Razing The Last Bastions

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391)

 

Figures of Antichrist such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI speak the opposite of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as they seek to demolish the bastions of the Catholic Faith in favor of "discovering" the "true intention of the "Second" Vatican Council "in the light of the present experience.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for example, taught that we are not to fear them who can kill the body, that we are to fear them who can kill body and soul and throw both into hell:

[28] And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10: 28.)

 

 What does a figure of Antichrist, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, teach? That we must fear them who can kill the body!

Vatican: Everyone can use condoms to prevent HIV

VATICAN CITY –  Using a condom is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to a sexual partner — even if that means a woman averts a possible pregnancy, the Vatican said Tuesday, signaling a seismic shift in papal teaching as it explained Pope Benedict XVI's comments.

The Vatican has long been criticized for its patent opposition to condom use, particularly in Africa where AIDS is rampant. But the latest interpretation of Benedict's comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting someone's life at risk.

"This is a game-changer," said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit editor and writer. "By acknowledging that condoms help prevent spread of HIV between people in sexual relationships, the pope has completely changed the Catholic discussion on condoms."

The change came on a day when U.N. AIDS officials announced that the number of new HIV cases has fallen significantly — thanks to condom use — and a U.S. medical journal published a study showing that a daily pill could help prevent spread of the virus among gay men.

"This is a great day in the fight against AIDS ... a major milestone," said Mitchell Warren, head of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition

In Africa, AIDS activists, clerics and ordinary Africans alike applauded the pope's revised comments.

"I say hurrah for Pope Benedict," exclaimed Linda-Gail Bekker, chief executive of South Africa's Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation. She said the pope's statement may prompt many people to "adopt a simple lifestyle strategy to protect themselves."

Worldwide, 33 million people live with HIV.

In Sierra Leone, the director of the National AIDS Secretariat predicted condom use would now increase, lowering the number of new infections.

"Once the pope has made a pronouncement, his priests will be in the forefront in advocating for their perceived use of condoms," said Dr. Brima Kargbo.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said Benedict knew full well that his new comments would provoke intense debate. Conservative Catholics have been trying to minimize the scope of what he said since excerpts were published this weekend in the Vatican newspaper.

Lombardi praised Benedict for his "courage" in confronting the problem.

"He did it because he believed that it was a serious, important question in the world of today," Lombardi said, adding that the pope wanted to give his perspective on the need for a greater humanized, responsible sexuality.

Benedict said, in a book released Tuesday, that condom use by people such as male prostitutes was a lesser evil since it indicated they were moving toward a more moral and responsible sexuality by aiming to protect their partner from a deadly infection. On Tuesday, the Vatican expanded the comments to include women.

Benedict received a copy of the book "Light of the World" during an audience Tuesday with the author, Peter Seewald, who conducted several hour-long interviews with the pontiff last summer.

"I hope that this book is useful for the faith of many people," Benedict said.

The pope's comments in the book implied that he was referring primarily to homosexual sex, when condoms aren't being used as a form of contraception. Questions arose immediately about the pope's intent, though, because the Italian translation of the book used the feminine for prostitute, whereas the original German used the masculine.

Lombardi told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended to refer only to male prostitutes. Benedict replied that it really didn't matter, the important thing was the person in question took into consideration the life of the other, Lombardi said.

"I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me 'no.' The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."

"This is if you're a man, a woman, or a transsexual. We're at the same point. The point is it's a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another," Lombardi said.

The clarification is significant.

UNAIDS estimates that 22.4 million people in Africa are infected with HIV, and that 54 percent — or 12.1 million — are women. Heterosexual transmission of HIV and multiple, heterosexual partners are believed to be a major cause of the high infection rate in Africa.

UNAIDS on Tuesday announced a nearly 20 percent drop in new HIV infections around the world over the past decade — largely due to increased condom use.

Benedict drew the wrath of the United Nations, European governments and AIDS activists last year when he told reporters that Africa's AIDS problem couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms. "On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then.

In the book, the pope was not justifying or condoning gay sex, condoms as a means of artificial contraception or heterosexual sex outside of a marriage. He reaffirms the Vatican opposition to homosexual acts and artificial contraception and reaffirms the inviolability of marriage between man and woman.

