Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Marco Tosatti on the Pope’s Secret Plans to Potentially Modify Humanae Vitae

Our Italian colleague and friend, Marco Tosatti, has once more been able to detect some important developments in Rome. On 11 May, Tosatti posted an article entitled “Humanae Vitae: Voices on a Vatican Study Committee to Examine the Encyclical of Paul VI.” (Giuseppe Nardi of in Germany has already diligently reported on this piece of news.)

Tosatti reports, as follows (translation kindly provided by Andrew Guernsey):

In the Vatican, unconfirmed reports from good sources have leaked that the Pontiff is on the verge of appointing – or even might have already formed – a secret commission to examine and potentially study changes to the Church’s position on the issue of contraception, as it was laid down in 1968 by Paul VI in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. That was the last document signed by Pope Montini, and it was the formalization of what the Second Vatican Council had developed on this issue.

We have so far no official confirmation of the existence and composition of this entity; but a request for confirmation, or for denial, which was put forward to the competent authorities, has so far not been answered – which could be a signal in itself – in the sense that, if the report was completely unfounded, it wouldn’t take much to say so. As to who could be involved, there are only hypotheses; perhaps Msgr. Vincenzo Paglia, who was recently put in charge of what concerns this kind of activity; perhaps the rector of the Catholic University of Buenos Aires [Msgr. Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernandez], the great theological “right hand man” of this pontificate. But these are just speculations.

As of today, Marco Tosatti still has not yet received either an official denial or a confirmation of the story from the Vatican.

In our own research, we have been able to confirm the story. A well-informed source in Rome has confirmed Tosatti’s account without however being able to give specific names of the members of that commission.

This development, however, does not come to us as a surprise. Pope Francis has shown repeatedly his disregard for the traditional Catholic teaching on contraception (hence modern abortifacients). We remember his claim in 2015 that Catholics do not need to breed “like rabbits” and his proposal that contraceptives might be used in the case of the Zika virus – a claim that caused the National Catholic Bioethics Center to issue a polite correction of that papal statement.

Most stunningly, under Francis’ pontificate, there have been strong open promoters of abortion itself welcomed to give speeches at Vatican conferences. Here we only mention Paul Ehrlich, the promoter of population control, as well as pro-abortionists Jeffrey Sachs and Naomi Klein.

Naomi Klein herself, after participating at a July 2015 Vatican conference concerning Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si, was interviewed and said the following:

[Question:] You’ve been criticized by Katha Pollitt for not seeing the Pope’s “blind spot”—the church’s embrace of gender inequality and its opposition to contraception, even as overpopulation is certainly not making it easier to address the problem of climate change. Isn’t the Catholic Church part of the problem?

Klein: First of all, it’s not true that I don’t see the blind spot. I very deliberately introduced myself as a feminist when I was at the Vatican. When I was writing my book, I debated whether to make the argument that women’s reproductive freedoms were part of the battle against climate change. […]

So I strongly believe in women’s right to choose, and in the right to contraception. But I don’t believe in it because of climate change; I believe in it because I believe in it. I think these rights should be championed on their own merits.

Cardinal Raymond Burke recently made some critical remarks about the presence of such speakers in the Vatican when he said the following:

I think too the terms for choosing those who are invited officially to come and to speak to the conferences at the Holy See have to be clear. I don’t understand how people who have openly opposed the Church and her teachings can be invited to this kind of conference.

[Question:] Like Paul Ehrlich…

Exactly, Paul Ehrlich…A prime example. [my emphasis]

Let us also remember, in this context, that, at the end of 2016, Pope Francis removed all active members the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL). As of today, the PAL still has not received any new members.

As we reported in March of 2017, John-Henry Westen, editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews recently described the change of atmosphere in Rome with regard to questions of life. He spoke at the Bringing America Back to Life Convention on the topic: “After 2000 Years, Is the Catholic Church Altering Its Stance on Life and Family?” As we then put it:

With this challenging topic, Westen addressed the serious problem that the Catholic Church — which was heretofore at the forefront of the protection of innocent and vulnerable life and of moral standards with regard to marriage and the family — seems now to be drifting away from that vocation and orientation under Pope Francis. This continued weakening of the Catholic Church’s doctrinal and moral resistance will inevitably affect all people in the world who fight for the defense of human life, since what is arguably the most powerful moral voice seems now be withdrawing, or at the very least, quieting down.

In spite of the resistance of many well-respected and disciplined Catholic scholars throughout the world, it thus seems that Pope Francis is not willing to stop his dialectically ongoing revolutionary agenda.


218 thoughts on “Marco Tosatti on the Pope’s Secret Plans to Potentially Modify Humanae Vitae”

  1. A “Study” of HV, eh?

    That means he’s said to the members, whoever they are, “We hava to changa the lawa about the rubber juan thingies. Showa me howa we canna do it”.

    The final battle between God and the devil will be about marriage and the family. So said Sister Lucia of Fatima to Cardinal Caraffa years ago.

    And here we are. Just another liberal-progressive protestant sect after all, concerned not with God but with “over-population” and “climate change”.

    Why bother? Outside Tradition Catholics all use contraception already. And then receive Holy Communion.

    • I don’t know if I can take it any longer. At this point, it is more than clear that to Francis/Bergoglio, Catholic theology and doctrine are just ephemeral notions stuffy old men write boring books on, with absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the lives of the “sheep” he keeps insisting his bishops “smell of”.

      Francis/Bergoglio has to know that “changing” the Church’s teaching on contraception is the death blow for Catholic morality. If contraception is suddenly able to be morally justified without pain of sin, then why not fornication, or adultery, or sodomy? The ultimate goal of these modernist progressives is clearly the replacement of moral absolutes with moral relativism . . . and we all know how well the Protestant sects who have embraced such notions are faring.

      The man despises the very Church he leads. I cannot think of any other explanation.

      • Despises and hates. He’s what we called at school a “spaz”.

        Who is he working for? The queers, the Masons or for the doulful shade of Cardinal Martini?

        If all this turns out to be true, as far as I am concerned a declaration that he is an apostate and heretic cannot come soon enough.

        How much situational ethics do you like? One lump or two?

          • Boy, it REALLY is hard letting Christ continue sleeping in His boat while the storm rages all around. I can only imagine how bad the storm was when those very experienced fishermen were, “freeked” out.

      • Usual Propagandizing…
        Throw out a100 Tons of Caca, & see what “Sticks
        to the Wall”!
        “Vatican sources…”!
        WHO!?!?! The possibilities:
        Janitors? Cooks?
        Housekeepers? Launders?
        Mechanics? StreetCleaners?
        Plumbers? Shop Owners? Grounds Keepers?
        FYI–ALL of the above are, “Vatican Insiders”!! What IS becoming more apparent daily, is the Jansenism rampent in those claiming to be RC…Get a Grip People!

        • While the sources are as yet unconfirmed, Maike Hickson has reported on a great number of these sorts of things and, in almost all cases, ends up being right. And Marco Tosatti, the first to break this story, has an even better track record. It’s entirely possible to acknowledge more than one crisis going on at the same time you know.

        • If in six months’ time, there has been no undermining of Humanae Vitae to speak of, then you may be right to imply that this was merely scaremongering. But to jump in now with both feet and start chiding people with ‘The bogeyman isn’t real’ when the evidence of the last 4+ years is completely to the contrary, is either worryingly naïve or deliberately blinkered. Way past time to remove those blinkers, Kathleen.

          (And those 100 tons of caca? They’ve already been well spread in the form of Evangelii Gaudium, Laudato Sí and Amoris Laetitia).

        • You are, in effect, implying that such as Marco Tosatti, or Sandro Magister, or Edward Pentin, or Maike Hickson are purveyors of scurrilous, baseless gossip. These are people of great integrity and journalistic credentials of the highest order. It is unthinkable that any of them would publish anything without being confident of their sources. This is no watertight guarantee of the 100% accuracy of any given article that they write, and neither would they ever attempt to give such an assurance, and we read what they write with that caution in mind. Maybe you’ve heard so much about “fake news” in recent times that you feel the need to see everything from that perspective.

  2. If these ideas do come to fruition many souls could be lost.

    I miss the church standing on her own in society and in the world. The church should be a beacon of hope, morality and truth. I despise the way that the church seems to be heading towards becoming a christian federation of humanity, where all references to God’s will are replaced by man’s will.

    Every sort of sin could become acceptable because mercy will no longer need to be sought from humanity, the sense of mercy is being re-interpreted as an automatic given by God. The healthy fear of God that we should have is no longer necessary because we are being sold a God that is just a merciful and is an almost subservient being to us.

  3. Of course, they do not want to leave a single pillar in the Church standing, except the papacy, and even that only for now, while it suits their ends.

    • How can hardly any cardinals, bishops, or priests are defending the Church? Are they all just a bunch of apathetic wimps? Where is the public correction? What are they waiting for?

        • I’m beginning to think that Burke and co. never thought it would get this far, that they would submit the dubia and Francis/Bergoglio would respond relatively promptly, or least give them the courtesy of an audience. It looks to me at least as if they didn’t plan for the possibility that Francis/Bergoglio would simply blow them off completely, and now they are left wondering how to proceed without the optics making them look as if they are trying to start a schism.

          • Francis called their bluff. They apparently don’t really have the guts for a public correction.

          • How do you know that Pope Francis blew them off? No one knows what went on privately and Burke, feeling powerless for a change, decided to use the Body of Christ to theaten the Pope and it did not work. Burke had no business taking a private affair to the public and thus divide hopelessly the Body of Christ which is desperately trying to remain a Body. I blame Burke 100% for involving people that have no power to do anything except badmouth the pope, or pick sides. That is what Luther did, DIVIDE THE BODY OF CHRIST.

