If Them, Why Not Others?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

It is always distasteful to write about distasteful subjects. Given the furor created by the false "pontiff's" latest display of the theological imprecision that is the result of his being immersed in the soupy fog of the "New Theology," whose tenets were condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humanum Genus, August 12, 1950, a brief commentary on the excerpts from The Light of the World: the Pope, The Church and Signs of The Times, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's book length interview with journalist Peter Seewald, that have been published in the Vatican's semi-official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, is in order. This commentary is provisional and will be revisited when a copy of the book is purchased to examine the exact context of the passage that is generating a great deal of controversy and, of course, confusion and disarray in the ranks of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

A true Roman Pontiff, that is, a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, is concerned first and foremost about the welfare of souls.

Our true Roman Pontiffs have always taught us that it is impossible to make sins committed in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and of the Natural Law "safe" from their logical, deleterious consequences for the bodies and the souls of those who commit them.

Every Mortal Sin in the objective order of things wounds the soul by darkening the intellect and weakening the will, including us to sin all the more, especially if habits of sin are developed that remain despite frequent use of the sacramental medicine applied to our souls in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Saint Paul explained in his Epistle to the Romans that those who commit the sin of Sodom, which is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, receive "in themselves the recompense which was due to their error," meaning that those who commit this sin suffer physical as well as spiritual consequences that are completely unavoidable:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

[31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 26-32.)

 

For the false "pontiff" to speak about making the sin of Sodom "safer" from its consequences by the use of a particular prophylactic that was endorsed by the Anglican sect's Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930 for use by married couples who found themselves in "difficult" economic or physical circumstances is to presume that the the sin of Sodom can be made "safer" from its consequences (see Appendix A below). The presumption upon which Ratzinger/Benedict's fallacy is premised is false and without foundation in theology or pure biological science.

Here is a news story that focuses on Ratzinger/Benedict's answer to a question from German journalist Peter Seewald that is already boomeranging and is causing the false"pope's" utterly incompetent spinmeister, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., in to damage-control mode to deal with the fallout that will be catastrophic for the eternal good of souls and even for the common temporal good of men and their nations:

ROME — Pope Benedict XVI has said that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS, the first Vatican exception to a long-held policy condemning condom use. The pope made the statement in a series of interviews with a German journalist, part of an extraordinary effort to address some of the harshest criticisms of his turbulent papacy.

The pope made clear that he considered the use of condoms a last resort and not a way to prevent conception. The example he gave of when they could be used was in the case of male prostitutes.

Amid his vigorous defense of the church in contemporary society, Benedict also acknowledged some of the church’s failings, like in the sexual abuse crisis, which he calls “a volcano of filth” sent by the devil. He pointed to a “readiness for aggression” among those who criticized him for revoking the excommunication of a bishop who denied the scope of the Holocaust.

Benedict also discussed his contentious speech in Regensburg, Germany, in 2006, which provoked the ire of the Muslim world; denounced drug abuse, explained what he described as the impossibility of ordaining women as priests, and, with surprising candor, said that if he did not feel up to the task of being pope, he would resign.

The revelations — which show the pope to be at once personal, provocative and largely unapologetic — come in the first book-length interview ever to be granted by a sitting pontiff, conducted in July by Peter Seewald, the author of two previous books of interviews with Benedict when he was still a cardinal.

In allowing the pope to speak for himself, the book is a clear acknowledgment of the challenges facing Benedict, 83, whose five-year-old papacy has suffered a series of profound crises, including over the sexual abuse of minors by priests. Even his greatest defenders concede his papacy has had grave communications problems.

The book “proves once again that Benedict XVI is his own best advocate,” said George Weigel, a papal biographer who wrote the introduction for the English-language edition of the book, “Light of the World,” which will be published on Tuesday. (The Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published excerpts online on Saturday afternoon.)

In the book, Benedict upholds the view that the Roman Catholic Church does not see condoms as “a real or moral solution,” and says that they are “not really the way to deal with the evil of H.I.V. infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

But for the first time, he opened the door for at least some more open debate on the issue.

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants,” the pope said.

Condoms have been a contentious issue ever since Pope Paul VI denounced birth control in his famous 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae.” In recent years, bishops in Africa and elsewhere have been quietly calling on the Vatican to relax its stance to allow for condom use as part of a broader approach to fight the spread of H.I.V. and AIDS.

