations of divorce and remarriage without even a conciliar decree of nullity (something this is worthless on its face)?

Of course not.

Many Catholics around the world have been subjected to a steady stream of preaching condemning even the concept of a just war and the imposition of the death penalty by the civil state upon those adjudged guilty of heinous crime after a full and exacting administration of the due process of law.

Many Catholics around the world have been subjected to a steady stream of preaching advocating some form of statism in the name of “economic” or “social” justice and condemnations of the ownership of private property, which is a Natural Law Right of human beings.

Many Catholics around the world have heard sermons preached in favor of evolutionism, environmentalism (including concerns about “global warming”) and feminism.

In other words, many Catholics around the world have heard sermons delivered by men who believe exactly what Jorge Mario Bergoglio does, which is why the currently reigning universal public face of apostasy is so very popular with Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Consider the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, while discoursing two days ago at the Cas Santa Marta on Chapter Nineteen of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, discussed the question that the Pharisees had posed to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?–Matthew 19: 4) without ever mentioning the simple fact that the Divine Redeemer condemned divorce, teaching us that those who divorce and remarry commit adultery:

[1] And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan. [2] And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there. [3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

[6]Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.[7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9]And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.(Matthew 19: 1-9.)

As was the case with Luther and Calvin and Henry VIII and Cranmer and Wesley and Knox and others, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is only following in the footsteps of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself (see“There’s Been This Division , which dealt with the press reports of Walter “Cardinal” Kasper’s address to the consistory of conciliar “cardinals” on Friday, February 21, 2014, and Novus Ordo Watch’s Father Ratzinger’s 1972 Article on Divorced and Remarried Catholics), simply ignores those parts of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition he believes are “too harsh” for the Catholics of “today.”

Remember, the conciliar liturgical revolutionaries, who boast of including almost the entirety of Holy Writ in the triennial cycle of Sunday readings and biennial cycle of weekday readings, saw fit to exclude Saint Paul’s condemnation of homosexual and lesbian behavior contained in Chapter One of his Epistle to the Romans:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

Yes, the conciliar authorities, aping the Orthodox and the Protestants who inspired them, do believe in Scriptural censorship. After all, it’s all about tickling the itching earns of those who want to be reaffirmed in their lives of sin, right? Our Lord, the conciliarists believe, came to “comfort” people, not to make their lives “difficult.” So much for “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it” (Matthew 16: 24-25). So much for “For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8: 38).

Much as is the case with how they view Protestant sects as established “realities” that exist because God wills them to exist, the conciliar revolutionaries believe that divorce and civil remarriage without a decree of conciliar nullity is an established “reality” and that it would be “unrealistic” to preach about “rigid truths” that will make those living in sin feel “uncomfortable” or “unwanted.” Thus it is clear that, following the belief of Ratzinger himself, individual confessors will be permitted to “deal” with cases to as to put consciences at ease. This is more or less the same “solution” that has been used by the Orthodox, and I know of a conciliar presbyter over twenty-five years ago now who urged this kind of “solution” to justify how relatives could attend the “wedding” of a divorced man and a divorced woman.

Truth be told, of course, the “conscience solution,” for want of a better phrase, has been in use for a long time now. It is, after all, how most confessors in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have assuaged the consciences of married couples who use some type of contraceptives. It is also how some confessors have assuaged the consciences of young women who have had their babies killed by means of surgical abortion. A former student of mine told me twenty-eight years ago now that a priest told her that it was up to her conscience to choose whether or not to kill her child. And more common than one would think are the stories of how “chaplains” in once truly Catholic hospitals have justified every moral of moral outrage imaginable, up to and including the direct, intentional killing of the preborn in cases of physical assault upon a woman and even of the direct, intentional killing of the preborn in cases where it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered. This is say nothing about how most conciliar hospital chaplains accept the medical industry’s manufactured, money-making myth of “brain death” and “vital organ donation” and transplantation.

There are two simple words to describe this: Moral Relativism.

Don’t like those two words? Too harsh? Too judgmental?

Fine.

Here are two others: Situation Ethics.