          • You are so totally incorrect! Its Bergoglio that has divided the Body of Christ. He even made a statement to that. Its the same thing with our country. Barak Hussein O. divided our Country and Trumps is trying to do something about it, just like his Eminence R. Cardinal Burke

          • The first step of this evil agenda is to divide to conquer, later control and destroy the Church.

          • Haven’t you noticed that the MO of these guys is exactly the same? the substance is different, but they use the same playbook.

          • Burke hasn’t had an audience with Pope Francis since November… and he’s asked! Even when Francis was busy tearing apart the Order that Burke is patron of, he still couldn’t get an audience. This is from the cardinal’s own mouth. Nothing private has occurred because the Pope won’t let it happen…

          • You may want to take it easy on the Kool-Aid there. We’re long past the time for giving Francis/Bergoglio the benefit of the doubt.

          • The Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta. That’s how anyone should they were blown off.

          • yolanda, your message is nonsense. What makes you think what Bergoglio does in public becomes a private affair when he is asked to answer for his heresies?

            You have no idea what has gone on in private since the beginning of this pontificate from hell.

          • Total nonsense. The affair has never been private. Not for a moment. The Pope published heresy in Amoris. From that moment, and forever, the whole affair is public business.

            The blame is 100% Bergoglio’s.

          • “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Galatians 1:8.

            Two plus two equals four.

            A Pope publishing heresy is an oxymoron. Otherwise, the whole thing is and always has been bogus. So, do you choose two thousand years of the Catholic Church, or Francis? It’s either one or the other.

          • Seriously? First, the dubia are not private. They merely asked questions looking for clarification. If anyone is Martin Luther, IMHO, it looks like Francis/Bergoglio

          • Matthew 18:15:Tells us that we are first to take our corrections to the person who needs it, if they don’t listen, then take it to witnesses, still if he doesn’t listen, take it to the Church and continue to try and correct him.

          • You do not understand the situation, and you do not know Cardinal Burke, who has consistently spoken the Truth in Love.
            Did you actually READ Amoris Laetitia? I did. It is ambiguous.
            Did you actually READ the Dubia questions? I did; They are very respectful, logical and clear, and they deserve a response

          • It’s basic common sense that you learn in grade school….You never get into a fight with a bully unless you are willing to take a punch and then hit back harder. It’s simple Schoolyard Survival 101. The alpha male priesthood has been thoroughly compromised by the homosexual culture that pervades the Church. Talk without action goes nowhere.

          • The schism has been in place for over a year. If the Cardinals are afraid of a schism, that boat left the dock a long time ago.

            That Bergoglio has ignored the Dubia is no surprise. If the Cardinals expected him to respond they’re not as intelligent as I’ve always thought. The Dubia are framed in such a way that I knew as soon as I read them the Pope was trapped. He had the choice to admit he is heretic or that Amoris Laetitia is heretic. There was never a possibility he would respond.

            We keep hearing there are many Cardinals who support the Dubia and who are concerned about the direction the Pope has taken. If that’s true, they are betraying Christ. Sitting on their hands while Bergoglio rips the Church to shreds makes them either accomplices after the fact or co-conspirators.

          • The problem they find themselves in is this: They meant to correct the Pope, but sent the letter to Francis!

          • As men of faith, the men of the Dubia will pray and put their trust in God, the Blessed Mother and the Holy Spirit. I’m sure they know they are up against the power of evil in high places at every turn.

          • Do you mean that the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Father, the successor of St Peter and the Church’s guarantee against indefectibilty is also and at the same time a “power of evil”??

            Where is that in Church teaching regarding the Papacy?

            Maybe, just maybe, Bergoglio is not who you think he is.

          • I respect the Chair of Peter, the holy office of pope, I want to love our pope, but one would have to be unknowing of the teachings of the Church and of Jesus Christ to not see what’s happening.
            You’d have to be wiling to accept the ambiguity and resulting grave errors coming from this high office if you choose to see nothing wrong.

          • His personal opinions must be in accord with the Faith. The act of teaching is one thing, but it is a universal and foundational principle that one must publicly profess the Faith to be considered a member of the Church, according to Pope Pius XII.

            “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” Mystici Corporis Christi, 22


            This is given as a principle with no exceptions. It does not touch upon whether that person is in the hierarchy or laity, i.e. whether they are a part of the teaching Church or the learning Church. If one does not profess the true Fairh, he is not included in the membership of the Church, pure and simple.

            As far as teaching the Faith is concerned, then ambiguity is its opposite. Ambiguity is the “non-teaching” of the Faith. The Church, the Catholic Church, therefore , does not and cannot teach with ambiguity.

          • The venerable P.Pius Xll is right.
            The pontiff is a teacher as long as he is in union with teachings of Christ, outside of what is taught by Christ, is his opinion, there can be no other explanation for what he has said that departs from the faith.

            As the supreme teacher of the Church, the pope, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith must answer the Dubia and clarify his words to prevent the faithful from confusion and loss of faith.

          • You are confusing the teaching office of the Papacy with the nature of the Church, and who is considered to be a member of Her. They are two distinct and different things. Heretics are not members of the Church. Not if heteaches heresy, but if he is a heretic.

            Is the Catholic response to the Papacy simply to accept what he says when it’s something we already know, but when he says a heresy or error, then we reject it? Exactly who, in this strange and unknown scenario, is the Divinely-appointed teacher?

          • Jesus gives us the faith and His Church to protect the faith and spread the Good News. The Holy Spirit is acting in the Church to bring us to holiness of life and lead the way to salvation.
            I understand the nature of the Church.
            I reject a voice that teaches another Gospel. PF is teaching error, in and by himself, along with other prelates.

            Yes, the faithful’s response to the papacy is correct to accept his leadership when he teaches truth over and over again. Yes, emphatically reject what is not the truth. We are not robots or numbskulls, we reject a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

          • So he’s a member of a false religion, but pope of the Catholic Church at the same time. Belonging to a false religion is apostasy. How can an apostate be the head of that which he is not a member?

          • God reads the heart and He tells us that we will know a person by their fruits. The fruit of Bergoglio is confusion and apostasy. Even a new Gospel put into practice by some bishops in the world directly from the words spoken in AL and directly because they were not clarified by the pope.

            The Catholic religion instituted by Christ will endure till the end of time. But these are troubled times and the faith has been hijacked straight from the top.

          • St Robert Bellarmine said that men are “neither bound nor able to read hearts, but that when we see a heretic, we judge him a heretic, pure and simple.”

        • In Fatima, Blessed Mother said that ….. there will be priests against priests, bishops against bishops, Cardinals against Cardinals….. well, is anyone disputing the veracity of those words????? is there a need to see fireworks between Burke and The Pope???? The Pope is been more mature by not fighting it out in public like Burke wants to. That is shameful, it should have been kept private.

          • That wasn’t Fatima; it was Akita in 1973. But you’re half right, I suppose, As Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the message of Akita is the same as that of Fatima.

          • Well, there are some reports that the unrevealed Third Secret (if any is not revealed) had a very similar line, about Cardinals against cardinals, etc. Just thought I’d mention it.

          • I have never come across any reference to this specific prediction being contained in the Third Secret of Fatima. On the other hand, Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, who was a theological advisor to five popes, and who had read the whole text of the Third Secret, stated in a letter to Professor Baumgartner of Salzburg that; “In the Third Secret, it is predicted, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” (He didn’t say “near the top” but “at the top”). The prophecy of St. Nicholas von Flue, (15th. century), while not mentioning infighting between cardinals and bishops, stated that; The Church will be punished because the majority of Her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until She will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But after this, She will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

          • There’s a reference to the Akita-like reference in Fatima mentioned in the newest article on the 1P5 homepage right now (Morning, May 18.)

          • Seems like we might be there now, although I’m afraid to say that, for fear it could/would get worse.

          • Why is it shameful? Cardinal Burke has, as of yet, not actually openly defied the pope. He, along with 3 other cardinals, have asked him questions which, after well over 200 days the pope refuses to answers. Why is it shameful to let the faithful know that they’re not alone with some serious questions and confusion regarding the faith because of the policies and actions of the pope? It has been exclusively the Francis supporting prelates who have gotten incredibly toxic. What is shameful is for the pope to not confirm the brethren in the faith, and to guard the deposit of faith… basically, to not do his job!

          • The Apostolic Exhortation AL was a *most public act* and a shot across the bow of *every* faithful Catholic — clergy, religious, and laity. Pope Francis is “more mature”? He advanced *heretical teaching* in AL and endorsed national bishops’ conferences’ heretical interpretations. By doing so, rhe Pope *dared* the faithful Faithful — from the Curia and the Cardinals on down — to call him on it. That anyone sits on their hands is the shame.

        • They are not waiting for anything natural or anyone human. Not confusing in the least. In the world we live in and the Church of Nice, No one defends what they don’t believe let alone what they do believe…..especially in Rome. The apostasy and modernist heresy have pretty much disabled the Church hierarchy from within with very few exceptions. The generation that produced real saints, like Padre Pio, has passed. We are living in the world of “Make Believe”, “Lets Pretend” Catholicism aka Protestant Lite
          The fact is that it is going to take a supernatural intervention to wake up everyone. Til then PF and cabal will continue to do maximum damage to the Church….unabated. Why? Because they can!

          • I’m just surprised that apparently faithful and strong bishops and cardinals, such as “the Four Dubia” cardinals, Polish bishops, Kazakhstani bishops (especially Schneider) or even so many of the African prelates simply say NOTHING. That there is not even ONE is a bit surprising…

          • They think they can get away with it, they are totally wrong since every body will have to face the divine justice from God. They probably fear more Satan than God that they would loose all the powers and material things if they failed the assignments. Lord. save your Church.

