(Settimo Cielo) – The irrationality of many of Pope Francis’s decisions is found not only in the selection of cardinals – both promoted and excluded – as laid bare on August 31 between the serious and the burlesque by Milan archbishop Mario Delpini in his unforgettable commendation (at 2:14:20 of the video recording) of the bishop of the little diocese of Como, Oscar Cantoni, clad in purple unlike him.
The irrationality seems to have infected even the Vatican institutes most in tune with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, including the Pontifical Academy for Life presided over by Bishop Vincenzo Paglia, 77, a prominent figure of the Community of Sant’Egidio.
This, at least, is the severe judgment on the latest theological product of the academy formulated by two first-rate scholars such as Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, former prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, and Professor Stephan Kampowski, full professor of philosophical anthropology at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.
Falling under their criticism is the volume, edited by Paglia and published this summer by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, “Theological ethics of life. Scripture, tradition, practical challenges,” which collects the proceedings of a seminar held by the academy and proposes “a revolution of Catholic morality” that subverts the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” which defined artificial contraception as morally illicit.
But so far nothing new. Right after its publication in 1968 “Humanae Vitae” was already being contested and rejected not only by ranks of theologians but by entire episcopal conferences.
The innovation would instead be – in the judgment of Müller and Kampowski – precisely in the irrationality of the thesis maintained today by the Pontifical Academy for Life, which states it is in agreement with the teaching of “Humanae Vitae” and at the same time affirms the opposite, namely that artificial contraception can be morally licit, as this is held to be, beyond the letter, “the deeper intention” of Paul VI’s encyclical.
***MAJOR UPDATE, November 10, 2022*** LifeSiteNews reported the bombshell statement issued by Archbishop Viganò, declaring that members of the “Bergoglian church” are no longer in union with the Church of Christ.
According to Archbishop Viganò:
the visible church, to which the world gives the name of Catholic Church and of which it considers Bergoglio as Pope, is no longer Church...
This statement was long overdue, and Archbishop Viganò is finally sounding the alarm — Pope Francis is leading the Church into something radically different than the Church established by Christ. Pope Francis cannot continue betraying the faithful by abdicating his duty as Universal Shepherd.
The time to redouble our efforts and fervently request that Pope Francis repent and be reconciled with the Church is NOW.
SIGN and SHARE. Defend the Church and demand that Pope Francis faithfully uphold the authentic Catholic faith!
Bishops from across the world have raised concern over Pope Francis' unfaithfulness to the 2,000+ years of Catholic teaching, and the recent statement by Archbishop Viganò is truly the breaking point into a new era for faithful Catholics.
READ THE FULL STATEMENT FROM LIFESITENEWS AND SIGN THIS PETITION TO DEFEND THE CHURCH NOW.
Bishop Joseph Strickland, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Fr. James Altman, and two dozen more faithful Catholic priests & scholars are publicly calling out Pope Francis for his outrageous, dangerous, and heretical teaching concerning reception of Holy Communion.
Pope Francis stated that "faith" is the only requirement for those who wish to receive Holy Communion in his June 29 Apostolic Letter on the liturgy, Desiderio desideravi.
This statement is dangerous because:
- The Council of Trent explicitly anathematized those who make this claim calling it 'heresy'
- Pope Francis omitted the essential step of repentance for sin to worthily receive the Eucharist.
- Pope Francis is thereby allowing the faithful to eat and drink condemnation on themselves, should they receive Holy Communion unworthily
- Pope Francis is supporting moral relativism, eradicating the clear distinction between good and evil
- Pope Francis is eradicating the need for the Sacrament of Confession
- Pope Francis is damaging the teaching office of the Church by sowing doubt and division among faithful Catholics
But there is a way to stop Pope Francis' modernist attack and defend the true Catholic teaching on Holy Communion.
Catholics everywhere must renounce Pope Francis' heresy and uphold the truth: only Baptized Catholics in the state of grace, and therefore free of mortal sin, can receive Holy Communion*.
For those in mortal sin, repentance and absolution must first be sought in the Sacrament of Confession before receiving the Eucharist*.
Pope Francis' statement would mislead many souls, which is why we need your help today to stand with Bishop Strickland, Fr. Altman, Bishop Schneider, and more.
TELL POPE FRANCIS: HOLY COMMUNION CAN ONLY BE RECEIVED IN THE STATE OF GRACE!
The growing list of faithful Catholics who are standing for the truth and bravely resisting Pope Francis' attempt to dilute the Church's moral authority is only growing. This is great news, but the news can't simply stop with you.
You must join the growing list of supporters to but a STOP to Pope Francis' heresy.
WATCH: LifeSiteNews' co-CEO and Editor-in-Chief, John-Henry Westen, fully breaks down the growing list of faithful Catholics choosing to resist Pope Francis' attack on the faith.
Stand with these faithful Catholics: Bishop Joseph E. Strickland, Bishop André Gracida, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Robert Mutsaerts, Father Gerald E. Murray, Father James Altman, Father John Lovell, Professor Claudio Pierantoni, Dr. John Lamont, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Professor Anna Silvas, Dr. Anthony Esolen, Professor John Rist, Professor Paolo Pasqualucci, Julia Meloni, George Neumayr, and LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen.
*However, if a Catholic is unable to attend Confession but has a grave reason for receiving the Eucharist (such as a priest who may be required to celebrate Mass at a given time but who is unable to go to Confession), such a person must be confident to the best of his ability that he have perfect contrition for any mortal sins that he may have committed before receiving Holy Communion in an exceptional situation.
It is not clear whether Pope Francis shares this thesis or not. However, he is allowing it to be upheld by an important institute of the Holy See, and his hints on the matter are not lacking in ambiguity.
It is true that he has always said that he admires Paul VI more than any other pope of the last century. But in one of his first wide-ranging interviews, with “Corriere della Sera” of March 5, 2014, when asked about “Humanae Vitae” he replied that “all of this depends on how Humanae Vitae is interpreted,” since “the question is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and seeing to it that pastoral care takes situations into account.”
Moreover, Pope Francis very often bends in support of the changes he hopes for – most recently in his conversation with the Jesuits of Canada published by “La Civiltà Cattolica” – the ancient saying of St. Vincent of Lérins according to which even dogma “progresses, being consolidated over the years, developed with time, deepened with age.”
In short, there are already those in the Church who reckon that the outcomes of the Synod on Synodality sponsored by the Pope – open as it is to the most varied and reckless proposals for innovation – could even include that of moving past the doctrine of “Humanae Vitae.”
But let’s get back to the essay by Cardinal Müller and Professor Kampowski. It is thorough and well argued, with a rich assortment of notes, and can be read in its entirety, for the first time in Italian, on this other page of Settimo Cielo, while in English it has been online since August 27 on the American site “First Things.”
Its very brief “incipit” ends precisely by denouncing the irrationality of the thesis upheld by the Pontifical Academy for Life, which is none other than “to state the opposite of the teaching, while at the same time claiming that one agrees.” Entirely the opposite of the Aristotelian principle of non-contradiction.
Reprinted with permission from Settimo Cielo