But by broadening the condom comments to also apply to women, the pope is saying that condom use is a lesser evil than passing HIV onto a partner even when pregnancy is possible.

"We're not just talking about an encounter between two men, which has little to do with procreation. We're now introducing relationships that could lead to childbirth," Martin said.

While the lesser evil concept has long been a tenet of moral theology, the pope's comments mark the first time a pope had ever publicly applied the theory to condom use as a way to fight HIV transmission.

Individual bishops and theologians have applied that theory, but it had previously been rejected at the highest levels of the Vatican and theologians have been disciplined for voicing it, Martin said.

Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert at the Vatican's bioethics advisory board, said the pope was articulating the theological idea that there are degrees of evil.

"Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst," he told The Associated Press. "Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility."

He said the pope broached the topic because questions about condoms and AIDS persisted and the church's teaching hadn't been clear. There is no official Vatican policy about condoms and HIV, and Vatican officials in the past have insisted that condoms not only don't help fight HIV transmission but make it worse because it gives users a false sense of security.

The late Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo famously said in 2003 that the HIV virus was small enough that it could "easily pass through" a condom — setting off furious criticism by AIDS activists.

Suaudeau said Benedict deliberately raised the issue in the interviews.

"He was not foolish," Suaudeau said. "It was intentional. He thought that this was a way of bringing up many questions. Why? Because it's true that the church sometimes has not been too clear."

Lombardi said the pope didn't use the technical terminology of "lesser evil" in his remarks in the book because he wanted his words to be understood by the general public. Vatican officials, however, said the concept was what he meant.

"He spoke with caution and courage of a pragmatic way through which missionaries and other ecclesial workers can help to defeat the pandemic of AIDS without approving but also without excluding — in particular cases — the use of a condom," said Luigi Accatoli, a veteran Vatican journalist.

Scientists, meanwhile, reported Tuesday that a pill already used to treat HIV infection turns out to be a powerful weapon in protecting healthy gay men from catching the virus.

Daily doses of Truvada cut the risk of infection by 44 percent when given with condoms, counseling and other prevention services, a global study found.

The results are "a major advance" that can help curb the epidemic in gay men, said Dr. Kevin Fenton, AIDS prevention chief at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But he warned they may not apply to people exposed to HIV through male-female sex, drug use or other ways. Studies in those groups are under way now. (Benedict Comments About HIV Widened.)

 

It is no wonder that the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has such a high regard for the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect. He shares much in common with Anglicans, including having his own "Lambeth Conference" moment, if you will, by means of these incredible, truly unbelievable set of remarks that give what appears to be most people in the world to be a "papal" and thus "Catholic" imprimatur on the use of a certain prophylactic by everyone infected with a certain social disease in order to preserve bodies as God is offended and souls are killed.

Indeed, some in the secular media are shocked that the false "pontiff" use the example of a man selling himself to commit sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to justify the use of the prophylactic in question:

In expressing his views on the male prostitute scenario — words themselves remarkable coming from a pope — Benedict defied categorization, showing himself to be at once strictly doctrinaire but never entirely predictable. (

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has accepted the propaganda about a worldwide "crisis" concerning the spread of a certain disease that is contracted principally by means of unchaste behavior in exactly the same manner that Giovanni Montini/Paul VI accepted the propaganda concerning a "crisis" caused by "accelerated population growth" that was, as the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., pointed out repeatedly throughout his life's work, was fictitious in order to justify the expanded use of natural means of limited the size of one's family that had been discussed by Pope Pius XII in his address to Italian midwives on October 29, 1951.

Montini/Paul VI wrote of this "accelerated population growth" both in Populorum Progressio, March 25, 1967, and Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968. Montini/Paul VI claimed in Populorum Progressio that population had grown "more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse," a claim that was pure propaganda from various population control ideologues, including those at the United Nations Organization that he, Montini/Paul VI, had said on October 4, 1965, was the "last hope of concord and peace" (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965).

In like manner, you see, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has now use the "crisis" of the spread of a social disease that can be halted only by a conversion of sinners to the Catholic Faith as they seek to cooperate with the graces won for them by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flow into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to live the Virtue of Chastity as befits their state-in-life as the means to justify the wanton use of a certain prophylactic by men and women are infected with that disease even though doing so might result in the frustration of the natural end of human conjugal relations. He sees the spread of the disease in question as a "greater evil" than denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of the marital act, heedless of the fact that those who are not infected with the disease are going to see his "widened" comments as approval for their own "alternative lifestyles" despite his stated opposition to the unchaste behavior. Such is the paradox of a mind that is not Scholastically trained.