        • They’re waiting for one world church emerges so that they don’t have to follow Jesus and carry the cross any more. It’s too harsh for them. They will be freed and feeling no guilty enjoying all immoral, perverted, secular things that the new Satanic church promises. May God straighten them up.

      • Well you should note that their mentalities (even including those of the so-called Dubia Cardinals) are almost the same!

        • But truly, who are they to go to,,, everything is controlled. The parish worries about picnics, fundraisers, bingos…
          Trust on Jesus…

    • With respect, the Papacy is NOT one of the pillars of the Church — Creed/Sacraments/Moral Life/Prayer are, my understanding of the Four Pillars of the Church; I guess the papacy might fall under the Creed pillar, is this what you meant?

      • I was using the term ‘pillars’ loosely.
        You could also say, ‘The Catholic Faith’. Or ‘The Church’.
        Their only intent is to destroy.

      • Of the four pillars, Moral Life should be stated as ‘Ten Commandments’ IMHO. But the papacy should be the rock that holds the pillars upright.

      • ^This ^is what the enemies of the Church have done to the faithful. They have reduced the Papacy to an optional extra – something nice but not essential.

        The Pope is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church. Now with the succession of dubious characters in Rome since the Council, they have made it neccessary for ordinary Catholics to question the point of the Papacy altogether. They have made Catholics into Gallicans.

        In order to not go down this road, away from the truth, why not entertain the proposal that Jorge Bergoglio is not what he appears to be? Why trash the Papacy, which was established by Christ as the visible unity of Faith and Charity in the Church, when the alternative is more consistent? Why not cut Bergoglio loose instead, and keep the traditional teaching on the Papacy intact? Is it fair to at least ask the question in public?

    • You have hit on a rude reality that none of us want to articulate. The current crisis is a roundabout attempt to undermine the papacy and, once done, refigure the office to suit the purpose of the new “church” they confect. Those who respect the papacy are thus demoralized, neutralized. Wielding boldly “evangelical obedience” as a weapon, and subconscious appeals to loyalty to silence orthodox, pious and devout clergy, religious and laity, these operators are having their way. How is one to defend the papacy when it has been debased intentionally – and from within, no less?
      We are dealing with atheism in a cassock, and it is legion.

      • “How is one to defend the papacy?”

        If Francis Bergoglio holds it as much as St Pius X or St Peter, then how can one defend it?

        There must be another conclusion regarding Bergoglio that we have to admit, if we are to hold the Faith intact.

        • The central core of our Faith IS NOT how one individual exercises the authority of the Chair of St. Peter. Papal authority is clearly defined in the documents of the First Vatican Council which defined papal infallibility.
          “The Holy Spirit was not given to the Roman Pontiffs so that they might
          disclose new doctrine, but so that they might guard and set forth the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles.” [Dogmatic Constitution “Pastor Aeternus” of Vatican I (1869-70)].
          We need to depend on the inevitable passing of this regrettable pontificate and the intervention of the episcopate at the moment Divine Providence delivers to correct course.
          Take a moment and consult the web site of Father Hunwicke at I wish I could say I completely agree with Father Hunwicke on his perspective – but he is a brilliant man, and he offers much to ponder. He is infinitely more learned and credible than I am. Ponder his thought in all four parts of his presentation.
          Pray the Creed. Pray. Read the Catechism. Be faithful the perennial Magisterium of the Church. No one can change that – even a Pope. God will provide the correction when He will. This is a soft martyrdom – those who have gone before us, and too many today, are enduring
          horrors we cannot imagine for the Faith. We endure a martyrdom of pin-pricks – our Lord will use it to make us saints if we remain faithful.
          God reward you.

          • The Church teaches that to be a member of the Church, one must “profess the true Faith”. If someone is a public heretic, he is not a member of the Church. Heretics are not Catholics. It doesn’t matter whether or not they hold or claim a position of authority in the Church. What’s not to get?

          • I agree with your statement.
            Bur it remains to be seen if the pope is a formal heretic. Answering the “dubia” would go a long way to determining the answer. That appears to be why he doesn’t answer. His unwillingness to answer speaks of his character and intention and that of the ideologues who hold him in favor. But, until he acts out and displays his positions clearly in opposition to the Faith — nothing can be done. Canon Law exists for a purpose, but I don’t believe we ever expected to find ourselves with this sort of pope — a lack of foresight that will hopefully be corrected with a new pope in place.
            Fr. Hunwicke’s four part analysis doesn’t solve the problem, it explains it.

          • “…until he acts out and displays his positions clearly in opposition to the Faith…”

            Umm, where have you been these past four years? It’s all he ever does. If you need a declaration to tell you when someone has departed from the Faith, then why does the Church teach the Faith in the first place?

          • You are preaching to the choir, Mike. I agree with you totally.
            Not being a canon lawyer I have to acquiesce to the professionals. Believe me, if their was a canonical basis for indictment …
            There appears to be a distinction between formal heresy and material heresy. From my perspective he is at least guilty of material heresy. There is a very good article about heresy at the New Advent website. It is not terrible long and would provide a stepping stone to understanding.
            Canon law is as formal and procedural as civil law. It has its purpose and is there to protect us in the ecclesiastical environs. Cardinal Burke is among the best of Canon lawyers. We need to regard how he works.

          • “Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice, yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her; they are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold.”

            Father Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, 1927, pg. 128

          • Good work!
            It simply goes to show what a difference a few decades makes.
            As I have inferred, I can’t explain this beyond what I’ve offered. Your reasoning is perfectly clear to me and in my mind I can’t see how anyone can be considered “valid” in their ecclesiastical office if they were in heresy (material or formal) when they entered into that office … whether it be the vows of a lay-brother or sister in a religious order, a seminarian advancing into the transitional diaconate, a deacon to priesthood, a priest to bishop, a bishop to cardinal … cardinal to pope.
            All we can do is what we are doing. Praying. Exchanging in public regarding this Scandal — which far exceeds the clerical abuse scandal — and make known this cannot continue — cannot be repeated.
            But, we are a meaningless groundlings to the clerical class.
            We need to keep praying for them. Their souls are in jeopardy.

          • Great post James. Its great to find likeminded brothers. At least some of us have recognised this crisis for what it is. The disgusting abuse issue is diabolical, but it is also just another rotten fruit of a counterfeit organisation. It is only another effect of a much darker cause.

            Worse still is that there is an organisation purporting to be the Church promoting scandal, heresy, sacrelige and apostasy. It’s main engine is Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. The Catholic Church simply cannot produce such atrocities, because She is Divinely comissioned “to teach all nations”, and cannot lead souls into error or lead them away from the Faith.

            “The Church will be in eclipse“. – Our Lady of la Salette, 1846.

  4. In Galatians 5:20, “pharmakeia” is identified as a work of the flesh. Liddell & Scott translates the word as drugs, purgatives, and specifically, abortifacients. The Vulgate translates the word as “veneficia”, poisonings. Yet modern translations (out of misplaced delicacy perhaps?) insist on translating the word as “sorcery” or “magic”. “Pharmakeia’ gets another mention in the Apocalypse of St. John, where it’s explicitly linked to the corruption of marriage.

    Why are we obscuring and tiptoeing around explicit scriptural condemnations of contraception?

    • To be fair, not even the Rheims/Challoner translates the Latin (“veneficia”) as “poisonings”, but instead follows the KJV and translates it as “witchcrafts”. Haydock, in his commentary, makes no mention of the difference. I am unaware of any English translation that uses the term “poisonings”.

      I’m not a scholar, but this seems to be a situation where Challoner, unfortunately, borrowed too much from the KJV rather than staying with literal meaning of the Vulgate.

  5. Be mindful always of what Cardinal Maradiaga said in January 2015: “The Pope wants to take this
    Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible.”
    Reported at Crux just on this past Saturday, May 13 – of all days — the former Jesuit
    Superior General, Adolfo Nicolas, quotes Pope Francis as saying “I ask the good Lord to take me once the changes are irreversible.”
    There is not a corner of ecclesia that is not under the gaze of those with the intention to
    metamorphosise the Roman Catholic Church fueled by ecumaniacs into a post-Christian ethical cultural society – at best. Given their soft stance on sexual morality, it could go into a neo-pagan cult.
    He and his ilk have to be wiped out of any position that offers pastoral assistance, let alone of authority over a territory — and of the entire Church.

    • I think Bergoglio has got it wrong. The good Lord will not take him, its satan that will take him once he makes the changes that will be irreversible….

    • We need to remind ourselves that nothing any human being does is “irreversible” in the sight of God. Whoever or whatever this evil man Bergoglio believes in, it clearly is not God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

      • These quotes of Bergoglio rendered by Maradiaga and Nicolas I offer to lift the curtain on their disposition and intention. Obviously they believe they are capable of making irreversible changes in doctrine and practice. And doesn’t that say everything we need to know about them? It appears they believe the Church to be their Church and not even God Almighty can stand against them.
        But I agree with you.
        All of the Bergoglian malignancy can be expunged by the next Pope should he do so decisively, boldly and transparently – providing again the rationale underlying Catholic theological reflection, and bringing to a swift halt the nefarious behavior of bad priests, religious and a Catholic academy gone mad with neo-pagan hubris.
        We need to say what has transpired over the past fifty-five years, own it and repent of it — loudly and sincerely.

  6. This guy is a heretic. Maybe even an apostate.

    But these days bishops are career men so even though they disagree they won’t speak out.
    We need a John the baptist… a voice in the wilderness.

    That will come from bishops not in popular places like Europe but rather from Asia and Africa

  7. Those who have ears to hear know that he has already sought to change the teaching of HV with Amoris Laetitia.

    Technically that document only opens to the door to receiving the Eucharist in a state of adultery. But in fact the most poisonous element of the text is that it embraces a full reduction of the moral act to intentions and circumstances (denying the object, which is the true basis of the act). In this way, Amoris has already attempted to change every moral teaching, not only the teaching on divorce and ‘remarriage.’