The Rev. Joseph Fessio, a former student of Benedict and the editor in chief of Ignatius Press, which is publishing the English-language edition of the book, said the pope’s remarks on condoms were among the most surprising in the volume.

“It’s very carefully qualified,” he said. “It would be wrong to say, ‘Pope Approves Condoms.’ He’s saying it’s immoral but in an individual case the use of a condom could be an awakening to someone that he’s got to be more conscious of his actions.”

The book also devotes an entire chapter to the sexual abuse crisis which roared back this spring, likening it to a natural disaster that marred a year he had intended to celebrate priests.

He says he was not surprised by the scandal, having spent 25 years as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that handles doctrinal and disciplinary questions, and which victims and critics have accused of not acting swiftly and decisively enough in tackling abuse or punishing abusive priests.

In the book, Benedict says of the abuse crisis that erupted in the United States in 2001: “We responded to the matter in America immediately with revised, stricter norms. In addition, collaboration between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities was improved. Would it have been Rome’s duty, then, to say to all the countries expressly: Find out whether you are in the same situation? Maybe we should have done that.”

And he acknowledged that the scandal had undermined the moral authority of the Catholic Church. “It is not only the abuse that is upsetting, it is also the way of dealing with it. The deeds themselves were hushed up and kept secret for decades. That is a declaration of bankruptcy for an institution that has love written on its banner.” (Benedict Says Condoms to Stop AIDS May Be Acceptable.)

 

Leaving aside Ratzinger/Benedict's comments on other matters mentioned in the news story above until I am in physical possession of the new book and have read its contents, which include the "pope's" statement that he is not opposed "in principle" to the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion in the hand (see Benedict 'does not object' to Communion in the hand), I want to restrict myself in this brief commentary to an assessment of the proposition that there can be a "moralization" of the use of the prophylactic by men who sell their bodies to commit sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Some defenders of all things Benedict might want to do attempt to justify this absurd effort to "moralize" the use of the prophylactic in the commission of an inherently heinously evil action by making advertence to the principle of the double-fold effect, which teaches us that it is moral to pursue a just end even if one can foresee evil but unintended consequences attendant to it.

The typical example that was used in moral theology classes was the case of an expectant mother with uterine cancer whose uterus had to be removed. This is a morally justified action. Attendant to this morally justified action, however, would be the death of the preborn child, a foreseen but unintended evil consequence that occurs as a result of the removal of his mother's womb. Although this example has been mooted by advances in medical technology that can keep an expectant mother suffering from cancer alive without such a surgical intervention until her preborn baby has reached the stage of viability outside of the womb and can be kept alive in an incubator thereafter, it nevertheless demonstrates that a morally licit action may be undertaken even though there might be evil but unintended consequences that occur as a result.

Another example involves the prosecution of a just war.

Even a just war carries with it a risk of civilian casualties as a result of misdirected attacks or bombings. Civilians and civilian population centers may never be targeted deliberately in warfare. It may happen, however, that civilians will die as a result of accidents or mistakes, instances whose occurrence must be limited as far as is humanly possible and which decision-makers have a positive moral obligation before engaging in hostilities to determine if their occurrence would be frequent enough so as to render the prosecution of a just war immoral by the weight of the preponderance of foreseen but unintended evil consequences. This determination is made in accordance with the Catholic moral principle of Proportionality, which teaches us that a morally licit act may be rendered immoral to pursue if its accompanied by that preponderance of foreseen but unintended evil consequences that wind up worsening an already inflamed situation (hardening of hearts, dislocation of families, economic distress, incalculable damage to the infrastructure of a nation, the widening of hostilities).

In the case proposed by Ratzinger/Benedict, however, the principle of the double-fold effect does not apply as the action that the false "pontiff" seeks to "protect" from its natural physical consequences is inherently evil

Furthermore, the contention that the use of the prophylactic in question will protect a sinner from the evil consequences of his inherently evil actions is contradicted by medical science (see Appendix B below) and is thus specious on its very face.