Far from the minds of the conciliar authorities is the way that Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI  wrote about the indissolubility of a ratified, consummated marriage:

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

87. Opposed to all these reckless opinions, Venerable Brethren, stands the unalterable law of God, fully confirmed by Christ, a law that can never be deprived of its force by the decrees of men, the ideas of a people or the will of any legislator: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”[64] And if any man, acting contrary to this law, shall have put asunder, his action is null and void, and the consequence remains, as Christ Himself has explicitly confirmed:Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.“[65] Moreover, these words refer to every kind of marriage, even that which is natural and legitimate only; for, as has already been observed, that indissolubility by which the loosening of the bond is once and for all removed from the whim of the parties and from every secular power, is a property of every true marriage.

88. Let that solemn pronouncement of the Council of Trent be recalled to mind in which, under the stigma of anathema, it condemned these errors: “If anyone should say that on account of heresy or the hardships of cohabitation or a deliberate abuse of one party by the other the marriage tie may be loosened, let him be anathema;”[66] and again: “If anyone should say that the Church errs in having taught or in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of marriage cannot be loosed because of the sin of adultery of either party; or that neither party, even though he be innocent, having given no cause for the sin of adultery, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and that he commits adultery who marries another after putting away his adulterous wife, and likewise that she commits adultery who puts away her husband and marries another: let him be anathemae.”

89. If therefore the Church has not erred and does not err in teaching this, and consequently it is certain that the bond of marriage cannot be loosed even on account of the sin of adultery, it is evident that all the other weaker excuses that can be, and are usually brought forward, are of no value whatsoever. And the objections brought against the firmness of the marriage bond are easily answered. For, in certain circumstances, imperfect separation of the parties is allowed, the bond not being severed. This separation, which the Church herself permits, and expressly mentions in her Canon Law in those canons which deal with the separation of the parties as to marital relationship and cohabitation, removes all the alleged inconveniences and dangers.[68] It will be for the sacred law and, to some extent, also the civil law, in so far as civil matters are affected, to lay down the grounds, the conditions, the method and precautions to be taken in a case of this kind in order to safeguard the education of the children and the well-being of the family, and to remove all those evils which threaten the married persons, the children and the State. Now all those arguments that are brought forward to prove the indissolubility of the marriage tie, arguments which have already been touched upon, can equally be applied to excluding not only the necessity of divorce, but even the power to grant it; while for all the advantages that can be put forward for the former, there can be adduced as many disadvantages and evils which are a formidable menace to the whole of human society.

90. To revert again to the expression of Our predecessor, it is hardly necessary to point out what an amount of good is involved in the absolute indissolubility of wedlock and what a train of evils follows upon divorce. Whenever the marriage bond remains intact, then we find marriages contracted with a sense of safety and security, while, when separations are considered and the dangers of divorce are present, the marriage contract itself becomes insecure, or at least gives ground for anxiety and surprises. On the one hand we see a wonderful strengthening of goodwill and cooperation in the daily life of husband and wife, while, on the other, both of these are miserably weakened by the presence of a facility for divorce. Here we have at a very opportune moment a source of help by which both parties are enabled to preserve their purity and loyalty; there we find harmful inducements to unfaithfulness. On this side we find the birth of children and their tuition and upbringing effectively promoted, many avenues of discord closed amongst families and relations, and the beginnings of rivalry and jealousy easily suppressed; on that, very great obstacles to the birth and rearing of children and their education, and many occasions of quarrels, and seeds of jealousy sown everywhere. Finally, but especially, the dignity and position of women in civil and domestic society is reinstated by the former; while by the latter it is shamefully lowered and the danger is incurred “of their being considered outcasts, slaves of the lust of men.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

The conciliar revolutionaries are slaves of the lust of men, so much so, you see, that it is impossible to think in anything other than purely naturalistic terms. These revolutionaries really do not believe that it is possible for a couple living in an adulterous and bigamous relationship to relinquish what is not theirs to use, namely, that which is proper to the married state alone, and to live as brother and sister.

The conciliar revolutionaries do not believe that the love of God and His Holy Commandments, including “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” are capable of being observed perfectly, and they do not believe that it is possible for human beings to renounce that is not theirs to use in order to advance their own salvation and that of their “spouse” according to the civil law.