    An example of what I mean is the embrace by Canadian bishops of the unimaginable practice of administering last rites to those committing assisted suicide under the guise of ‘euthanasia’. The bishops cited Amoris in their statement, indicating that Amoris is able to serve as a foundation for the whole monstrous thing that is unfolding, not only for the “accompanying” of adultery, but also the “accompanying” of suicide, of contraception, of anything.

    • This.

      A quick read of Chapter 3 of AL indicates there is no recourse to the Magesterium in the minds of Bergoglio and his allies, either.

      In fact, I think Chapter 3 is the worst part of the whole rag for it right up front says discussions of such moral ues are not to be decided by the Magesterium.

      At Anglicanism and Lutheranis, folks, not Catholicism.

      Where are Burke, Wrobel, Caffara, Meisner, Schneider, Brandmueller, Mueller, Morlino, Sarah, Sample, Conley, Chaput and the rest of the so-called orthodox prelates?

        • Yes, that’s correct. {I edited it.}

          It is just amazing. So issues of morality are to be settled not by recourse to the Magesterium but by…what? Personal opinion? Papal fiat? As so often is the case, the answer is left in limbo ambiguously hanging out there for anyone to “judge” for themselves.

          It is really quite remarkable that this hasn’t been addressed specifically.

  8. The Pope will not directly contradict Humane Vitae, but will rather use the moral calculus elaborated in Amoris Laetitia and apply it to contraception. The doctrine will not be touched, but merely turned into a dead letter by the abhorrent new “pastoral practices” of accompaniment and discernment.

    The Pope’s support of the U.N.’s population control initiatives made such a move inevitable. We have no earthly support remaining. Christ alone is our help, and to Him alone we must look.

    • One thing about pastoral practices is that they must truly be pastoral, as in actions that help one obtain faith in Christ and His Church.

      • Well, I believe that and you believe that, sure, but what about the very pastors tasked with guiding our everlasting souls to heaven, hmm? They might take some convincing is all I’m saying.

      • I’m complaining and I’m not no one! Look, it’s one thing when Father gets it wrong, but pope is a different story entirely. He’s the Rock! This is deadly serious stuff.

    • I wonder. At some point I believe he will overstep. He obviously thinks he’s right and Church teaching is outdated. It is only a matter of time before his ego insists on getting credit for new ideas.

      (Certainly Christ alone is our help. I do not wonder about that part of your response.)

    • Care to guess who said this???? 3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated,if it is to be respected and applied”. …… Any body??

      How about this???? …..” ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.”‘ Any one??? Who said this????

      • “as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth”, we already have the entire Truth, through the Gospels and Traditional teaching of the Magisterium.

        • It was Pope Francis. (To confirm, copy a few lines of the quoted text and enter them into a search bos.)

      • I stopped reading as soon as I saw that you wrote “the Spirit”.

        What is this “Spirit” of whom you write? We Catholics have the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost in ancient English use. Yours is Manitou / Beelzebub / the “spirit” of the times / the “spirit” of Vatican II? There are so many it could be.

        Spot the language used, understand the mind of the writer.

      • There are so many sins people do not wish to give up, for these sins make them happy.
        So is the nature of the selfish man, which we are all afflicted by.
        So many excuses, some more understandable than others, yet, so many reasons to justify holding on to our selfish and sinful desires/ actions.

        Yet, what was the purpose of our Lord’s greatest Sacrifice of His Son? Redemption!
        The love between the Father and Son, has given us the Holy Ghost which been poured into mankind for its redemption. That is our Lord’s mercy, his grace.
        To allow a person to believe that he or she is incapable of redemption due to habit, fear, duress, etc., lowers mankind to an animalistic state of being, incapable of God’s mercy given.

        Compassion and understanding are more needed now than ever before, for there are so many wounded, alienated souls, who are fearful and shameful. However, without the love and adoration to our heavenly Father FIRST, one’s compassion and understanding can greatly misguide and harm those souls who need the Truth, His Truth, for all mankind.
        Great patience is required, great trust in God is necessary, but one must always be faithful to the teachings of Christ, when praying for a poor soul’s will to give up its sinful and selfish desire.

        We are all poor souls, in need of God’s mercy. It is His grace, His Life within each of us, that redeems us. May God give us the patience, in charity to have fidelity to Christ and His teachings, and to impart them upon those who our Lord wills, most effectively by what we do, rather than what we say.

        God bless you. Keep the faith.

    • But this has been happening for years with many Bishops etc undermining Humanae Vitae. Bergoglio will just add to it perhaps however bringing the issue into greater focus leading to a real crisis.

    • That is EXACTLY his (PF) MO. Leave the doctrine and dogma alone and just and make it irrelevant in practice. Very despicable. I agree with a previous remark that will take Divine intervention to straighten it out now.

  9. Ok. Let´s say he does it. What do we lay catholics trying to be faithful do? I’m seeing all these signs that Pope Francis is damaging the Church heavily, yet I really don’t know what to do (other than have Faith in the True Head of The Church: Christ). What could I do?

    • You have to be faithful. You can educate your fellow parishioners and friends on what the truth is and, when possible, the current crisis. You need to pray, a lot, and offer sacrifices. You can try to talk to your Bishop, or get in contact with prominent bishops and cardinals and write letters.

      Beyond that though… I dunno… I’m wondering the same thing.

      • Can one hold the private opinion that he is not the Pope and take refuge in an SSPX chapel to receive the Sacraments until this is sorted out? I know people who have done just that. The laity cannot fix this crisis. This is the responsibility of the hierarchy.

    • This is the problem with the recommendation and assessment that it is the laypeople who need to fix the problem as espoused by for example Bishop Schneider.

      We must remain faithful to Christ, but some things are beyond the scope of our state and position. We need the involvement of our shepherds. WE can’t do it alone. We need THEM.

      This crisis has clarified my understanding of the need for strong leadership in the Church, and has elevated my view of the hierarchy, even if it has reduced my trust and respect for the men themselves.

      It’s a cliche to blame systemic problems on “The System”. No, God gave us a perfect system. In this case, it’s not the fault of “The System”.

      It’s the people…

  10. Let’s not forget Jorge Bergoglo’s modus operandi. Deliberately plain in appearance, to impress the world with humility, he does not like to speak plainly, as it could awaken the impressed to a very harsh reality. His yes is not a yes, and his no is not a no. As he advises us regularly, we must not see black and white, but shades of grey instead (at least fifty, I guess).

    “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

  11. Wouldn’t be surprised if the final report isn’t already being composed by Tucho Fernandez, ably assisted by the “spirit” and ready to be presented by PF a few months from now to the acclaim of the world and its prince.

  12. Every day I talk with all kinds of Catholic people and literally everybody is in confusion. The devil is working overtime. Saint Peter and saint Paul, pray for us! Archangel Michael, help us in this battle! Holy Mary, pray for us. Lord Jesus, give us strenght and have mercy !

  13. Sorry, I don’t buy this at all. This is fear mongering based on unsubstantiated rumors. Pope Francis has done nothing to change the infallible teaching of the Church during his papacy despite all the outcry. I don’t think he’s going to do anything about Humana Vitae either. I agree that he says a lot of strange things and is pretty loose on doctrine, but he hasn’t issued a single infallible teaching on anything.

    I also agree that his footnote in Amoris Laetitia is deliberately vague but one can see where the Pope is coming from. In fact, I think his position is Biblical. According to Paul, taking the Eucharist is a matter of personal discernment. He doesn’t say that the Church should withhold it. He also says that the judgment brought down by receiving unworthily might actually save the person’s soul. Maybe Pope Francis is trying to follow his lead.

    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened[e] so that we may not be condemned along with the world. – 1 Corinthians 11:27-32

    Sure sounds to me like plenty of people were taking it unworthily. Paul didn’t tell them to stop. He also didn’t say that it was the local presbyter or bishop’s job to discern for the people. So where does that leave us? We have the Bible telling us one thing and Canon Law saying another. I don’t have an answer as to what we should do about that. Canon Law can be changed though. The Bible cannot. The Bible has a fair bit to say about authority in the Church too. It’s not vested in the laity, despite what we would like. I don’t want to be a Protestant so I’ll stick with the Pope, even if he is making some mistakes. I have confidence that God will sort it out.

      • The Pope is free to have any opinion he wants. That does not make it infallible teaching. Dr. Michael Sirilla explained the very narrow scope of papal infallibility on the Episode 39 podcast. Too many Catholics think every utterance of the Pope is infallible. It’s not. Various popes throughout history have said crazy things. None of them became infallible teaching.

        • But, as my previous post you can see above says, a strange utterance can be incredibly damaging. I think it providential that for so many centuries most Catholics had no idea what any pope said in off-the-cuff conversations.

          • Amen to that. The 24 hour news cycle and the internet have led to us getting too much information instead of the measured release of information we were used to in the past. Now we hear raw data instead of refined teaching. The Pope has said a lot of confusing things. He obfuscates fare more than he clarifies.

          • But we don’t live in those times. Francis shows by a thousand utterances that he does not hold or profess the true Faith.

            “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII, 22.


    • Sure sounds to me like plenty of people were taking it unworthily. Paul didn’t tell them to stop. He also didn’t say that it was the local presbyter or bishop’s job to discern for the people.

      You can’t be serious, can you? That has never been the position of the Church. Ever. Where do you get the idea Paul “never told them to stop”?

      Don’t believe me? Here’s what Haydock compiled on the verses you cite:

      Ver. 27. Or drink. Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original, e pine ) instead of or drink. — Guilty of the body, &c. not discerning the body, &c. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body. (Challoner) — The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation. See St. Chrysostom, hom. de non contem. ec. and hom. lx. and lxi. ad pop. Antioch. where he shews that the unworthy receiver imitates the Jews in crucifying Jesus, and trampling under foot his sacred blood. Hence the dreadful punishments we read of in verses 27 and 30.

      Ver. 28. Drink of the chalice. This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz. where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the Church. (Challoner)

      Ver. 30-32. Therefore in punishment of the sin of receiving unworthily, many are infirm, visited with infirmities, even that bring death, which is meant by those words, many sleep. But it is a mercy of God, when he only punishes by sickness, or a corporal death, and does not permit us to perish for ever, or be condemned with this wicked world. To avoid this, let a man prove himself, examine the state of his conscience, especially before he receives the holy sacrament, confess his sins, and be absolved by those to whom Christ left the power of forgiving sins in his name, and by his authority. If we judge ourselves in this manner, we shall not be judged, that is, condemned. (Witham)

      (emphasis added)

      I don’t want to be a Protestant so I’ll stick with the Pope, even if he is making some mistakes.

      Giving the green light, however subtly, for people in adulterous relationships to unworthily receive Holy Communion—essentially “crucifying Jesus”, as cited above—is more than just a “mistake”.

      • Paul is clear that people are suffering from taking the Eucharist unworthily. He is also clear that their suffering chastens them and prevents them from being condemned with the world.

        Here is the NABRE:

        For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment[n] on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

        I am not saying that partaking unworthily is good for you. I’m saying the opposite, just like Paul. The infirmities that people suffer by taking the Eucharist unworthily are a type of discipline from the Lord. So you aren’t necessarily helping them by denying the Eucharist, You may be hurting them because you are depriving them of the discipline they need in order to repent. I am not a theologian but that is how I interpret it. Will they suffer from their decision? Yes! But sometimes a little suffering is exactly what we need.

        The Pope cannot teach error infallibly. This is impossible according to the doctrine of the Church. The Holy Spirit prevents it from happening. So, If you trust the teaching authority of the Church, you have to have faith that Pope Francis, no matter how much he messes up, will not change a single infallible teaching. If he does, then the Church’s teaching is wrong and the Holy Spirit is not in charge.

        • Privately, perhaps, but in the case of public, habitual sinners (which is what AL references), the matter of scandal must be considered. If, for example, every person in the congregation knows that Mr. and Mrs. X are not sacramentally married because Mr. X divorced his first wife civilly without receiving a declaration of nullity (and yes, I have been in parishes where this is common knowledge, yet nothing is done about it), then the pastor is bound by canon law to refuse to administer Holy Communion to them in order to protect the rest of the congregation from scandal. Cf. “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles” by Cardinal Ratzinger (July 2004) and “Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin” by Cardinal Burke (2007).

          • I think this is where Pope Francis is at fault in Amoris Laetitia. He says that it is possible for a couple to not understand that they are in a state of mortal sin and are thereby not guilty of it. At the same time he is encouraging pastors to come along side these couples. How can the pastor do that and not inform them that they are in a state of mortal sin? If he does inform them, then the person has to be guilty of receiving unworthily because they are no longer ignorant of that fact. I see no way for a person to receive the Eucharist if the pastor is doing his job. Therefore, the Pope’s argument makes no sense.

            I agree that scandal is a problem, but only so due to a misunderstanding of scripture. Letting someone receive unworthily has become a no-no because of Canon Law. The CCC says people should follow their conscience, if it is well formed. I say form it well and then let them decide what to do. If they want to bring judgement down upon themselves, let them do so and leave the consequences to God. They will likely suffer for that decision. Maybe that will make them repent and we will have saved a soul. Would that be worth it to you? It would to me.

            You have to be careful about judging people who are in the Communion line. They may be in an irregular marriage but that doesn’t mean they are sexually active. They may have gone to confession and be living as brother and sister and would therefore be eligible to receive. You don’t know what state they are in. Maybe the pastor does and maybe he doesn’t. They could have gone to confession with a different priest. Do you really want to put your pastor in the position of interrogating people at the altar? I don’t.

          • You’re assuming, however, that if they want to “bring judgement down upon themselves”, they will necessarily suffer in this life, thus helping them to repent. What if, however, they do not suffer at all in this life and they therefore damn themselves (assuming again they have been fully instructed in the Church’s teaching and choose to ignore it anyway)?

            I do not follow how you can maintain canon law is in any way at odds with Scripture. Canon law is based not only on Scripture, but also on the teachings of the Fathers and sacred Tradition.

            The pope’s argument makes no sense.

            On that, we can most certainly agree.

          • I would have to defer to Paul. He says they will suffer as did the people in his time.

            I didn’t say it is at odds with scripture. It is imposing a sanction that scripture does not. Paul doesn’t say to prevent people from taking the Eucharist, nor does it say that anywhere else in scripture, but Paul also doesn’t specifically prohibit that sanction either. The bishops have the authority to do so and I understand why they did. They believe they are protecting people from suffering judgement. I don’t think that is how Paul saw it. It appears that he thought the consequences of that judgement would be beneficial. I side with Paul but the bishops get to make the rules, so I defer to them and follow Canon Law. That doesn’t make it right.

            I have a question for you. Did Jesus turn Judas away from his table? No. And Judas paid the price by dying a miserable death in a state of utter despair. Did he repent before he died? We don’t know. Scripture doesn’t say but Jesus’ words at the Last Supper would seem to indicate he did not. Still, Jesus didn’t stop him from making the wrong choice. He let Judas exercise his free will. Shouldn’t our priests be following Jesus’ example?

          • I’m curious, are you Catholic?

            Reason I ask is that your posts exhibit a classic individualistic and personal/individual interpretation of Scripture quite common to Protestant hermeneutics that is devoid of recognition of the broader authority and ministry of the Church as well as the Tradition that goes all the way back to the Fathers.

            It is irrational to say “I follow Canon Law” and then deny Canon 915 and the teaching of the Church as you do, so your posts demonstrate a perspective that while popular among Protestants is not Catholic as the Church has ruled on this issue consistently.

          • As I have said earlier. Check out CCC 1782 and tell me how the Church can deny the Eucharist to anyone.

            I am Catholic. A very conservative Catholic. I can also read. God gave me a brain and expects me to use it. When I read Paul and I read the CCC and then I read Canon 915, I am unable to see how all of them are compatible. So which are we supposed to follow, the CCC or Canon Law? We can’t follow both because they are clearly opposed to each other. My understanding is that the CCC is the deposit of infallible teaching. If that is the case, then Canon 915 is problematic. If they are both infallible, then we have the problem of an immovable object meeting an irresistible force.

            I am just a layman like all of you. I tire of the constant confusion in the Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should clear this matter up but, for some unknown reason, Pope Francis does not want them to. It took them nearly 1900 years to declare official teaching about the immaculate conception and the assumption, so I’m not holding my breath for them to make any pronouncements soon about this problem.

          • “I am just a layman like all of you. I tire of the constant confusion in the Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should clear this matter up but, for some unknown reason, Pope Francis does not want them to. It took them nearly 1900 years to declare official teaching about the immaculate conception and the assumption, so I’m not holding my breath for them to make any pronouncements soon about this problem.”

            I agree.

            I also agree that you should beware the hand selection of Biblical texts and CCC quotes out of context and un-impacted by other passages and the teaching of the Church over time. It is sometimes hard to do, as we want CLARITY. I’m with you, but we must hold to what the Church has taught and the Scriptures as they have always been interpreted. To do otherwise is to slip into the error or Protestantism, and as I have been there, I don’t want to go back.


          • I’m a revert who traveled down the road of atheism and Protestantism too. I don’t want to go back there either. I want a clear explanation from the Church on this and other matters. I don’t know why it is so hard to get one from Rome. We have bishops, cardinals, and the Pope all disagreeing over doctrine with no end in sight. That is not healthy for the Church. This has happened often in our history and the outcome is usually division or bloodshed. I would like to avoid both.

          • I don’t think that is how Paul saw it.

            You don’t have the authority to determine for yourself, as a Catholic, how you “think” one of the Apostles viewed anything. “In matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers” (Dei Filius, no. 2; also cf. Providentissimus Deus, nos. 14–16). The proper disposition for the reception of Holy Communion most definitely is a matter of faith and morals.

            If you can find anywhere in the writings of the Fathers where they express an opinion contrary to what I’ve cited from Haydock or what Jafin has pointed out to you, I’d love to be enlightened by it.

          • I didn’t determine anything. I simply read and comprehended what Paul said. It’s not some creative interpretation. Where exactly did I error in it?

            When I need to know the infallible teaching of the Church, I don’t go to the Church Fathers. I go to the CCC. The same place our bishops go.

            Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” – CCC 1782

            Can you explain to me how this infallible teaching allows for the denial of the Eucharist to anyone? NOR MUST HE BE PREVENTED FROM ACTING ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE, ESPECIALLY IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS. That seems like pretty clear English to me and it is the official teaching of the Church, not my opinion or selective interpretation. The Church has no right to prevent someone from receiving the Eucharist, according to their own teaching. Canon Law 915 only allows denial of communion in a very narrow set of circumstances and even this denial is in opposition to the CCC. Therefore we have a problem. Canon Law does not comply with the CCC nor, in my humble opinion, does it comply with scripture. I don’t make the rules though but it appears that those who do have a problem to resolve and that is why we are having a heated discussion about it all over the internet.

          • When I need to know the infallible teaching of the Church, I don’t go to the Church Fathers. I go to the CCC. The same place our bishops go.

            The writings of the Church Fathers by their very nature carry greater authority than the CCC, as does Scripture. In this specific instance, no. 1782 of the CCC references Dignitatis humanae, which is not an infallible document.

          • The CCC has citations to documents of the Church Fathers. That is how we know it contains infallible teaching. Any teaching that complies with the traditional teaching of the Church in the CCC is infallible. I am not trying to argue with you. I am genuinely confused as to what we, as Catholics, are supposed to do. The bishops are supposed to be clear in their teaching and they are not. Instead they are arguing with each other and the Pope has refused to provide guidance. So here we are, arguing points that we can do nothing to resolve. It can only be resolved from Rome.

            Please see my response to Jaffin above. It explains in more detail what my position is.

          • Conscience is itself subject to Divine Law and Revelation as held within Tradition. It is NOT the final arbiter if separated from those two things. That is to take a wholly secular view and that it the gross error made by the Jesuits who have been pushing this line for many decades.

          • There are many whose “conscience” tells them contraception is OK. So does that make it right…”for them”?

            Others desire to live in “open marriages”. Same deal?

            No, your conscience must be formed according to the will of God and the teaching of the Church. As I have stated, you are reflecting a Protestant hermeneutic in your reading of Scripture.

            As others have stated, the Church through Her binding and loosing authority ACTUALLY has authority. It’s real. And Her Magesterium reflects that.

            You can do what you want, but you can’t call it Catholic doctrine in truth.

          • “I say form it well and then let them decide what to do.”
            Hmmm… that’s kind of like telling someone that if they drink bleach it will kill them, but them letting them decide what to do when you’re holding the bleach…

            Paul isn’t saying “Just so you know, if you take communion unworthily, God will bring judgment down on you… down go decide!” He’s saying that a person, even if they do so, through God’s infinite mercy may be chastised and then repent because of the judgment. Receiving in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege. Sacrilege is sacrilege. God may be merciful by casting judgment in the form of illness upon you to cause you to repent, but that’s his mercy through his judgment.

          • The priest doesn’t know if you are fornicating or committing adultery in your mind or stealing or coveting. Should he interrogate you as well when you present yourself, or should he trust that you have followed your conscience? Why should people in irregular marriages be treated with less dignity than you are? Why are you more trustworthy than them? Go read the Catechism. It has plenty to say about matter of conscience.

            “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” – CCC 1782

            This is the infallible teaching of the Church. You can disagree with it if you like but it trumps Canon Law. The Pope’s teaching in Amoris Laetitia is compliant with the CCC. A person MUST NOT BE PREVENTED from acting according to his conscience, ESPECIALLY in religious matters. It doesn’t get more clear than that. You would have the priest violate that teaching.

            As I said earlier, the pastor’s job is to teach the person what they should do. It is not up to him to make that decision for them.

          • Where do you get the idea that the Catechism is an infallible document? Many of the teachings in the Catechism have, in fact, been infallibly defined, but only because they are sourced from documents that specifically invoke infallibility. The mere fact that something is in the CCC does not, in and of itself, make it infallible.

            Also, you keep neglecting to follow up your reference to no. 1782 with nos. 1790 and 1791, which specifically state that man has a duty to take responsibility for properly forming his conscience, and that if he makes “erroneous judgments” due to “tak[ing] little trouble to find out what is good and true”, he “is culpable for the evil he commits”.

          • So are you saying the CCC is not the infallible teaching of the Church? If not, then what is? How are we supposed to know? The CCC was developed as an instruction book for Bishops so they could know what the official teaching of the Church was. If it’s not the final authority, what is a Catholic supposed to do to find out what the truth is?

            The latter paragraphs don’t invalidate 1782. They simply explain how to properly form a conscience. I agree 100% that most people don’t have properly formed consciences. However, that does not change the fact that you still can’t violate an individual’s conscience. That’s what 1782 says and it makes an absolute statement with no qualifiers. It prohibits the priest, the bishop, and everyone else from preventing a person from following their conscience even if it leads them to sin. I didn’t write it so your argument is not with me. It is with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pope Saint John Paul II who made it official. I was simply pointing out what it says.

            My question still stands. How can Canon 915 and the CCC be compatible in this matter? I can’t figure it out and have found no one willing to explain how they are compatible. Instead I find people who talk around the issue and try to redirect attention to other matters that have nothing to do with that simple question. We have one document that says we can’t violate individual conscience and another that says to do just that by denying a sacrament. Please tell me how a pastor can follow both.

          • TG, it seems to me that the root of your confusion is that you are treating the CCC as if it is the authority to which a Catholic can turn as if it is some sort of final arbitrator. It isn’t. No catechism is.

            A catechism is nothing more than a compendium of Church teaching, distilled into a format for the purpose of instruction. It is not, however, a definitive authority, as it merely collates teachings from Scripture, papal decrees, ecumenical councils, and Tradition. The actual binding, authoritative teachings are found in the documents themselves, as well as the consistent teachings of the Church from Christ Himself, the Apostles, and the Fathers. As I said earlier, just because something is in the Catechism, it does not mean it is automatically infallible, unless the teaching itself was authoritatively defined as infallible. I referred you to the CCC’s position on the death penalty before, which reflects JPII personal judgment. That opinion, however, is not binding as a matter that all Catholics must believe, as previous popes have taught that the state may, for the purpose of deterring possible future offenders and in the name of justice, execute heinous criminals.

            May I recommend Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott, republished by TAN Books? It is an excellent reference for determining just how authoritative a given teaching may be. In addition, I found the following explanation of conscience from a Thomistic perspective that I think may give you some insight into just what the CCC is referring to:

            “What value does our conscience hold when answering questions of faith? As a Catholic can I morally disregard the stated view of the church if my conscience leads me to an opposing viewpoint. You can use a position on birth control as an example.


            Is this an assignment? I’ll give a reply anyway, since I think this is an important thing for people to understand. For Aquinas, every conscience binds, even an erring one. This means that if there is something that you believe you cannot do (after having taken care to form your conscience as well as you can), even if the Church commands it, then you cannot do it without committing a sin. Likewise, if there is something you believe you must do, even if the Church forbids it, then you must do it or else commit a sin. The command of one’s conscience to do or not do something against what the Church directs has to be pretty strong in order to fit what Aquinas is talking about. I doubt if many people disobey the Church’s prohibition on artificial contraception because they have sought to develop a well-formed conscience and this conscience is telling them that they must take the pill. Though an erring conscience binds, an erring conscience does not simply mean one does not have to obey any authority; it is not a license to “disregard” anything. Conscience is an authority, and, in the end, it is what one has to obey. (Of course it is not possible for a person to believe that she herself has an erring conscience; it is the nature of a conscience (both erring and true) to believe that it is true).”

            Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D.

            As Magee explains, the standard for defying Church teaching in the name of conscience, according to St. Thomas, is very, very high. Perhaps in the pre-Internet age, people would have an excuse for not truly understanding Church teaching, but with virtually every Church document every written available on the Internet, there is almost no realistic excuse for someone who actually cares to not determine the teachings of the Church.

          • You’re making a couple of errors here, and I want to help clear them up.

            First, you seem to indicate that because the catechism says something it must be the infallible teaching of the Church. The Catechism does not have that kind of authority. The Catechism must be considered part of the ordinary magisterium of the church and so, when it is teaching what the church has always taught, it can be considered “infallible,” but in other places it is as fallible as any other document. It is not protected 100% from error. If you interpret it as you have (which I would argue is not a correct interpretation,) then it is wrong. And in fact, I would also argue that this passage finds its basis in the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II that is at odds with perennial Catholic teaching.

            For example, IF that’s true, what you say then there should be no problem with a protestant or even an atheist receiving Holy Communion and no one should stop them. Because their conscience is supreme and they should never be prohibited from acting according to their conscience, ESPECIALLY in religious matters right? But I doubt you would agree that a protestant or an atheist should receive Holy Communion.

            Secondly, Canon Law is 100% binding on all Catholics. You have to assent to it. It’s in the loosing and binding power of the Church. St. Paul did not explicitly prohibit anyone from receiving unworthily (though I think it is implicit) and the church, in her wisdom guided by the Holy Spirit, has determined that those in an objective situation of grave sin should be refused Holy Communion. This is for the good of the sinner, it prevents the appearance of scandal, and protects the Body and Blood of Our Lord from sacrilege. It also makes clear the teaching of the Church – that those in a state of mortal sin are not to receive holy communion.

            Now, obviously, for a sin of the mind or sin of the heart or other secret sin it is impossible for the priest (or other appointed minister in most parishes) to know if you’ve committed such a sin, which you are right to mention. And so a person presenting themselves for communion is assumed to know the teaching of the Church and to only come forward if they are morally certain they are in a state of grace. However, when a person is living in an objectively sinful situation (whether divorced and civilly remarried, cohabiting, pro-abortion politician, professional tarot reader, prostitute, usurer) then it is known by the minister and by at least some of the congregation that you are NOT in a state of grace and therefore need to be refused until that situation is remedied. This is why in Familiaris Consortio Pope John Paul II suggested that those living as brother and sister receive somewhere they do not cause scandal.

            One other point regarding conscience – all that is said about conscience in the Catechism and other magisterial and traditional sources assumes that one’s conscience has been formed according to the Magisterium of the church. A public sinner who presents themselves for Holy Communion is either lying to himself and the whole church about their suitability for receiving the sacrament according to their conscience or their conscience isn’t formed properly (or a combination thereof.) You said it is the pastor’s job to teach a person what they should do. And so refusing a person communion is a powerful moment for the pastor to teach that person regarding their objective situation.

            Let me conclude this comment with a sidenote – I’m not writing this to argue with you or for my own gratification of being “right” or something but because we live in a very confusing time in the Church where the truth has been made a bit less clear and we’re all working to figure this out. I’m right there along with you!

          • So where are we to go to find the official teaching of the Church if not the CCC? The CCC was developed as an instruction book for Bishops and is infallible in every area where it’s teachings match up with the traditional teaching of the Church. The matters relating to conscience are from previous teachings by Pope Paul VI as cited in the CCC.

            I actually agree on that. I don’t see how we can deny Eucharist to anyone who presents at the altar. I’m not saying it’s good for them. I just don’t see how we can prevent them from taking it without violating this notion of conscience. I have no answer for this question. I’m just pointing out the dilemma the priest faces.

            I don’t have any argument with what Canon Law says. I just question how it is compatible with the CCC. They seem to be at odds to me and I think the matter needs to be cleared up. If the CCC is right, Canon Law can’t be and vice versa. It’s a conundrum and is confusing people including our priests.

            The problem still remains of how the pastor can know the state of the person’s conscience. That person may have consulted another priest, gone to confession, and changed their ways. The priest at the altar has no way of knowing. We’re putting him in a precarious position.

            I thank you for your feedback. I have struggled with this doctrine for many years and still have heard no good answer. I, like most people here, want to do what God wants. The Church is supposed to tell us that clearly and concisely. I don’t think the Church has done it’s job in this matter. That’s how we end up with documents like Amoris Laetitia and the various interpretations of what it means. We need clarity and Pope Francis does not seem to be interested in providing it. So instead we have an ongoing dispute that refuses to go away.

            On a personal note, I can’t imagine the pain it would cause someone to be turned away at the altar. Is that the kind of pain they need in order to repent? Maybe. But I sure would hate to see that happen at my parish. That person would likely never come back. Maybe it’s better to give them the Eucharist and let it do the work, like Paul says. I don’t know if this is right or not but it seems like a better way to go than the other. I used to be pretty hard nosed and would have said, “Turn them away!” As I have gotten older and come to grips with my own sin, I find myself leaning more often toward mercy than condemnation. I find that I also am a persistent sinner and have a hard time believing I’m more worthy to receive than anyone else.

          • ” I don’t see how we can deny Eucharist to anyone who presents at the altar. … I just don’t see how we can prevent them from taking it without violating this notion of conscience.”
            The notion of primacy of the conscience has been over-inflated in post-conciliar teaching. Your conscience does play an important part in our actions, but, as I said, that conscience needs to be formed according to the teaching of the Magisterium. If a person is acting “according to their conscience” in a matter that is clearly opposed to the teaching of the Church then one can assume their conscience has not been properly formed and they need to be instructed.

            Let me use an analogy. You’ve got a bottle of bleach. Now, obviously, you should not drink bleach. With a child, you teach them, and then they grow up, become adults and make their own decisions. But what if a person has never seen or heard of bleach before? It’s clear, like water. It smells a little funny, but maybe they don’t think too much of it? Now this adult, who is free to make their own decisions goes to drink that bleach? Or worse yet they know what it is, but decide that it’ll be fine for them and go to drink it? You’d stop them, right?

            This is EXACTLY the same, but instead of it resulting in physical death, it results in spiritual death which is far more serious. Yes, God CAN be merciful, and often is, and works to pull people out of sin, bringing life out of death. But we should never presume the mercy of God.

            I also think you need to study what Canon Law is and it’s binding power on Catholics. On this particular issue, I don’t actually think there is a contradiction, because the CCC assumes a conscience properly formed. But you do seem to lack perhaps a proper understanding of what Canon Law is, does, and how it affects you and me. Canon 915 is totally binding and needs to be upheld (even though it often isn’t.)

            As regards your first paragraph, “So where are we to go to find the official teaching of the Church if not the CCC?…” Well, it sure would be nice if the CCC was 100% sure eh? The Church has got along more or less just fine for the last 1900 years without the Catechism, though, so there’s gotta be something eh? There are other sources that you can double-check things in. For example, in English, there’s the phenomenal Baltimore Catechism. There’s also the Catechism of the Council of Trent. If you understand how to read them, there’s the documents of Church councils, papal exhortations and encyclicals from ages past (I’d check post-1965 sources against pre-’65 sources if you’re seeing a problem.) St. Thomas Aquinas, while a bit more academic and intellectual than others, is a great source. All of the other saints too. Also, well formed, traditional priests are a treasure trove! Priests of the FSSP and ICKSP are usually very well formed; regardless of the perhaps odd canonical situation they find themselves in, the priests of the SSPX are very well taught in the teachings of the church, so you could definitely bring questions to them, if they are around.

            The thing is, as great as a single source for all the teachings of the church would be, there simply isn’t one. The CCC is pretty good as regards sacraments, morality, and the like. If you find a contradiction, like you’ve found here, it’s good to check other sources… it may just be that you don’t understand something fully, or perhaps there’s a small error. It’s a good norm, but not a great one.

        • You’ve got to be kidding!!!!

          I know from personal experience about receiving Our Lord unworthily, and I pray that I shall NEVER do so again! The anguish of the soul is almost unbearable. Yet if the person keeps receiving unworthily, he or she begins to stifle the voice of conscience. Eventually, one gets to the point where conscience is silent – until one is at the point of death.

          TAN Books had a booklet called Confession: A Little Book for the Reluctant by Msgr. Segur. There’s a good story in there about a man who received unworthily for most of his life. 1-800-437-5876. Souls will thank you.

        • It is a sacrilege to be unholy…dead in sin…and go to receive the All HOLY One….recommunion by Holy Confession and Penance is necessary first before approaching….also sacrilege of false witness of being in Holy Communion with Lord and His Body when not and come forward….witnessing falsely to a non existing Communion through grace of Indwelling Holy Trinity

          • I am not saying that it is a good thing to take the Eucharist in a state of sin. I personally would not. But it is not up to me to tell others that they cannot. That is a violation of their conscience and is not allowed by Church teaching.

          • Although the current CCC came out during JPII papacy, it is a knock-off from earlier CCCs that probably started from the late 1800s with the Baltimore Catechism, which was a knockoff from the Irish Catechism which was a layman’s version of the Council of Trent’s Catechism for pastors. Each succeeding version, IMHO, was changed to the world norms experienced during the rewritten editions. Maybe, since you so much like the current CCC, you could take the time to read the Council of Trent’s Catechism for pastors. It is an incredible read. My personal take on it is that it is MUCH more traditional take on the Body of Christ, His Church. Just a thought.

          • I may do that. I have been purchasing some older Catechisms lately to see how they compare to our current one. I’m not a fan of the CCC actually. I think the writing is very technical in many places and not easy to decipher. The fact still remains that the current one is supposed to be official. So what are we supposed to do when we can’t figure out what the Church is supposed to be teaching?

          • Approved theologians unpack the raw data of the teaching of the Church. They were monitored by the Holy Office. As an important qualifier, I mean approved theologians from before Vatican II. They will help you.

          • it seems that what the Church is now teaching is a little different that what it should be teaching. With that question in my mind, i went back to Council of Trent and moved absolutely stuns me how teachings have changed on certain topics, with the biggest one, for me, is : There Is no Salvation Outside of The Catholic Church!! Investigate for your self and you will see. I could go on for hours but you get the idea. Good luck on your search for Truth.

        • WOW, there is so much wrong in that statement. In all charity please, please find a good spiritual director. And absolutely get the book Margaret suggested from Tan Books on confession.

          • I don’t need a book from TAN books if I want to understand the teachings of the Church. I only need two books. The Bible and the CCC. I have read both. Have you? Because everything I said is compatible with both. Canon 915 is not.

          • Not going to follow you down the rabbit hole. Suffice to say apparently the fact that you consider a sacrilegious communion a means of allowing Our Lord to make you suffer says that there is a disconnect somewhere in your religious education… matter how many books you have read.

    • “…but he hasn’t issued a single infallible teaching on anything.”
      The VAST majority of popes never issued any infallible teachings. Doesn’t mean what’s being done isn’t totally destructive.

      What you say is true, in that each person does indeed need to discern for themselves… but they discern through consciences formed according to the teaching of the Church (scripture is included here.) The problem with Amoris Laetitia and the various bishops’ conferences issuing guidelines (some of which Pope Francis has praised – Argentina, Germany, Malta) is that it makes the church’s teaching unclear. When you change a practice, especially in such a poorly catechized age such as this, necessarily the doctrines as far as they are understood seem to change. And so when the church makes an unclear utterance, it is far more difficult for people to have their consciences formed properly… and so souls end up in hell. The Church needs to make its teachings clear so that people can make their decisions in a fully informed way.

      • The majority of popes may not have issued an ex-cathedra definition, but no pope has ever lead the faithful into error…until Paul VI and his successors. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is just as infallible as an ex-cathedra Extraordinary Magisterium (as if there could be degrees on an absolute!). The former is the general teaching and Faith of the Church continually professed and reinforced; the latter is a direct and concise point that is framed in exactly the way it has to be believed.
        The Church cannot lead souls into error or away from the Faith. Not by direct opposition to something already taught, nor by making ambiguous something that is clear. Never.

    • “I don’t want to be a Protestant”.

      I believe that, except the case you present fits perfectly the thinking and doctrine of my old Lutheran and Methodist congregations. Not so much the Catholic Church.


      According to your position, Freemasons, homosexuals and lesbians, the same-sex married, bank robbers, Mafia dons, abortionists, baby rapers, rank oppressors of the poor, public adulterers and pedophiles will all and should all, even if their status as such is well-known, notorious and flagrant, should be welcomed to receive communion.

      Canon 915?

      Vain traditions of men to be sure!!

      You know, according to folks from the Assembly of God, the Foursquare Gospel, Jim Bakker’s crowd and….you.