By doing this, my good and vanishing readers, the false "pontiff," whose apostate "accomplishments" were summarized most recently in Wear Your Catholic Stripes Well, has thrown aside the teaching on the use of contraception of any type to frustrate the natural end of marriage that was enunciated by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, a teaching that was cited by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Italian Midwives, October 29, 1951:

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication" or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.

 

That's right, "Pope" Benedict XVI. "No 'indication' or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one," not even the spread of a certain disease. Catholics cannot take refuge in the "lesser evil" teaching to defend the false "pontiff" as the greater evil in this instance is the sin against the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage that also kills souls in the process. The Catholic Church does not enable sinners to make themselves "physically safe" from the consequences of their own sinful choices. They are responsible before God and man for their sinful choices, and they cannot live lives that are pleasing to the true God of Divine Revelation until they quit their sins and make a good, integral confession of them to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Like all heretics and apostates before them, those possessed of the Modernist spirit by means of the fog and ambiguity of the "new theology" must reach for "novel" solutions to various social problems that ignore the plain teaching of the Catholic Church, she who is the guardian and sole, infallible interpreter and explicator of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. In this instance, of course, the conciliar "popes," having inverted and distorted the ends of marriage, have created a circumstance in which most people believe that the principal end of marriage, the procreation and education of children, is subordinate to the "unitive" end or, in plain English, to the satisfaction of one's primal desires without regard to anything other than personal gratification.

This, too, has been condemned by Holy Mother Church. Popes Pius XI and Pius XII reiterated the Catholic teaching on the principal end of marriage, a teaching that has been contradicted by the personalists and the disciples of the hideous "theology of the body:"

Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,"[19] - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20]  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives, October 29, 1951.)

 

Cleaving to the "authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring," the conciliar "popes" are responsible for the debasing of marriage and the family despite all of their wordy protestations as to how they are defending marriage and the family. These conciliar "popes" have thus emboldened Catholics and non-Catholics alike to view the ends of marriage in a distorted and, if I may so, heretical manner contrary to the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church. It is thus no wonder that Ratzinger/Benedict can think, if you can call it this, as he does about how to prevent the spread of a social disease that is very difficult, apart from a blood transfusion or direct contact with an infected person's bodily fluids (such as happened in the case of the late Kimberly Begalis, who contracted this disease from her dentist, the late Dr. David Acer, and died from it on December 8, 1991) to contract.

So much for "Archbishop" Timothy Dolan's contention that his false church doesn't change laws in the manner of a human legislature. Behold, "Archbishop" Dolan, apart from your own participation in those conciliar changes (see Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!), how the "teaching" of your counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church on the ends of marriage is indeed a change from that taught from time immemorial by the Catholic Church. Behold, that is, for all who have the eyes to see.

The new "clarification" issued by the Vatican spinmeister, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., today contains such incredible defections from Catholic Faith and Morals as to shock those of us who are used to such defections.

First, we have learned that Ratzinger/Benedict did not make his comments on an "off-the-cuff" basis as some of us preferred to believe as to believe the opposite even of him would be, I thought, presumptuous until proved otherwise. Well, "Father" Lombardi has given us the proof:

 

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said Benedict knew full well that his new comments would provoke intense debate. Conservative Catholics have been trying to minimize the scope of what he said since excerpts were published this weekend in the Vatican newspaper.

Lombardi praised Benedict for his "courage" in confronting the problem.

"He did it because he believed that it was a serious, important question in the world of today," Lombardi said, adding that the pope wanted to give his perspective on the need for a greater humanized, responsible sexuality. (Benedict Comments About HIV Widened.)

 

Wow. This is pretty bold, yes, even for a man who has offended God so boldly and so frequently as has Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

As I asked in yesterday's commentary, "humanized sexuality"? No true pope has ever spoken in such a way. They have spoken of obedience to the laws of God and the pursuit of personal sanctity. No one is taking "steps" to "conversion" by trying to make an inherently evil act "safe" from its physical consequences by the use of a certain prophylactic, whose use does not, contrary to Ratzinger/Benedict's gratuitous assertion, retard the spread of the social disease in question.

