Impide Fuentes Indeseables

IP Address
by Tejji

domingo, 29 de junio de 2014

Magisterial Dis-orientations

The instrumentum terroris of the Synod on the Family

by Father Terzio

Taken from:  of  Thursday, June 26, 2014

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

Every time some minutia on the coming Synod on the Family is made known, apprehensions among conscientious Catholics increase, alerted (alarmed!) by the pre-synodal deed of Kasper and his lobby. Presentation of the synodal instrumentum laboris confirms our nefarious predictions, anticipating that all which may come from the first Francis synod has already been cast in concrete, all set simply for its presentation, discussion formality, approval and publication.
Although it is said that Kasper insists in denying what he has postulated, which is pictured to us in rainbow colors (so that each of us may choose the color of the crystal through which he wants to look at it), what Kasper has postulated has already been granted. It will be disguised under canonicist-pastoralist technicisms, but it will be granted, and a permissive (lenient?) sacramental praxis will be articulated for those who have incurred in post-divorce marriage disorders.
The synods (the Synod of Bishops) were conceived, in a certain sense, as a continuation of the Council, an exercise in collegiality and a revised renewal of Vatican II's.directions. The conciliar-synodal concordance is so great that even definitions are repeated identically. Concerning the instrumentum laboris (and of the expected synodal document, of course) it is said that “it has the nature of a pastoral document, not a doctrinal one, the ideas are not altered, only the manner in which delicate situations are dealt with is modified”. That equivocating ambiguity which was denounced by Romano Amerio is maintained. For example, on the very grave topic of homosexuality the following is said (and then recanted):
... There is no foundation at all to assimilate or establish analogies, not even remote, between homosexual unions and God's design over marriage and family, Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, tenderness. Regarding them, all unjust discriminatory gesture should be avoided.
The tactical scheme is the arch-hackneyed statement which condemns in the first part but approves/grants in the second part, an exercise of exquisite rhetorical perfidy which was consecrated, passim, in quasi all conciliar documents.
Note, on the other hand, that the quotation of the instrumentum laboris follows the line which was established in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the topics regarding the sins against sextum, the homosexual praxis is not listed in the enumeration of sins catalogued under the caption of offenses against chastity (lust, masturbation, fornication, pornography, prostitution and rape), but under a different epigraph titled “Chastity and homosexuality”, another example of the textual equivocality to which I alluded above. A first paragraph picks up the condemna­tion, proven with quotations from Sacred Scripture, calling them sins contra-natura, but is followed immediately by:
A considerable number of men and women exhibit deeply rooted homosexual tendencies. This leaning, objectively disordered, constitutes for the majority of them an authentic trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and tenderness. With respect to them all signs of unjust discrimination should be avoided. These persons are called to do God's will in their life and, if they are Christian, to unite the Lord's sacrifice on the Cross to the difficulties which they might encounter on account of their condition. cfr. C.C.C. nn. 2351-2356 y 2357-2359
The instrumentum laboris of the Synod expresses itself with the same words as the Catechism: “... men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and tenderness. With respect to them all signs of unjust discrimination should be avoided.”
The deed (the sensitive opening-up to those affected) took place already in Saint Wojtyla's time. Now, Pope Franciscus' men just advance one more step, make a new pull. What may follow is as dantesque as one may dare imagine.
I cannot understand, however, how, having all opinion favoring them, all submissive and enthusiastic, the entire world cheering and applauding, how they do not dare simply and plainly sanction the expiration of Humanae Vitae, of Familaris Consortio, of the morality of the Patriarchs, the Prophets and the Apostles, including proclaiming "out" the Sacred Family of Nazareth, such awful, politically incorrect example of family non-model.
It would be shorter and everyone would understand better (and cheer still more)
Although we already know it is part of the game that they do not become aware and go on applauding, fascinated, while ruin advances at an accelerated pace.

