Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a fake, phony, fraud (apologies to the late Robert Ciro Gigante–see Figlio di Sfachim for the background on the man better known as “Bob Grant”).
Quite apart from being a pious hypocrite and sanctimonious bully who is forever obsessing about Cuatholics who try, despite their own sins and failings, to be faithful to everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is governing as a conciliar “pontiff” just as monarchically as those “Medieval princes” he uses as convenient straw men to set himself up as the “enlightened democrat” who “listens” and then decides. This is all a big fake, phony, fraud act as the currently reigning universal public face of apostasy knows precisely what he intends to do in order to implement his program of revolutionary destruction, choosing to use the facade of such things as the upcoming “Extraordinary Synod of Bishops” on the family to give the faithful an appearance of “collegiality” as he plots in advance to make sure that the “bishops” arrive at the conclusions that he his own words and actions have made inevitable.
In many ways, you see, Jorge Mario Bergolgio is acting the part of an impish, mischievous child who is intent on orchestrating everything to get his way. He can be considered a septuagenarian version of Eddie Haskell from Leave It To Beaver. Beroglio pretends to be such an “egalitarian” when he is actually a tyrant of the first order who is making sure that his “unofficial,” “private” phone calls “stir things up” to such an extent than any thought of resistance from “conservative” “bishops” within the ranks of the counterfeit church of conciliarism on such matters as the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics impossible to consider lest the “people” rise up in rebellion against them. This can be called “cooking the books” before the auditors come to inspect them. It can also be called “sandbagging” (a word that has various usages in such situations) the “conservative” “bishops” to make sure that they are isolated from the “mainstream” of the conciliar church.
Thus it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio knew full well that the not-so-innocent phone call he made to an Argentine woman who is civilly married to a divorced man, who does not even have the fig leaf provided by a conciliar decree of nullity, would become a matter of the public record, thus making it completely disingenuous for the master of dissumulation, “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., to claim that what the “pope” says in private in order for it to be blabbed publicly, has no “consequences” for what is considered to be the teaching of the Catholic Church. Although Lombardi has done and said a lot of incredible stupid things since he replaced Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls as the “papal” spinmeister on July 11, 2006, his official statement, coming a day after news of the now infamous phone call became public, stoops to the same level as his 2009 statement that “therapeutic abortions” were permissible.
Here is a news story about the “pope’s” telephone call to the Argentine woman, followed by Lombardi’s statement:
“There are priests who are more papist than the Pope.” A set phrase like any other. Only this time, the lips that uttered it were those of Francis himself, during a conversation with fellow Argentinean, Jakelina Lisbona. A woman who married a divorced man. Bergoglio advised her to take Communion regardless of her personal situation. This little detail ended up as a news story that made it half way around the world.
“Pope assures there’s no harm in a divorced person taking Communion”. This is the title that has been causing a buzz in the media in the last few hours. But it is a misinterpretation because the person the Pope spoke with was not divorced as was originally believed.
“It’s not me who’s divorced,” one of the female protagonists in this story said in an interview with Buenos Aires radio station La Red Am910. Lisbona said it was her husband, Julio Zabeta, who had divorced, but she never married in the Church. The two have been united in civil matrimony for the past nineteen years and have two daughters.
“We used to go to mass, not every day. Here at home, we pray every evening, turning to God always; when someone is in a difficult situation God is the first one they turn to. I wrote the letter spontaneously. I wrote to him because he’s Argentinean, he listens to people and I believe in miracles,” she said.
The woman also said she tried taking Communion again last year but not only did the local priest apparently say he could not give her Communion, he even said she could not access the sacrament of Confession either. “[They told me that] when I went home, I resumed a life of sin,” she added.
The woman finally decided to write to Pope Francis to explain her situation to him. The letter was sent last September.
“The phone rang and my husband answered. It was Fr. Bergoglio calling. The father asked to speak to me and my husband asked: ‘who’s calling?’, to which the voice replied ‘Fr. Bergoglio’. I asked him if it was really him, the Pope, and he said it was and that he was calling in response to my letter dated September,” he explained.
Lisbona did not want to give too many details during the radio interview but she revealed the piece of advice Francis apparently gave her and that was that there was no problem in her approaching the sacrament of Communion. “This received too much public attention. He told me to go and take Communion in a different parish, but now I won’t be able to go anywhere.”
She also revealed an interesting fact: the priest who apparently refused to administer Communion to her, no longer exercises his ministry. He asked to be dispensed from his obligations as priest so he could get married.
According to the woman, Pope Francis also said he is “dealing with the issue” of remarried divorcees; a clear reference to the next two assemblies on the pastoral challenges of the family which the Synod of Bishops is due to hold in 2014 and 2015. “He said my letter was useful in helping him address this issue,” she added.
“Then he told me there are some priests who are more papist that the Pope. He was completely normal with me on the phone and I tried to speak to him with the utmost respect. Now I am overwhelmed by the enormous effect this story has had and I feel moved by the fact that I spoke to Francis. I told him I would write to him again when I take Communion again,” she said.
The Holy See did not wish to comment on whether Bergoglio really did make the call to Jakelina Lisbona or not. But it has not denied the news either. As far as the Vatican newsroom is concerned, the Pope’s communication was private and so there is no comment to be made. (Phone Call Re-Opens Communion Debate.)
The lady doth protest too much as it makes no difference that it was her bigamous partner in adultery who was civilly divorced from his one and only legitimate wife. As I wrote twenty years ago in an article that appeared in The Wanderer, “One Thing Leads to Another,” one is not free to “date” one who is married to another, not even someone, as I wrote at the time as a “semi-traditionalist” in the conciliar structures, who was in the process of obtaining a conciliar decree of nullity. One is not free to “see,” no less consider marrying, anyone who is married to another no matter the decisions of a civil court. The bond of a ratified and consummated marriage is indissoluble, and no civil court’s divorce decree can put an end to such a bond, which ends only with the death of one of the spouses (for a very fine study on this issue, please see Mr. Michael Creighton’s Modern Problems of Marriage).
Indeed, a decree of marital nullity issued by the authority of the Catholic Church is a finding, issued with a level of authority that is called “moral certainty,” that a true sacramental bond never existed between a particular man and woman. It is not a “termination” of the bond itself, something that the conciliar annulment factory has led many Catholics to believe, especially since so many cases involve matters of convenience that have nothing to do with the limited number of legitimate cases that the tribunals of the Catholic Church would handle in a specific year.
Jakelina Lisbona is indeed an adulteress as she married a man who was not canonically free to marry anyone even by the standards, such as they are, of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that is accepted by all but a handful of mostly warring tribes as the Catholic Church. This was not some kind of hidden knowledge. The Argentine presybter who told her not to receive what purports to be Holy Communion was correct. Bergoglio is wrong, and Jakelina Lisbona is wrong to depict herself as some kind of innocent “victim” in all of this when she is nothing of the sort.
Now, to the matter of “Father” Federico Lombardi’s spinning for the unpredictable “pope” from Argentina:
Several telephone calls have taken place in the context of Pope Francis’ personal pastoral relationships.
Since they do not in any way form part of the Pope’s public activities, no information or comments are to be expected from the Holy See Press Office.
That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.
Therefore, consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences. (Vatican Press Office Official Statement.)
Federico Lombardi is living in a fantasy world of his own creation. Anyone who believes that no “consequences” are to be “inferred from these occurrences” is delusional or intellectually dishonest.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio knew full well what he was doing when he telephoned Jakelina Lisbona. As noted earlier, he wants to ‘stir things up” and to “make a mess” in order to make it impossible for the so-called “Extraordinary Synod of ‘Bishops’” to do anything other than to make it part of the pastoral praxis of the conciliar church for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive what is considered to be Holy Communion.
No “consequences” are to be “inferred from these occurrences”?
Well, I think that the late Father John Joseph “Jackie Boy” Sullivan might have used rather, shall we say, earthy language to describe such a statement. Suffice it to say that Lombardi’s statement is simply beneath contempt and an insult to the intelligence of everyone who reads it.
Lombardi’s latest exercise in spin control recalls one his endorsement five years ago of “therapeutic abortion” to justify “Archbishop” Salvatore Rino Fisichella’s condemnation of Recife, Brazil, “Archbishop” Cardoso Sobrinho’s excommunication of physicians who killed the twin preborn babies of a nine year-old girl who had been assaulted by her uncle:
The Archdiocese of Recife made a strong rebuttal on March 16 to Fisichella’s letter in an official document titled “Clarifications” (5) published on the Archdiocese website. Other pro-life priests and commentators are begging for a word from Rome to clarify the now-foggy terrain. Instead, more confusion has entered the picture. Now, it seems that we have an approval of “therapeutic abortion.”
Veteran Vatican reporter Sandro Magister reported the following news regarding the thinking of Benedict XVI on the matter. On March 21, the director of the Holy See press office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, clearly stated that Benedict XVI’s few lines against abortion on his recent trip to Cameroon and Angola had nothing to do with the case of the Brazilian girl. (6)
“Regarding this case,” Lombardi affirmed, “the considerations of Archbishop Rino Fisichella apply when he lamented in L’Osservatore Romano the hasty declaration of excommunication by the Archbishop of Recife. No extreme case should obscure the true meaning of the remarks by the Holy Father, who was referring to something very different. [...] The pope absolutely was not talking about therapeutic abortion, and did not say that this must always be rejected.” (7)
With this statement it would seem the word from Rome has been given. In the question of excommunications, they are absolutely no longer allowed. In the matter of abortion, we have a virtual approval of “therapeutic abortion.” (The Holy See Abandons its Pro-Life Position)
Such is the level of “Father” Federico Lombardi’s ignorance that he can state that it is morally permissible to direct intend to kill innocent human life in certain “therapeutic” circumstances. This lay Jesuit is as much beneath contempt as his lay Jesuit superior, who is a master demagogue seeking to stack the deck in his favor while claiming that he is a believer in “episcopal collegiality.”
Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “advice” to Jakelina Lisbona flies in the face of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “canonization,” which will take place in less than three days from time by the time that this article is completed and posted for viewing.
This is what Wojtyla/John Paul II wrote in a post-synodal exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981:
Living in such a world, under the pressures coming above all from the mass media, the faithful do not always remain immune from the obscuring of certain fundamental values, nor set themselves up as the critical conscience of family culture and as active agents in the building of an authentic family humanism.
Among the more troubling signs of this phenomenon, the Synod Fathers stressed the following, in particular: the spread of divorce and of recourse to a new union, even on the part of the faithful; the acceptance of purely civil marriage in contradiction to the vocation of the baptized to “be married in the Lord”, the celebration of the marriage sacrament without living faith, but for other motives; the rejection of the moral norms that guide and promote the human and Christian exercise of sexuality in marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981.)
Although Familiaris Consortio was couched in conciliarspeak by its reference to “values” rather than the moral law and relied upon sociological research to speak of the situations that faced families at that time, it did nevertheless contain a few passages that some of us “conservatives” saw as a “sign” that the days of “dissenting” over the use of contraception were over.
Little did I understand, two days away from my thirtieth birthday and hopeful that the dark days of Paul the Sick had gone forever, that Wojtyla/John Paul II was a revolutionary, a man who phrased what appeared to be reaffirmations of Catholic teaching in the context of his own “personalist” philosophy, which he shared with the principal drafter of Familiaris Consortio‘s text, Dr. Wanda Poltawska.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is thus contradicting what was supposed to be a “settled matter” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as he believes that it is “impossible” for a “married” couple to refrain from the use of that which is proper to the married state. By contending this, Bergoglio is thus denying the efficacy of God’s graces and making a mockery of Pope Pius XII’s instruction to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951, wherein he taught the necessity of conjugal abstinence in cases where a woman’s very life might be endangered:
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.)
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 to will the good, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of one’s own soul and that of others. Jorge Mario Bergoglio simply does not believe this.
Familiaris Consortio, on the other hand, being based on false premises, including “natural family planning, was bound to give rise to mutations. Indeed, heresy and and error are bound to lead to mutations over the course of time. There is indeed nothing stable, nothing secure in the doctrines of the Modernists, something that Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: ‘These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.’ On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ”Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason’; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ”The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.’ Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: ‘Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.’ (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
What is important to remember, however, is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s telephone call to Jakelina Lisbona, coming just two months after Walter “Cardinal” Kasper’s address to the consistory of conciliar “cardinals” on Friday, February 21, 2014, is just the logical and inevitable result of the inversion of the ends of marriage that had infected Protestantism from its very revolutionary inception and which some Catholic authors, most notably the late Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand and Father Herbert Doms began to propagate as early as the 1920s.
An April 1, 1944, decree of the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII condemned the inversion of the ends of marriage in no uncertain terms:
Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.
In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.
In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.
This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the questions was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)
Yet it would be less than a quarter of a century later that Giovanni Montini/Paul VI endorsed this view in two of his revolutionary documents, Populorum Progressio, March 25, 1967, and Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, adopted Hildebrand/Doms inversion of marriage while at the same time employing the revolutionary language of “responsible parenthood” being propagated by Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood:
37. There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.
There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.
Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39) (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1967.)
And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents.”8
10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of “responsible parenthood,” which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.
In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.
In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.
In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.
11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, “noble and worthy,”and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968. For a fuller discussion of how “family limitation” became the norm in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, please see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.)
It is a slippery slope from the inversion of the ends of marriage to the abyss of “family limitation,” albeit by “natural” means, and from there to a naturalistic view of “love that has died” to justify considering the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried as a work of “mercy” in a time of alleged pastoral “challenges.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s efforts to “cook the books” insofar as universalizing what he told Jakelina Lisbona over the telephone is the logical result of placing the “happiness” of human beings above the love of God and a faithful adherence to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
Even two theologians who opposed the personalist view of marriage that was condemned by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on April 1, 1944, Fathers John C. Ford, S.J., and Gerald Kelly, S.J., nonetheless undermined the ends of marriage by their cautious work in the 1950s and more open work thereafter to promote “natural means” to “limit” the size of families.Fathers Ford and Kelly, played a major role to advance the concept of “responsible parenthood” that was “papally”popularized by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and Karol Wotyla/John Paul II.
Fathers Ford and Kelly knew what they were doing in the 1950s. They were simply biding their time until the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, which made it possible for them to write freely of “family limitation” in the 1960s following Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s “opening to the world” and the work of the “Second” Vatican Council that continued under Montini/Paul VI. A website devoted to the work of Father Ford made this very clear:
Though Ford never publicly criticized Pius XII or the Roman Curia, he shared the dissatisfaction then common among theologians with the overly cautious attitude of the Holy See toward innovations of any sort. He also thought Pius XII had attempted to settle some difficult moral questions without adequate study and reflection. Thus, Ford was pleased by the more open approach of the new pontificate and looked forward to the coming Council in the hope that it would pave the way for needed renewal in the Church, not least in moral theology. (John C. Ford, S.J.)
Fathers Ford and Kelly went so far in the 1960s as to propose a “proper” number of children for families in “developed” nations:
There may be difficulty in determining the exact limit for various countries; but certainly today in the United States a family of four children would be sufficient to satisfy the duty. (Fathers John C. Ford, S.J., and Gerald Kelly, S.J., Contemporary Moral Problems, Volume 2, The Newman Press, 1964, p. 423.)
Yes, the ends and fecundity of marriage have been under attack for a long time now. It is only logical that there should be attacks on the indissolubility of ratified and consummated marriages coming from the man that most people in the world believe is “Pope Francis.” Anything to tickle the itching ears of the “people.”
There is no getting this conciliar “toothpaste” back in the tube. Indeed, how can the weight of sentiment in favor of “gay marriage” with “church sanction” be resisted over the course of time when the “pope” himself permits one of his “bishops” to baptize a “child” of lesbian women who have no intention of adhering to teaching of the Divine Redeemer as He has revealed It exclusively to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church and when he gives a “green light” to the administration what purports to be Holy Communion who is living with a man she was not canonically free to marry?
Barring a miraculous intervention from God Himself, this chastisement will get worse and worse and worse in the years ahead. How can it not? Butchered babies are being incinerate to provide “energy” not only in the United Kingdom but here in the United States of America as well (something that will be the subject of the next article on this site). We have not even begun to see the extent to which we will be ask to suffer and to sacrifice for the sake of the truths of the Holy Faith that are under savage, demagogic attack from the man considered to the “pope” and his “bishops.”
More than ever before, therefore, we must keep close to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, so that we will keep strong in the midst of the difficulties we face, recognizing that the chastisement will end in God’s good time as He makes manifest the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in fulfillment of her Fatima Message.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Alleluia! He is Risen!
Our Lady of the Rosary Sorrows, 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 Fidelis of Sigmaringen, pray for us.