Second, "Father" Lombardi said that the gender of the person who wants to take what the "pope" calls "responsible" measures to prevent the spread of disease does not matter, meaning that the focus of critics and defenders on the example of a man engaged in selling himself to commit sins in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments has been misplaced. The doors of licentiousness are open to everyone now:

"I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me 'no.' The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."

"This is if you're a man, a woman, or a transsexual. We're at the same point. The point is it's a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another," Lombardi said. (Benedict Comments About HIV Widened.)

 

Man, woman, or a transsexual? Huh? The latter is a "category" of human self-identification? First step of taking responsibility? What about the grave risk of losing one's immortal soul for all eternity? What about the grave risk of offending the Most Blessed Trinity?

Third, as one can see from the article above (another one has been posted on the website of The New York Times, After Remarks, Vatican Confirms Shift), Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe that he is "changing" anything, only giving "papal" voice to a view that has been expressed for a long time by many "bishops" and theologians. This is all but of his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," a delusional concept that permits one to state that nothing has changed when in fact lots of things have changed.

Among the "bishops" who have been pushing the apostate line now taken by Ratzinger/Benedict has been the disgraced Godfried"Cardinal" Danneels, whose support of the view now taken by Ratzinger/Benedict was on display six years ago.

BRUSSELS - Belgium's leading Catholic clergyman has declared that he is not opposed to the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS, in a declaration which was likely to anger Pope John Paul II.

During an interview on Dutch television, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who is Primate of the Catholic Church in Belgium, said he believed wearing a condom was acceptable in certain circumstances.

"When an HIV positive man says to his partner, 'I want to have sexual relations', then he should wear a condom," the Cardinal said.

The Cardinal qualified his comments by saying that ideally such sexual relations should not take place and that HIV positive people should try to remain celibate.

"But if relations do take place," he insisted "a person must respect the commandment that condemns murder in preference to the one that forbids adultery," he added.

The Cardinal argued that using a condom to prevent illness or death could not be judged morally in the same way as using one as a method of birth control.

His comments are likely to bring him into direct confrontation with the Roman Catholic hierarchy however.

Pope John Paul II has made it clear on numerous occasions that he is opposed to contraception in any circumstances, a stance that has earned him widespread criticism among those campaigning against the spread of AIDS.

But the current Pope is seriously ill and some analysts say Danneels' comments may suggest that more progressive Catholics are already starting to consider what direction the Church will take when a new pontiff is appointed. (Top Catholic backs prophylactics.)

 

Furthermore, of course, the conciliar revolutionaries in one diocese after another will now be emboldened to step up their propaganda campaigns in behalf of the prophylactic in question as they tear down whatever resisting walls of innocence and purity are left in the children who have been placed in their schools and religious education programs. The "rainbow sash" movement within the conciliar structures will be very emboldened as they now have a "papal" mandate to push for the promotion of their agenda for making sin "safer" from its physical consequences.

Fourth, one of the Vatican's leading "bioethicists" quoted above was bold enough to say that "contraception is not the worst evil," a proposition that he might find a little tough to justify at the moment of his Particular Judgment:

Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert at the Vatican's bioethics advisory board, said the pope was articulating the theological idea that there are degrees of evil.

"Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst," he told The Associated Press. "Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility."

He said the pope broached the topic because questions about condoms and AIDS persisted and the church's teaching hadn't been clear. There is no official Vatican policy about condoms and HIV, and Vatican officials in the past have insisted that condoms not only don't help fight HIV transmission but make it worse because it gives users a false sense of security.

The late Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo famously said in 2003 that the HIV virus was small enough that it could "easily pass through" a condom — setting off furious criticism by AIDS activists. (Benedict Comments About HIV Widened.)

 

Yes, the direct, intentional killing of a innocent human being is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Most contraceptives, however, are chemical abortifacients that kill babies just as surely as the suction machine or the butcher's scalpel or a dose of saline solution or the scissors that are injected into the skull of a baby during what the late Joseph Sobran called a "crushed skull (partial birth) abortion.