Tu autem, Domine, miserere.

sábado, 7 de junio de 2014

Democracy as a Wellspring of Subversion


Conference by Dr. Julián Gil de Sagredo
Taken from www.
Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

Dear friends, I am going to talk to you about democracy as a source of subversion, and I will focus my topic on the doctrinal plane from three points of view. the theological, the philosophical and the political.

Democracy, from a theoretical standpoint presents different aspects for the theologian, the philosopher and the politician. But if theology, philosophy and political science are assembled in a unitary synthesis, with a common foundation, it can then be noted that these diverse approaches are linked together by way of causality, in a man­ner such that the premises in the theological order determine in certain sense the logical consequences in the philosophical order, and these, in turn, determine like­wise its pertinent derivations of a political nature. Let us try to demonstrate our point:

Democracy from a theological viewpoint:

It may seem strange to approach from a theological viewpoint a matter so political as is democracy. Remembering, however, with Donoso Cortés, that "the great political problems always involve a theological problem", I dare try to discover the internal relationships linking the two aspects, the theological and the political. And for that pur­pose nothing better than to delve into the intimate essence of democracy.

Aristotle says that "democracy had its origin in the belief that, being all men equal in some aspects, they were equal in all". This belief, with time, transformed democracy into a kind of political fashion; political fashion which now is claimed by all states, but which can only be boasted by those which, as Louis Salleron remarked with a touch of irony, "proclaim themselves demo­cra­tic with the approval of the United States and Russia" . It is quite true that the verdict of both powers merit little respect, since, nowadays, all proclaim themselves to be democrat­ic: communists and anti-communists, socialists and anti-socialists, monarchists and republicans, lefts, centers, civilized rights and uncivilized ones, and woe to him who does not prostrate himself kneeling before such an overreaching goddess! he will instantly fall fulminated by her thunderous lightning, as an "ultra", an "immobilist", an "extremist", a "totalitarian"!

I, on my part, do not question the charms of democracy. It may be the hidden manna which, at dawn, as hap­pened at the Sinai desert, yields a mysterious nectar which pleases the taste of all palates. It may be the "uni­versal panacea", the "yellow ointment", the "abracadabra", the "philosopher's stone" which solves all problems and remedies all evil.

What is certain, however, is that, if we look at its external forms of expression, we see that democracy breeds obscenity, ordinaryness, filth and vulgarity at all levels, and, which is worse, if we look at the internal forms of thought, we will notice that, along with democracy, comes confusion, disconcert and disorientation, in ideas, in judgment and in doctrine.

It follows that, the more people try to define the concept of democracy with exactitude, the more such concept appears to be ambiguous, equivocal and multifarious. You may know that a doctoral dissertation presented at the University of Oslo some years ago, picks up about three hundred definitions of democracy. Analyzing, how­ever, the common concept underlying all those definitions, it can be proven that their center of gravity is the con­cept of "liberty". Depending on the meaning and content we attach to this word, we will get a particular kind of "democracy".

The possibility may exist ̶ then ̶ for a unique kind of democracy to be found, which could, hypothetically, pre­sent itself without its natural incoherence, but it is evident that no credence is deserved by a term such as "demo­cra­cy", the conceptual multiformity of which allows for the indiscriminate traffic of all kinds of mental com­modities.

For that reason, while admitting the possibility of finding a democracy which could present itself without its natu­ral incoherence ̶ which conformed with right reason ̶ we insist that what is characteristic of democracy, as what is characteristic of liberalism from which it derives, is not the concept of "liberty" but the ideological hegemo­ny of "liberty"; the expression of "liberty" as an absolute value, as a supreme category which pays no homage to any other. The exaltation of free man as the center and axis of the universe, in a word, anthropocentrism.

Secondly, as regardless of its political, social and economic derivatives, democracy has a marked character of theological significance, since it implies, in its very same concept of liberty, a seed of rebellion against God. Seed of rebellion which shows in the plans of its promoters, when they present it and spread it as though it were the universal religion of modern times. Religion containing as dogma, its "faith in man", and as ritual, "universal suffrage", exclusive source of power and sovereignty.

Democracy is preached as a value transcending the person and society in all their dimensions, as the mark which impresses character, not only in politics, but in all manifestations of human spirit, education, culture, science, economy, art, love; what is intended ̶ in a word ̶ is to create something sacred, untouchable, dogmatic, at a universal scale; in such a way that it will get to substitute for God as the ultimate explanation of the meaning of life. That is why Donoso Cortés fittingly said that "democracy is the human echo of the rebellion of the fallen angel". Such echo is reflected in the antithesis formulated by the liberal doctrine against the Word of God. The Gospel of Saint John, chapter eight, verse thirty two says: "Truth shall make you free", in other words: truth engenders liberty; words which liberalism casts inverted: "liberty engenders truth". And, as effects participate in their causes, and liberty is personal, subjective, variable; the "truth" which it fabricates and contrives will have those same characteristics. It will, therefore, not be objective, but subjective; not absolute, but relative; not immutable, but variable; not "the truth", but "my truth", "your truth", "his truth". That way, the intellective facul­ty becomes subordinated to the volitive, understanding subordinated to will, light to darkness, objective order to the subjective: We have attained relativism and with relativism, scepticism. This is the corrosive, devastating origin of liberalism, the multifarious expression of which is democracy.

Its effects are denounced by the same Donoso Cortés in the following terms: "just as the Word of God, when rightfully interpreted, is the only one capable of giving life, so will also that same word, when disfigured or wrongly interpreted become capable of producing death". Remember, for instance, the transformation of sacred concepts operated by ecclesiastic progressivism. Our Savior is transformed into a "liberator of the proletariat"; salvation of the soul, transformed into "liberation from economic servitude"; charity   ̶ a theological virtue ̶  into "human love" and philanthropy; Christ's spiritual reign into a "temporal and earthly kingdom"; theocentrism into "anthropo­centrism". So, in disfiguring, in inverting the meaning of Jesus Christ's words, in founding truth on liberty and not liberty on truth, death of the real objective order is produced and, as a consequence, death in the political, social and economic order. There you have democracy from a theological viewpoint. The rebellion of liberty against truth, rebellion of man against God. Let us now look at democracy from the philosophical viewpoint. 

Democracy from a philosophical point of view

This subversion, of a theological sign, which places liberty ahead of truth, engenders, as a consequence, a second subversion, which could be called philosophical, by which virtue puts man's liberty ahead of those laws or principles which conform his own nature. Yea, the two-pole conception of man, which binds him with God as his ultimate end and binds him with society as an intermediary and instrumental end, gets distorted in its indivi­dual projection by Luther and Descartes, who inspired liberalism, and in its social projection by Hobbes and Rous­seau, who made liberalism happen.

Let us see how:
Luther makes man independent of God because, in the binomial of salvation, will-grace binomial which defin­itively resolves man's destiny for eternity, he subtracts will from grace, making exclusively the latter responsible for salvation and granting the former such autonomy as proceeds from free examination. The first step has been taken, human will is autonomous.

Descartes makes understanding independent from the work of God, from God's creation, inasmuch as from the binomial of truth adequatio rei ad intellectus, he subtracts understanding from objective reality, since intelligence does not reach truth by subjecting it to reality but by creating it, fabricating it. Taken this second step: not only the will but also the intellect becomes autonomous, it dictates its own laws. We find ourselves, then, before man's absolute autonomy, intellectual and volitive. We have thus attained liberalism's first dogma: "liberty". But, at the same time, we have detached man from his proper end, verum as regards his understanding, bonum as regards his will and, since a person's end individuates the person as regards his acts, we have deprived the person from his authentic individual dimension.

That is how you can explain that a king, such as Juan Carlos I, being a Catholic in private, promulgated and published an impious and atheistic constitution. And that, ministers who proclaim themselves to be Catholic such as Cavero and Landelino Lavilla, should submit to the Congress of Deputies, a divorce law which infringes upon Divine and natural law. Thus, with a Catholic king, with Catholic ministers, an anti-catholic society and an anti-Catholic State began to be shaped. Such are the genialities of Maritain, a mind as subtle as contradictory. Converted from protestantism, he never finished assimilating Christianity, returning always to the roots from which he sprung. 

Let us lastly examine democracy from a political view­point. 

Democracy from a political point of view:

Even though philosophers say that “ab absurdo sequitur quodlibet”, and thus that "error is not consistent with itself", we must admit nevertheless— that a certain logical coherence exists between errors; in this case between the theological, the philosophical and the political errors.

Since liberalism, in placing liberty before truth in the theological order, deforms the hierarchy of ends of human nature itself in the philosophical order, it also deforms, as a consequence, the natural structure of society in the political order. From this disorder comes the confrontation promoted by liberalism against the spontaneous structural framing of social forces which constitute the political structure of society according to the order estab­lished by God, because He is nature's Creator. Established order which, to prevent on the one hand the excesses of individual liberty and on the other the excesses of authority, put between them, by society's natural evolution, certain buffering cushions called "intermediary bodies".

These natural social ropes placed between the State and the individual, between the giant and the dwarf , which pre­vent the frontal collision with one another, interpose those barriers which protect the person making it immune to the abuse of those in power. The impact, then, of state action does not fall on the social molecules as a deluge which ravages and destroys, but as still water, canalized through those intermediary institutions which it must cross, which have the role of filters to clear it and soften it. It is not so easy, then, for a totalitarian state to atomize the people, or in a liberal state, where individual liberties turn into licentiousness and anarchy, to under­mine the foundations of authority, because between them are interposed, in the one case as in the other, those contention embankments which constitute the natural social corporate bodies.

For this reason, the intermediary bodies and the social order are two concepts so closely bound together that a natural social order is not possible without intermediary bodies. An artificial social order —result of compulsion— may be possible without them. Nor can there be intermediary bodies except within a range, between its two extremes, its opposite ends, where these bodies can develop their existence. Thus, the society with no interme­diary bodies, as promoted by liberalism, the democratic society of universal suffrage, of political parties, of man-as-number, of individuals as votes, is an invertebrate, inorganic, flattened society, dispersed into individual atoms, in amorphous crowds; it is a society diluted in a de-personalized mass, easy prey to demagogy, to con­front it to power, as well as easy prey to fraud and deceit, to exploit it from positions of power.

And in such a de-personalized and inorganic society which nullifies all possibility of hierarchical structuring through intermediary bodies, economic liberalism finds the proper field to develop its doctrinal postulates. Postulates which by inverting the scale of social values established by Saint Augustine in de Libero Arbitrio, book first, chapter fifteen, it not only impregnates human life with a materialistic sense, but it ends up reducing to economics the ultimate explanatory reason for man, as though a person were substantially homo economicus rather than homo rationalis.

Liberal economics, based on the principle of "solve et coagula": dissolve and coagulate; that is, first de-personal­ize and then massify, promotes the uprooting of man from its familial and social medium, detaching him from the bonds that used to protect him, leaving him defenseless, without personality and without responsibility, and in this way it incorporates him without resistance into an amorphous mass which it can manipulate at discretion.

Such economic liberalism, such democracy, which raises profitability as the supreme criterion of its doctrine, condemns in the name of such sovereign criterion, the small family farm, the small factory or shop, the small grocery store, the small market, all of which are drowned, asphyxiated, by the huge agricultural and forestry concerns, by the great industrial complexes, by the great department stores, the large supermarkets and the huge hypermarkets. In the name of that sovereign criterion, family homestead and small landholdings are eliminated, the mass of salaried persons is swelled, idolatrous cult is rendered to production and to work. In the name of such sovereign criterion, anonymous, liberal capitalism is created, which detaches capital from the hands of its owners and casts it in the anonymity of the great financial powers, national and multinational. They are the inventors of industrial society and its indispensable support: "the society of consumption", as the sole categories which divide the social body into producers and consumers.

To this sad role of producer or consumer gets human dignity to be degraded. Such is, in the final instance, the liberty hawked by liberal economy; and so is the road left clear and expeditious to impose its monopoly and tyranny over the mass of producers and consumers.

And finally— in the name of such criterion, anonymous capitalism is transformed into speculative capitalism, money industry for the sake of money, with which everything is bought and everything is conquered, including the State itself, which is the final goal. In that way, economic power is confused with political power, and totalitarianism sets in, the ultimate consequence of liberal principles. A consequence, equally ultimate, of a disorder the root of which rests on the exaltation of liberty outside its limits.

This limitation which in the theological order comports the alienation with respect to God, in the philosophical order the alienation with respect to man, and in the political order the alienation with respect to society. From the theological disorder, the philosophical disorder follows, and from this the political disorder; three consecutive failures: theological, philosophical and political. Three eloquent proofs that give evidence of: first, the rebellion against God; second, the rebellion against God´s law in man; third, the rebellion against God´s law in society. Eloquent proofs which determine and demonstrate how liberalism, how democracy which is its reflection, cons­titute the basis and foundation of its subversion.

The ideas that I have just exposed do not remain in the stratosphere of thought, but are dynamic, tend to become reality, to descend to the social field, to encase themselves in flesh and bones, and once they have penetrated society and have acquired sufficient maturity, are the ones which bring about, in fact, the great cata­clysms, the great national and international revolutions... but this could be the object of another conference: the demonstration that democracy not only in the doctrinal plane, but in the actual and social plane is a well­spring of subversion.

viernes, 6 de junio de 2014

Love, Truth and Mercy

by Father Santiago Martín
from a meditation which can be heard in Spanish at: feature=player_embedded&v=uknkkQ6sUJc

Excerpts, in quotes, published in Spanish by
Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

I do not hesitate to affirm that the great malady of our time is its deficit of Truth. Success, results, has replaced truth's primacy everywhere. Renunciation of truth, and fleeing away from it towards group conformity are not a road to peace. This kind of community is built on sand. The pain of truth is the presupposition of the true community. This pain must be accepted day in and day out. It is only in the small patience of thruth that we mature inside, we make ourselves free for ourselves and free for God.”
Benedict XVI


We present below, in general terms, the ideas cast by Father Santiago Martin FM in a meditation which can be watched and heard in Spanish on Magnificat TV

“In this meditation I want to address [...] a question which bothers me extraordinarily. It worries me to the point that I believe the future of the Church is at stake; possibly as it has never been in two thousand years. On the horizon I see the real possibility of a schism with grave consequences. Naturally, my opinion would have no value were it not shared with persons much more learned and relevant than I.”

“It is openly being talked of schism as a real possibility. And I beleive there are moments in life when one has to have the courage to talk. And to talk frankly and honestly [...] So that certain things which have many, but too many possibilities of occurring, do not happen, the time is now, the decisive moment I believe, to talk.”

“I see myself duty bound in conscience to talk this clearly. I believe that there are many others who have been doing it as well. I know not whether uselessly, but the moment to say it is this. You cannot go against the teachings of Christ. Nobody, but absolutely nobody in the Catholic Church can say “You have heard that Jesus said and so..., but I tell you”, because only Jesus is the Son of God ... If anyone pretends to be more God than Jesus Christ, he is auto­matically outside of the Catholic Church.”

“The use being given to the concept of mercy is an absolutely demagogical one. To say that mercy has to be applied without regard to Truth, or against Truth, is to go directly against the teachings of Christ Himself. To say that truth does not exist or that cannot be attained or that it is relative or that no absolute or objective truth exists, is not only to deny two thousand years of Christian thought but to deny thousands of earlier years of thought itself; it is to go back culturally to a time prior to Socrates'. One has to have either too much courage or too great ignorance to dare say this. To this, one can only respond: How bold is ignorance!”

"Truth exists and to know it is possible. To divest truth from the discourse of love is to run directly into a demagogical falsification of such discourse, which ends up inflicting harm to the person."

"While God's mercy is infinite, its reception is confined by man. Mercy is a gift, not a right. It is something we receive when we meet certain conditions. God has mercy for us always, but receiving that mercy is what we can condition. To receive it one has to ask for it and to pre­pare himself internally as is fitting."

"God's mercy, God's forgiveness can only be understood as a gift, no as a right. This is a point regarding which people are being demagogically led to confusion. I have a right to .., to what? to take communion? to become a priest? These are gifts. There is no right to these things. A petition to God cannot be a petition of rights but one of gratitude. Do we by chance have the right to get God's pardon? Did we by chance have the right for God to become man?"

"Living in a world where rights have been hypertrophied and duties have been nullified, all is a right, any desire is seen as a right. Which is plainly false."

"A disequilibrium has been produced at all levels; at work, in society, in the family, which is leading society to self destruction. And the relationship with God is what is destroyed in the first place."

"If we pose the relationship with God from the perspective of someone who has the right to so and so, we nullify the possibility of gratefulness, and with it the possibility of loving Love, and by not loving we cannot be happy and additionally we close the gates to heaven to ourselves, because to go to heaven one has to love."

"A concept of mercy which does not take into account that it is not a right but a gift, and which does not take into account that certain conditions have to be met to get it (i.e. contrition and resolve to sin no more) is a false concept of mercy."

"To separate truth, demagogically as it is being done, from the concept of mercy is to inflict immense harm on the person to whom, theoretically, a benefit is intended."

"It is being affirmed that Eucharistic Communion is a right to which access, without any need to meet any sort of conditions, should not be denied. This is tantamount to ignoring the words in the New Testament itself (1 Cor, 11, 27.29). He who unworthily receives the body and blood of Christ offends Christ Himself and this can lead him to eternal damnation. In two thousand years of Church history, never has it been pretended to separate the state of grace from Eucharistic Communion. This is something unprecedented in the Church; These things have never been questioned. To be able to receive the Holy Eucharist, a person to has to be in a state of grace and be in communion with the teachings of the Church."

"Cardinal Kasper's declarations with respect to the possibility of admitting divorced and remar­ried persons to Eucharistic Communion, breaks with all of Church's tradition. If the door to Eucharistic Communion were to be opened, disregarding the conditions mentioned above (to be in grace and to accept the teachings of the Church); if communion were to be permitted to those divorced and remarried, the demand would come immediately to allow anyone o take communion, regardless of his state in life, his moral behavior or his adherence to the teach­ings of Our Lord which have been kept faithfully by the Church from its beginnings to our day. If the door is opened for divorced and remarried to take communion, it is just a matter of time, and not much for that matter, for the door to be opened widely to everyone and anyone what­soever."

"Beyond this foreseeable consequence, one should ask himself it the person who in such condition is admitted to receive the Eucharist will end up being benefited or not. To which one has to answer No!, because the same Word of God mentioned earlier says that he who unworthily receives our Lord eats and drinks his own damnation."

"Mercy, compassion, even when requested by the very same person who suffers, if it is severed from truth is not true mercy, it is false, it does not benefit he who asks for it but causes harm in him."

"We now see being presented as merciful someone who welcomes and consents to the petition of a person wishing to take communion without first attaining the conditions required.  But what authority does he have to authorize this? Christ Himself has established the condi­tions and nobody is above Him or has the authority to change His message. He who does this is dismissing Christ as founder of Christianity and putting himself in His place. He does it out of compassion but acts against the will of Christ Himself."

"Such kind of concession would not only harm the person who goes to communion without first attaining the required conditions, but would also do great harm to the community, because it would lead it to division. Were this to happen it would take the Church, clearly, to schism."