    • You are totally incorrect! St. Paul stated that; ‘anyone who receives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ,’ brings condemnation upon himself! St. Paul never stated that taking the Eucharist is a metter of personal discernment. Again, I don’t know what Bible you have because to me, it sounds very Protestant. St. Paul NEVER stated that a person soul might actually be saved. You cannot receive the Holy Eucharist if you are a; ‘practicing homosexual, an adulterer, a fornicator, practicing abortion, and any mortal since that’s out there. And your third paragraph is blasphemy and something you made up or, this is not coming from an authentic Catholic bible. After reading your last paragraph, you definitely are not a Catholic, you are a Protest ant!

          • Hello TG,

            I would be happy to tell you the many qualities I admire about The Great Stalin. However, I don’t believe your question comes from sincere curiosity.

            All I will say is he is fearfully and wonderfully made–as are you.

            May God bless you abundantly,


      • I’m not a liberal by any stretch. In fact I am often accused of being a radical right wing nutjob. I find this particular teaching confusing and am trying to puzzle it out. Thanks for the charitable comments though. They are very helpful. I’ll keep them in mind the next time I ask myself WWJD.

  14. The Pope doesn’t need to modify the text of HV, he can again simply appeal to the “internal forum”—just as in the case with Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried. Because the “internal forum” has already been operational in parishes since at least the 1990s, there’s not even any real change. All the Pope would do is bless current practice with some sort of Papal legitimacy.

  15. When you say that “the Catholic Church …seems now to be drifting away from that vocation and orientation under Pope Francis” it becomes a totally confusing statement! For goodness’ sake, our Church has laws and dogmas which no one can really change, so say rather that the Catholic Church has now been invaded by its mortal enemies, who are trying to weaken her doctrinal and moral resistance…

  16. The very first 2 lines already show the fraudulent purpose of this article. Would the Holy Spirit, Who, according to Jesus, would be guiding the Church that Jesus founded, be actually doing what this Marco Tosatti claims? How many feel that Tosatti is correct, how many think the Holy Spirit is correct?

  17. I’m afraid Humanae Vitae has been the ultimate target by the so-called progressive Catholics for many years. Most major Archdiocesan offices, with rare exceptions, have nothing but these types. This undoubtedly includes (and included) the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires.
    The last “pilgrimage” to Europe sponsored by our Cathedral Pastor included multiple hetero couples in cohabitation and the gay choir members were allowed to bring their partners-in-sin. The really sad part is only one couple in the group was outraged by it and spoke up. The rest of the group was outraged that a Catholic would be outraged by something so harmless. Without Humanae Vitae all traditional Catholic moral teaching
    vanishes. Who are we kidding? We have been in Schism for years, PF is simply
    making it oh-so apparent by giving it a voice. Thank God for this website and
    for Lifesite.

  18. That was an interesting statement Francis made in 2015 that Catholic’s should not breed like rabbits. Why does he not tell that to the Muslims? After all, its the Muslims that breed like rabbits with their three or four wives including a concubine. And, this would not surprise me if this pope wants to mess Paul VI’s Encyclical, Humanae Vitae. So if he does, would it be grounds for finally removing him?

      • Yes! As you can imagine, I rarely get a comment agreeing with me. It seems people have heard good things, but haven’t actually read it, or not with the discerning Catholic eye.

      • That one little reversal regarding the secondary end of marriage being put before the first, or even just being made it equal to it, is all it took to get to where we are today. This is supposedly Church teaching. Abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexual “marriage” and the destruction of a civilisation. Not bad, Montini, not bad.

  19. Is there any longer a question of whether Bergoglio is a Catholic? Vatican II protestantized the Mass. Bergoglio is here to protestantize the Church. He is not a Catholic.

  20. The “Body of Christ” is being divided by going nowhere, useless Discussions, like this. Daily PP:
    Please People…Stop! Our Business is to PRAY for the Pope, Whoever he may be. People FAILED To Pray for our CLERGY. ALL of them, for over 40 years..This is the result! (Era of Confusion, Fear, & Panic)
    Not a Pretty Picture…Papa Francis must answer to Christ…Not Us! Every member of the Body of Christ has a part in God’s Plan.
    There is no, “one size fits all” in God’s Plan, constantly revealed to us through Christ & His Church. How can anyone believe anything, (in print or pictures!) in an age of info overload! “News” is regurgitated, not broadcasted.
    The method used is, “throw 50 tons of Caca @ a Wall & see what sticks!!” We’ll be Judged on how WE comply with God’s Will for OUR lives…Since not one Person here has a snowballs chance in hell of becoming a Bishop, let alone a Pope…Who cares, where Francis kneels, what “They” SAY he says, whose feet get washed, or who his favorite Saints are! Not Our Problem!
    Our Part is Prayer & Penance for our own failings, especially the failure to Pray for our Clergy.

  21. Not “seems”. IS.
    There’s no question, and almost nothing to say about it anymore. He’s on a rampage to upend Catholicism and trample her teaching underfoot. Thus far, wildly successful, with no signs on the horizon of anything to get in his way.
    I don’t care any longer about an answer to a dubia or a formal correction.
    I’m only interested in what God says about all this. Waiting on Him.

  22. Aside from Christ, I do have some hope that we Catholics, the people in the pews, will ultimately force change from below because the garbage PF is espousinghas already failed. To elaborate, the types of Catholics who agitated or prayed for a protestantizing of the Church are already gone. I see and know several people who call for the Church to accept and conduct SS weddings, throw out all teachings on divorce and contraception. Yet these “crusaders” are in the pews at Christmas and Easter, if that. In the west, I do believe that vast majority of those of who us remain faithful communicants are going to reject the Pope.

    The idea of a struggle in the west between orthodox and liberal Catholics is imaginary. Oh there are certainly some bishops and priests who see themselves leading a liberal struggle, like generals. The problem is that there are no liberal Catholic soldiers to follow them and to the extent there are any, they have been reduced to dropping leaflets or tempestuous “hit and run” tactics that don’t leave a mark. And it’s sapping the strength of the liberal bishops and priests.

    The parish to which I belong now has two priests: one a 77 year-old local priest who is not openly liberal but is clearly so. For example, when my wife and I were preparing for marriage (in our own liberal and ignorant days) he asked for our addresses. Our reticent reply was that they were the same and his response was “don’t be ashamed. It’s not a big deal, just reality of the times we live in financially.”. Okay, well, that sounded nice then but it was an amoral response to reduce it to finances. So the other priest is a young priest from Nigeria. Wow….night and day! The young priest gives beautiful, theologically thick and challenging homilies versus the near weekly “stick in your own eye” variety we get from the older priest.

    Ultimately, I know the older priest is a good man who was led astray in the post VII Church. His love of Christ is clear, his belief unwavering. The problem is that he is way too horizontal. And you can see in his eyes that he is tired. I know that there are parishioners now challenging his homilies. We normally have to renter the Church after loud kids leave something behind and once he has greeted the majority of the flock after mass and those people have left, the more courageous people approach to challenge his homilies. I think he knows that most of the liberals he loved having in the pews have died and those who used to be in the pews are not attending in longer. And why would they? The Church has been 60 years convincing people that they don’t need the Church or her teachings to know Christ, they just need to be nice. I guess they hoped those people would continue to attend mass and tithe on the grounds that the Church was well positioned to become a massive charitable organization. When those people realized they didn’t need to interrupt their weekends with mass nor be harangued in to giving money, they stopped coming. I do not know if the Church in the west has met the lowest tide but I do know that faithful Catholics are becoming more faithful, I see big families of three or more children (relative to our times) in the pews again, the priests I have met coming out Africa seem to be power houses theologically and the young men emerging from seminary in the west are undoubtedly more committed than any in two generations as it takes incredible faith and courage to turn your back on the modernist trappings of Satan, no less to do live out a vocation like the priesthood.

    I see it in my own house: my mother has fallen away from a Church in which eight years ago she insisted my wife and I be married lest she not attend. Now we have two children, a third on the way, teach religious Ed, carry around breviaries, pray before meals, read our kids Catholic books, etc. And her reaction? Telling family members we’re crazy Bible thumpers; arguing with us about not voting for Hillary Clinton on the grounds of opposing her views on LGBT and life issues; calling me a hypocrite because we used to contracept and cohabitate before marriage, as if shedding our ignorance, participating in the sacrament of reconciliation and experiencing a profound change of heart is not possible…..the battle lines are drawn. And, again, we remain weekly communicants, she’s gone.

    No, I don’t think we have seen low tide, the darkest hour of the night. But I do know it’s always darkest before the dawn and it’s now dark enough that perceiving the approach of dawn is not wholly ignorant.

    • Thank you. I have family members of the same ilk as your mother. You and your young family are genuine blessings. Pray her back to her real home.

  23. While people on here agonize about who supports the Dubia and who doesn’t, there’s a list of 40 Cardinals, a shedload of Prelates and priests, and also a large group of Theologians who are appalled at Bergoglio and his cabal of homosexual and heretical wretches. It’s difficult to make the present schism official or issue a formal correction while Bergoglio refuses to answer the Dubia. He is masterful at pulling the rug out from under as we saw in Malta ; the Friars of the Immaculata, and Cardinals Burke, Sarah and others who have been humiliated and demoted because the dared to upset the vanity of the Freemasons’ darling – Adolf Bergoglio. It’s better by far to pray for and continue to openly support the good members of the Church rather than further demoralize them with unnecessary criticism and lack of charity.

  24. How long, LORD?!?

    Surely this, THIS is enough to rouse your ire and for you to step in and convert, smite or otherwise remove this man who makes a mockery of your Church?

  25. Klein has only to suggest that babes in the womb represent climate change and this pin-headed simpleton of a pope will likely wage war on them.

    New Apostolic Exhortation coming: Et capitibus amputatis: “Off with the[ir] heads!”


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...