While the prophylactic in question is not an abortifacient, its use, however is insidiously evil as it is a frustration of the natural end of marriage and thus offensive to God. There is no justification for its use in order to prevent the spread of a disease that can be stopped only by observing the laws of God and the laws of nature that He gave us. To minimize the evil of contraception in a false belief that "lives" will be saved when the truth is exactly as the late Alfonso "Cardinal" Lopez Trujillo said that it was is to consign souls to lives of unrepentant Mortal Sins as they offend God and call down his wrath upon their very heads. God help those who enable the commission of such sins. Indeed, for all of his many other, well-documented faults, the late John "Cardinal" O'Connor, the conciliar "archbishop" of New York from March 19, 1984, to May 3, 2000, was quite correct when he called the assertion that the prophylactic in question "saves lives" was nothing other than a "big lie." Absolutely true.

Let me reiterate the point made by Pope Pius XII in his address to Italian midwives fifty-nine years ago:

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication" or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.

 

Ratzinger/Benedict's widened remarks are the realization of the push that has been made for such "papal" permission for the use of the prophylactic in question as the means to retard the spread of HIV/AIDS by various ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries over the years.

One such effort was an article by Father Jon Fuller, S.J., M.D., and Fathers James Keenan, S.J., that appeared in America magazine ten years ago now that I dissected in the pages of The Wanderer and in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos. The article, The Vatican's New Insights on AIDS Prevention, made many of the points that were made yesterday by the "pope" to his spinmeister, "Father" Federico Lombardi. Here is but a brief excerpt:

While many readers may be surprised by the article’s tolerance, we are not. Admittedly, the Vatican has intervened otherwise, as in 1988, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith raised questions about the U.S. Catholic Conference’s pastoral letter The Many Faces of AIDS: A Gospel Response (1987), and again in 1995, when the same congregation acted against a resource pack on H.I.V. education published with an imprimatur by the archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh. However, health care workers and moral theologians have encountered an implicit tolerance from the Roman Curia when they have first asserted church teaching on sexuality and subsequently addressed the prophylactic issue. For instance, more than 25 moral theologians have published articles claiming that without undermining church teaching, church leaders do not have to oppose but may support the distribution of prophylactics within an educational program that first underlines church teaching on sexuality. These arguments are made by invoking moral principles like those of “lesser evil,” “cooperation,” “toleration” and “double effect.” By these arguments, moralists around the world now recognize a theological consensus on the legitimacy of various H.I.V. preventive efforts.

Without known interference, the Vatican has allowed theologians to achieve this consensus. Vatican curial officials now seem willing publicly to recognize the legitimacy of the theologians’ arguments. Hesitant local ordinaries will in turn, we hope, note Monsignor Suaudeau’s tolerant signals and more easily listen to the prudent counsel of their own health care and pastoral workers and their moral theologians. (The Vatican's New Insights on AIDS Prevention.)

 

The America magazine article was very nuanced. Clearly, however, it was an effort to "mainstream" the views expressed by a Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau of the "Pontifical" Council for the Family that were expressed in an article published in (where else?) L'Osservatore Romano on April 19, 2000. The article was entitled Prophylactics or Family Values? Stopping the Spread of HIV/AIDS." According to Fathers Fuller and Keenan, Monsignor Suaudeau's article indicated wide consensus in the conciliar curia in support of the position that is now being advanced by Ratzinger/Benedict:

Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau of the Pontifical Council for the Family recently published “Prophylactics or Family Values? Stopping the Spread of HIV/AIDS” in the weekly edition of L’Osservatore Romano (4/19). Here we find important signals of what many have suspected all along: that while individual bishops and archbishops have occasionally repudiated local H.I.V. prevention programs that include the distribution of prophylactics (more commonly referred to as condoms), the Roman curia is more tolerant on the matter. (The Vatican's New Insights on AIDS Prevention.)

 

Those in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism must "respect" Ratzinger/Benedict's, shall we say for the sake of understatement, "new approach." Who says so? Ah, the notorious "Archbishop" Rino Fisichella, the man who supported baby-killing doctors in Brazil who took the lives of twin babies that were being carried by a nine year-old girl there (see So Long to the Fifth Commandment and Touchy Touchy), that's who:

The late Cardinal John O'Connor of New York famously branded the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS as "The Big Lie."

"The Vatican's acknowledgement that Pope Benedict's acceptance of condom use to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections relates to everybody shows how significant the pope's comments are," said Jon O'Brien, president of the U.S.-based Catholics for Choice group.