Ratzinger/Benedict has fallen, perhaps entirely unintentionally as a result of the imprecision of his apostate mind and his utter lack of horror of the sense of personal sin, has fallen into the condemned moral proposition of Proportionalism, which was advanced by the late Father Richard McCormick, S.J., that contends a morally illicit action can be rendered morally licit to pursue if there is a preponderance of mitigating circumstances (e.g., the "burden" of an unwed women bringing her preborn child to life, the "necessity" to use contraceptive pills and devices, the "utility" of telling a deliberate lie to extricate one from various troubles). Ratzinger/Benedict seems--and it is his lack of precision that is creating such so much confusion and consternation at this time--to be saying that the goal of "preventing" the spread of a certain disease that is contracted principally as a result of the commission of perverse sins against nature can justify the use of the prophylactic in question evil though the action itself is illicit.

Wrong.

The illogic of Ratzinger/Benedict's position can be demonstrated further by a simple exercise in noting the fact that the rationale that he uses to make the case for the "moralization" of the use of the prophylactic can be applied beyond men who sell themselves to commit perverse sins against nature. If such "professional men," shall we say, can use the prophylactic, then why cannot all men who are engaged in the commission of the sin of Sodom do so as they are not using it for "contraceptive" purposes any more than those sinners who get paid for committing their sins? Readers of this little-read site (which has fallen rather dramatically in the Alexa rankings in recent weeks) will find out in short order that the members of the lavender brigade and the "rainbow" sash coalition will be asking this exact question, and they will have many a "Catholic" theologian and "priest" backing them up as they do so.

Once again, of course, we are face to face with the utter illogic of minds that have fallen far, far, far from the Catholic Faith. Ratzinger/Benedict is incapable, it appears, of  realizing that he has opened the floodgates to the promotion of the sin of Sodom just as surely as Giovanni Montini/Paul VI did when he appointed the commission to determine whether the "birth control pill" operated in such a manner upon a woman's body as to be morally unobjectionable, thereby raising the hopes of those Catholics who desired a "change" in this immutable teaching of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Ratzinger/Benedict's answer to Peter Seewald will cause an unmitigated moral disaster for souls. It will also cause great divisions in the families of "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics who are still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are dealing with relatives and friends who are addicted to the commission of these perverse sins against nature.

"Father" Federico Lombardi has attempted to do "damage control" on this matter as follows:

 

At the end of Chapter 10 (Chapter 11 in the English edition) in the book, “Light of the World,” the pope responds to two questions about the struggle against AIDS and the use of the condom, questions that refer back to the discussion that followed the pope’s comments on this topic during his trip to Africa in 2009.

The pope underlines clearly that, at that time, he did not want to express a position on the problem of condoms in general, but he wanted to affirm strongly that the problem of AIDS cannot be resolved solely with the distribution of condoms, because much more must be done: prevention, education, assistance, counsel, being close to people, both so that they do not become sick, and also in cases where they are sick.

The pope observes that even in non-church circles a comparable awareness has developed, as is seen in the so-called ABC theory (Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are much more decisive and fundamental in the struggle against AIDS, while the condom appears as a last resort when the other two are lacking. It should therefore be clear that the condom is not the solution to the problem.

The pope then takes a wider view and insists on the fact that concentrating only on the condom signifies the “banalization” of sexuality, which loses its meaning as the expression of love between persons and becomes like a “drug.” To fight against the banalization of sexuality is “part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.”

In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that the church “of course does not regard (condoms) as a real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.

In saying this, the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by putting it in the context of the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.

At the same time, the pope takes into consideration an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality may represent a real risk to the life of another person. In such a case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but maintains that the use of the condom to diminish the danger of infection may be “a first assumption of responsibility”, “a first step in a movement toward a … more human sexuality”, as opposed to not using the condom and exposing the other person to a fatal risk.

In this statement, the pope’s reasoning certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift.

Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical figures have maintained and still maintain similar positions; however, it is true that until now we had not heard them expressed with such clarity from the mouth of a pope, even if it is in a colloquial, and not magisterial, form.

Benedict XVI therefore courageously gives us an important contribution that clarifies and deepens a long-debated question. It is an original contribution, because on one hand it maintains fidelity to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in refusing an illusory path like “faith in condoms”; on the other hand, however, it shows a sympathetic and far-sighted vision, attentive to discovering small steps — even if they are only initial and still confused — of a humanity that is often spiritually and culturally impoverished, toward a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality. (Text of Vatican "Clarification")

 

Spinmeisters such as Robert Gibbs and James Carville, et al., have nothing on Federico Lombardi when it comes to attempting to make something so obviously wrong appear correct. This is a clarification? Lucidity? Saying that something is so does not not make it so. Federico Lombardi's "clarification" is nothing other than an exercise in pure positivism, that is asserting that something is so because it has been asserted.

Remember, "Father" Federico Lombardi is the man who once said that the "pope" did mean to say in an interview that "therapeutic abortion" was to be rejected in all instances before he, Lombardi, had to walk back his typically clumsy and contradictory efforts at "clarification" that demonstrate the imprecision of his apostate mind (see So Long to the Fifth Commandment, Anniversary Greetings, and Rotten To The Very Roots).

Sure, sure, sure. Defenders of all things Benedict will be quick to point out that his comments to Peter Seewald were his "private" opinions that have not been "imposed" upon anyone. Some will even try to justify the comments en toto while others will assuage themselves with the delusional belief that this does not "matter" because the comments were not made in Ratzinger/Benedict's "official" capacity as "pope." And those who want to take refuge in the "private," "unofficial" nature of the false "pontiff's" words to Peter Seewald have to do all kinds of intellectually dishonest tricks to ignore his "official" defections from the Faith, some of which were catalogued recently in Wear Your Catholic Stripes Well.

Never mind the inconvenient little fact, of course, that the comments made by Ratzinger/Benedict to Peter Seewald simply demonstrate a mind that is incapable of calling sin by its proper name, no less to realize that men who sell themselves in order to commit sins must be exhorted--both for the sake of their own bodily safety and, far more importantly, for the sake of the eternal salvation of their immoral soul that has been purchased at the price of the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ--with the words the Divine Redeemer spoke to Saint Mary Magdalene when she was caught in the act of adultery: And those who want to take refuge in the "private," "unofficial" nature of the false "pontiff's" words to Peter Seewald have to do all kinds of intellectually dishonest tricks to ignore his "official" defections from the Faith, some of which were catalogued recently in Wear Your Catholic Stripes Well.)

Go, and now sin no more. (John 8: 11.)

 

 

Our Lord did not say to Saint Mary Magdalene, "go, and now protect thyself when thou shalt sin in this way again." He told her to "Go, and now sin no more." That is the only advice that one possessed of the true sensus Catholicus, no less a man who presents himself as the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ one earth, gives to those who are steeped in heinous sins against nature that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

No sin is inevitable. Men have been given free will by God, Who does not want us to enable the sins of others by reassuring them that they can somehow "protect" themselves from the spiritual and/or bodily consequences of those sins.

Where is the exhortation to those steeped in sins of unnatural vice to obey the Commandments for the love of God?

When has a true pope ever spoken of "living" "sexuality," no less attempted to invert the ends of marriage to place the "unitive" end above that of marriage's principal end, the procreation and education of children, as has been done by the "personalist" "popes" Giovanni Montini/Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, and by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in his various allocutions that gave rise to the hideous "theology of the body" that has been critiqued so well by Mrs. Randy Engel and by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself?

Where is the exhortation to refrain from vice so as to avoid the fires of Hell for all eternity?

Where is the respect for the Virtue of Modesty as practiced by Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum, February 10, 1880, and Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930?

Where is the exhortation to resist sin in cooperation with the graces won for us on Calvary by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces?

That most Catholics and non-Catholics do not see this in these starkly simple terms is the consequence, at least in very large measure, of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's immersion in the sort of naturalism that can only triumph more and more over time as the sacramental barrenness of the Protestant and Novus Ordo liturgical service and its other false rites lead men who purport to be "bishops" and "priests" to speak and to act exactly like "self-help experts" who make such a handsome living by means of their radio and television shows.

May the intercession of Saint Cecilia, whose feast we celebrate today, November 22, 2010, help us to remain steadfast in the unvarnished Catholic Faith by adhering to our true bishops and true priests in the catacombs who give no quarter to the conciliar "popes" who have proved themselves to be enemies of Christ the King and of the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood, adoring Our King in His Real Presence and consoling Him by means of our Rosaries offered to Him through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which will indeed triumph in the end.

May ever Rosary we pray help to bring about the Resurrection of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth for which we must pray with all of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened both the state-of-the-world and of the Church Militant here on the face of this earth.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Cecilia, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Resolution 15 of the Seventh Lambeth Conference, 1930

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)

Appendix B

Mrs. Randy Engel, "Shades of Lambeth," November 21, 2010

“Shades of Lambeth” by Randy Engel (11/21/2010)

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ –

Having woken this morning, as if from a bad dream, to the reality of Benedict XVI’s remarks in favor of condom use for male prostitutes engaging in sodomy, I thought it my duty to set forth the Catholic Church’s  timeless condemnation of sodomy as enunciated by Saint Peter Damian in his Book of Gomorrah. This medieval treatise on clerical sodomy and pederasty, and the abuse of the Sacraments of Holy Orders and Penance by homosexual bishops, priests, and religious in the Roman Catholic Church was written in the 11th century. Saint Damian believed the vice of sodomy surpassed the enormity of all other vices: 

 

Without fail it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind. …It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise. …It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity. …It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things. …This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church. …it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God. …She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice. …She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire …this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind’s vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes away with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. Shall I say more? *

 

In 1930, at the 7th Anglican Lambeth Conference, approval was given to married couples for the use of birth control in hard cases thus opening the door to the pollution of the marriage bed, and to contraception’s handmaidens – sterilization and abortion.

In light of Benedict XVI’s recent comments in favor of condom use for male prostitutes engaged in sodomy, one may, I think, legitimately ask if Catholics are being prepared for a Lambeth-like attack on the Natural Law and Catholic morality – one which will open the door to sodomy and other homosexual acts which have always been condemned by the Church?

 

I find it passing strange, that one of the arguments put forth in favor of this paradigm shift in Catholic morality by Vatican sources is that lives will be saved by condom use. Really? I believe that one would have to be an anatomical jackass to believe this.

The biological truth is that the act of sodomy is so violent that condoms habitually tear  during anal insertion. If, on the other hand, lubricants are used to reduce the pain of insertion, these lubricants contribute to the disintegration of the condom, leaving the anal cavity open to increased rupture and infection from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases associated with sodomy.    

But more to the point, I believe that a pope’s primary mission as the Vicar of Christ, is not to dispense “safe-sex” advice to male prostitutes and their sodomite customers, but to call these unfortunate souls to repent and reform their lives as Saint Damian did more than a 1000 years ago. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Luke 8:8). R.E. 

[*Note: Here the term “vice” (Lat. Vitium) is used in its traditional sense as a habit inclining one to sin. This habit or vice, which according to St. Thomas Aquinas, stands between power and act, is the product of repeated sinful acts of a given kind and when formed is in some sense also their cause. While St. Thomas Aquinas holds that, absolutely speaking, the sin surpasses the vice in wickedness, he also states while the sin may be removed by God the vice or vicious habit may remain. One conquers vice by the continuous practice of all virtues, but particularly that virtue to which it is opposed. In the case of the vice of sodomy that particular virtue is chastity.]

Thomas A. Droleskey note: As I have explained to Mrs. Engel, whose work on these sad matters has been and continues to be invaluable, to quote the late, murdered Father Eldred Leslie, spoken to a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X in South Africa nearly two years ago, "Dr. Ratzinger is no more the pope than Cleopatra."

Appendix C

March 22, 1931 Editorial, "Forgetting Religion," in The Washington Post

Droleskey foreword: As noted in several commentaries on this site, the dawn of radio programming began to attack the regularity of prayer in the family and interrupting family patterns of meals, conversation and sleep. Contraception and divorce were promoted with abandon, although there was a bit of resistance to contraception even such a secular source as The Washington Post, which editorialized as follows on March 21, 1931, following a report issued by the so-called Federal Council of Churches in America that called for the use of a certain type of contraceptive between married couples in "hard" cases," a report that following in the wake of the decision of the Anglican Lambeth Committee to endorse contraception in 1930 (a move that promoted Pope Pius XI to issue Casti Connubii on December 31, 1930):

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial,  The Washington Post, March 22, 1932. I have given you part of this quote in the past. This is the full editorial. I had to purchase the editorial in order to do so. No expense is spared, good and few readers, to bring you these articles.)

Would someone like to send this to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to remind him that he is delusional if he think that his comments to Peter Seewald will not open the floodgates to the use of the prophylactic in question now more than ever before?