The conciliar revolutionaries are the slaves of the lust of men, whose applause they seek from souls they believe are incapable of reforming their lives. These slaves of lust in the conciiar church thus heap more and more piles of hot coals upon their own souls for deceiving people by their false doctrines and truly unkind, uncharitable pastoral practices that tickle the itching ears of the people while offending God.

Far from tickling the itching ears of the people, Pope Pius XII explained in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Professor, October 29, 1951, that it was indeed eminently possible for a married couple to abstain from the rights and privileges of the married state if a wife was judged by a competent medical authority to be able to bear children only at risk to her health and very life:

If, in your sure and experienced judgment, the circumstances require an absolute “no,” that is to say, the exclusion of motherhood, it would be a mistake and a wrong to impose or advise a “yes.” Here it is a question of basic facts and therefore not a theological but a medical question; and thus it is in your competence. However, in such cases, the married couple does not desire a medical answer, of necessity a negative one, but seeks an approval of a “technique” of conjugal activity which will not give rise to maternity. And so you are again called to exercise your apostolate inasmuch as you leave no doubt whatsoever that even in these extreme cases every preventive practice and every direct attack upon the life and the development of the seed is, in conscience, forbidden and excluded, and that there is only one way open, namely, to abstain from every complete performance of the natural faculty. Your apostolate in this matter requires that you have a clear and certain judgment and a calm firmness.

It will be objected that such an abstention is impossible, that such a heroism is asking too much. You will hear this objection raised; you will read it everywhere. Even those who should be in a position to judge very differently, either by reason of their duties or qualifications, are ever ready to bring forward the following argument: “No one is obliged to do what is impossible, and it may be presumed that no reasonable legislator can will his law to oblige to the point of impossibility. But for husbands and wives long periods of abstention are impossible. Therefore they are not obliged to abstain; divine law cannot have this meaning.

In such a manner, from partially true premises, one arrives at a false conclusion. To convince oneself of this it suffices to invert the terms of the argument: “God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible.” To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: “God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able“.

Do not be disturbed, therefore, in the practice of your profession and apostolate, by this great talk of impossibility. Do not be disturbed in your internal judgment nor in your external conduct. Never lend yourselves to anything which is contrary to the law of God and to your Christian conscience! It would be a wrong towards men and women of our age to judge them incapable of continuous heroism. Nowadays, for many a reason,—perhaps constrained by dire necessity or even at times oppressed by injustice—heroism is exercised to a degree and to an extent that in the past would have been thought impossible. Why, then, if circumstances truly demand it, should this heroism stop at the limits prescribed by the passions and the inclinations of nature? It is clear: he who does not want to master himself is not able to do so, and he who wishes to master himself relying only upon his own powers, without sincerely and perseveringly seeking divine help, will be miserably deceived.

Here is what concerns your apostolate for winning married people over to a service of motherhood, not in the sense of an utter servitude under the promptings of nature, but to the exercise of the rights and duties of married life, governed by the principles of reason and faith. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

What applies to a truly married couple in such a situation applies also to those who are divorced and civilly remarried, with or without a  conciliar “decree” of nullity, as to love God is will the good, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of one’s own soul and that of others.

It might be wise to emphasize a passage from the text above to explain in no uncertain terms that the conciliar revolutionaries do not believe that the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for people in “irregular” situations” to observe the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law:]

In such a manner, from partially true premises, one arrives at a false conclusion. To convince oneself of this it suffices to invert the terms of the argument: “God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible.” To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: “God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able“. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

The conciliar revolutionaries do not believe this because they are rationalists in the manner of Protestants and adherents of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry. They are unbelievers.

Sure, there are people in illicit marriages who have come to understand either that their decree of nullity from a conciliar marriage tribunal is without legal force or that they were wrong to have even “dated” after being the victim of a civil divorce as they sought–and perhaps entered into–a civil “marriage” thereafter. Such people must seek the advice of  a true priest, one who will not tickle their ears but will explain to them the truths of the Catholic Faith with true kindness and charity that wills both their temporal and eternal good. Mr. Michael Creighton’s Modern Problems of Marriage is a very fine resource to help Catholics to understand the problems caused by the wrecking ball unleashed the Protestant revolutionaries and exploited by the scions of Judeo-Masonry.

It is clear where Jorge and Oscar and Walter and their kindred spirits are taking the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and it is right down the path of all heretical sects:

  1. The “conscience solution” will be used to put the issue of contraceptives to rest once and for all in the minds of Catholics in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
  2. The “conscience solution” will be used to “help” Catholics who are faced with “difficult pregnancies” in the “hard cases.”
  3. The “conscience solution” will be use
  4. The “conscience solution” will be used to assuage divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics.
  5. Th “conscience solution” will be used to give conciliar pastors the green light to “bless” “homosexual couples” as they choose to “care” for each other in a committed, stable relationship of “love.”

Yes, the conciliar revolutionaries are all about tickling the itching ears of “the people,” for whose applause they live while showing themselves to be their worst enemies:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3]For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:[4]And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Timothy 1: 1-5.)

We must remember that the blind mind who was given His sight by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wanted to see. Do we? Do we really want to see the truth of the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal?

If we do want to see the truth of the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal and to cleave to this truth no matter the sufferings that are entailed, we must use the coming season of Lent to pray, fast, sacrifice and give alms as never before. We do not know if we will live to see Ash Wednesday, no less live to the completion of Lent this year to enjoy the glories of the fifty days of Easter.

More importantly, Our Lord wants us to see the truth about ourselves and how far we are from living a life of detachment from the world and its false attractions. We must see ourselves through His holy eyes and perhaps a good way to do so is to read or to listen to the sermons for the season of Lent offered by Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri (see First Sunday Of Lent: On The Number Of Sins Beyond Which God Pardon No More, Second Sunday Of Lent: On Heaven, Third Sunday Of Lent: On Concealing Sins In Confession, Fourth Sunday Of Lent: On The Tender Compassion Which Jesus Christ Entertains Towards Sinners, Passion Sunday: On The Danger To Which Tepidity Exposes The Soul, Palm Sunday: On The Evil Effects Of Bad Habits).

A reading from Matins in today’s Divine Office speaks us of the fact that Our Lord really gave sight to the man born blind, reminding us of the ways in which the conciliar revolutionaries deny His miracles, including His actual, bodily Resurrection on Easter Sunday:

Our Redeemer, foreseeing that the minds of His disciples would be troubled by His suffering, told them long before both of the pains of that suffering, and of the glory of His rising again, to the end that, when they should see Him die as He had prophesied, they might not doubt that He was likewise to rise again. But, since His disciples were yet carnal, and could not receive the words telling of this mystery, He wrought a miracle before them. A blind man received his sight before their eyes, that if they could not receive heavenly things by words, they might be persuaded of heavenly things by deeds.

But, dearly beloved brethren, we must so take the miracles of our Lord and Saviour, as believing both that they were actually wrought, and that they have some mystic interpretation for our instruction. For in His works, power speaketh one thing and mystery again another. Behold here, for instance. We know not historically who this blind man was, but we do know of what he was mystically the figure. Mankind is blind, driven out from Eden in the persons of his first parents, knowing not the light of heaven, and suffering the darkness of condemnation. But, nevertheless, through the coming of his Redeemer, he is enlightened, so that now he seeth by hope already the gladness of inward light, and walketh by good works in the path of life.

One must note that as Jesus drew to Jericho a blind man received his sight. Now, this name Jericho, being interpreted, signifieth the city of the moon and in Holy Scripture the moon is used as a figure of our imperfect flesh, of whose gradual corruption her monthly waning is a type. As, therefore, our Maker draweth nigh to Jericho, a blind man receiveth his sight. While the Godhead taketh. into itself our weak manhood, man receiveth again the light which he had lost. By God’s suffering in the Manhood, man is raised up toward God. This blind man is also well described as sitting by the wayside begging, for the Truth saith: “I am the Way. (Pope Saint Gregory the Great, as found in The Divine Office for Quinquagesima Sunday.)

May we keep close to Our Lady this Lent, especially by praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits, so that she will help us to live always to live in the light of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, so that we will abide in His truth without seeking to have our itching ears tickled by the lords of Modernity in the world or those of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel of the Sorrows of Our Lady, pray for us.