In the book, the pope says the use of condoms could be seen as "a first step toward moralization," even though condoms are "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."

Archbishop Rino Fisichella, a Vatican official who presented the book, said Catholics had to "respect" the pope's words even though they were not made in an official papal pronouncement.

Through the book and Lombardi's comments, the pope seemed to be giving a cautious, qualified endorsement of the "ABC principle" (Abstinence-Be faithful-Condom) espoused by many governments and health organizations in preventing AIDS.

"For the first time, the use of condoms in special circumstances was endorsed by the Vatican, and this is good news and a good beginning for us," said Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization. (Vatican broadens case fight AIDS - Yahoo! News.)

 

Anyone who thinks that "activists"of the lavender persuasion will not be emboldened now to push and push and push for even broader acceptance of the immoral and medically ineffective means to fight the spread of the social disease in question is simply living in a world of willful self-delusion that has no relationship to reality whatsoever. And it is worthwhile to note as well that Ratzinger/Benedict chose "Archbishop" Fisichella to "present" his new book despite the egregious error that Fisichella made in the case of rebuking the conciliar "Archbishop" of Recife, Brazil, Cardoso Sobrinho, for excommunicating doctors who killed that nine year-old girl's preborn baby twins. Then again, of course, Ratzinger/Benedict has said and done NOTHING to correct the blatant apostasy of "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch of the Archdiocese of Freiburg, Germany, five hundred ninety-three (593) days after he, Zollitsch, denied publicly that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died in atonement for our sins on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. It astounds me that so few people understand or accept the simple truth that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict has not care for the integrity of the Catholic Faith.

Ratzinger/Benedict knows that a major part of his "right flank" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is "covered" on this matter. The Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, will be as silent about this as he has been about Ratzinger/Benedict's open, blatant, bold violations against the First and Second Commandment as he, Ratzinger/Benedict, has esteemed personally the symbols of false religions, entered into places of false worship, praised the nonexistent ability of false religions to better the world and promote world peace and has given "joint blessings" with the false "ministers" of these false religions.

Bishop Fellay has been silent. Cowardly silent. He will say nothing now as he rounds up his troops to be surrendered over to the One World Ecumenical Church once and for all. Indeed, he is too busy preparing the expulsion of Bishop Richard Williamson, who came in for criticism once again from the false "pontiff" in his interview with Peter Seewald that has been published as Light of the World, from the Society of Saint Pius X to express any outrage at the man he believes is the "pope" for this "new approach" that would never have been approved by any true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Mind you, this is not even to mention Ratzinger/Benedict's continued apostasy concerning the Jews that is contained in Light of the World that is causing the scales to drop from at least some of those who post comments on the Rorate Caeli blogspot. Ah, yes, the "pope" of Tradition! The "restorer of the Catholic Faith." I forgot. How silly of me.

We need to make many acts of reparation for the crimes against Faith and Morals that have been and continue to be committed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as we continue to make reparation for our own many sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits.

Look at it this way: the mess has gotten so bad and has spread so very fast, particularly in recent years, that the restoration of the Church Militant on earth can be done only by the direct intervention of God as a result of the Triumph of His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. There is not a conciliar "bishop" alive who is going to "challenge" his "pope" publicly on this any more than they have raised a peep about "papal" violations of the First and Second Commandments. There is no putative "successor" in the conciliar structures to set things right. Only Our Lord will do so when this period of Chastisement has run its course and Our Lady's Fatima Message is fulfilled at the most unlikely time imaginable.

Take heart! This is the time that God has willed for eternity for us to be alive and to save our souls.

Take heart! The late William C. Koneazny, the founder of the Catholic Rendezvous meetings that were held is Salisbury, Connecticut, and Sheffield, Massachusetts, told one of his daughters before he died of stomach cancer on June 16, 2004: "Our Lady will come and throw the bums out." She will restore the bastions that have been razed by Father Joseph Ratzinger before and during his reign as "Benedict XVI."

Take heart! We are Catholics. This will pass. May we bear the cross of the present moment with joy and gratitude that we have access to true bishops and true priests who recognize conciliarism to be from the devil and the conciliar "popes" to be nothing other than precursors of Antichrist himself.

 

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 John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Chrysogonus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints.