| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 295 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 292 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex
|
| Latest Threads |
Pope Pius XI : Lux Verita...
Forum: Encyclicals
Last Post: Stone
2 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 3,707
|
Feast of the Maternity of...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
2 hours ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 4,788
|
Where did those lies abou...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 01:56 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 7,204
|
Pope St. Pius X's prophec...
Forum: Catholic Prophecy
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:51 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,696
|
Holy Mass in Georgia [Atl...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:42 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 51
|
Holy Mass in New Hampshir...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:37 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 51
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:50 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 469
|
St. Louis de Montfort: Af...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
10-09-2024, 11:52 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,605
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
10-09-2024, 11:30 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 80
|
Please Pray for Bishop Ti...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
10-09-2024, 04:01 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 613
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: The Origins of Liberalism |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-23-2022, 09:17 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
 |
The Angelus - August 1987
The Origins of Liberalism
taken from They Have Uncrowned Him Chapter One
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
"If you do not read, you will sooner or later be traitors, because you will not have understood the root of the evil." It is these words that one of my colleagues recommended on one occasion.1
One cannot indeed either understand the present crisis of the Church, or know the true face of the people in present-day Rome, or therefore grasp the attitude to take vis-à-vis the events, if he does not research into the causes, if he does not go back up the course of their history, if he does not find out the primary source of that liberalism condemned by the popes for the past two centuries.
Our Light: the Voice of the Popes
We will set out then from the origins, as the Sovereign Pontiffs do, when they denounce the confusions that are at hand. Now, always while indicting liberalism, the popes look farther into the past; and all of them, from Pius VI to Benedict XV, take the crisis back to the struggle engaged in against the Church in the sixteenth century by Protestantism, and to the naturalism of which this heresy was the cause and the first one to spread it.
The Renaissance and Naturalism
Naturalism is found beforehand in the Renaissance, which, in its effort to recover the riches of the ancient pagan cultures, and of the Greek culture and art in particular, came to glorify man, nature, and natural forces to an exaggerated degree. In exalting the goodness and the power of nature, one devalued and made disappear from the minds of men the necessity of grace, the fact that humanity is destined for the supernatural order, and the light brought in by revelation. Under a pretext of art, they determined to introduce then everywhere, even in the churches, that nudism—we can speak without exaggeration of nudism—which triumphs in the Sistine Chapel in Rome. Without doubt, looked at from the point of view of art, those works have their value; but they have, alas, above all a carnal aspect of exaltation of the flesh that is really opposed to the teaching of the Gospel: "For the flesh covets against the spirit," says Saint Paul, "and the spirit militates against the flesh" (Galatians 5:17).
I do not condemn this art if it is kept in secular museums, but I do not see in it a means of expressing the truth of the Redemption, that is to say, the happy submission of mended nature to grace. My judgment will certainly be different on the baroque art of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, especially in the countries that resisted Protestantism: the baroque will still call on chubby angels, but this art that is very much of movement and of sometimes pathetic expression is a cry of triumph for the Redemption, a chant of victory for Catholicism over the pessimism of a cold and hopeless Protestantism.
Protestantism and Naturalism
Speaking precisely, it can seem strange and paradoxical to qualify Protestantism as being naturalism. There is nothing in Luther of this exaltation of the intrinsic good of nature, since, according to him, nature is incurably fallen and concupiscence is invincible. Nonetheless the excessively nihilistic look that the Protestant casts onto himself results in a practical naturalism: by dint of depreciating nature and exalting the force of faith alone, one relegates divine grace and the supernatural order to the domain of abstractions. For the Protestants, grace does not operate like a true interior renewal; baptism is not the restoring of an habitual supernatural state, it is only an act of faith in Jesus Christ, who justifies and saves.
Nature is not restored by grace, it remains intrinsically corrupt, and faith obtains from God only that He throws over our sins the modest cloak of Noah. From then on, the whole supernatural organism that baptism has just added to nature by taking root in it, all the infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, are reduced to nothingness, brought back as they are to that lone frenzied act of faith—confidence in a Redeemer who does not let us off except to withdraw far from His creature, leaving an ever so colossal abyss between man, permanently miserable, and the thrice holy transcendant God.
This pseudo-super-naturalism, as Father Garrigou-Lagrange calls it, in the end leaves man, although redeemed, to the mere strength of his natural virtues; he collapses fatally, in naturalism, so well do the opposite extremes join up! Jacques Maritain well expresses the naturalist outcome of Lutheranism:
Quote:Human nature will only have to reject as a vain theological accessory the cloak of a grace that is nothing for it, and to take back onto itself its self-confidence, in order to become that nice emancipated beast whose unbroken infallible progress delights the universe today. (Trois Reformateurs, p. 35.)
And this naturalism will be applied especially to the civic and social order: grace being reduced to a fiduciary sentiment of faith, the Redemption now consists only of an individual and private religiosity, without a hold on the public life. The public order: economic and political, is therefore condemned to live and to develop itself outside Our Lord Jesus Christ. At the extreme, the Protestant will look for the criterion of his justification in the eyes of God in his economic success; it is in this sense that he will gladly inscribe onto the door of his house this sentence of the Old Testament: "Honor God with thy goods, give Him the first-fruits of all thy revenues, and then thy granaries will be abundantly filled and thy cisterns will overflow with wine" (Proverbs 3:9-10).
Jacques Maritain has some good words on the materialism of Protestantism, which will give birth to economic liberalism and to capitalism:
Quote:Behind Luther's appeals to the Lamb who saves, behind his outbursts of confidence and his faith in the pardon of sins, there is a human creature who raises up his head and who arranges his affairs very well in the mud where he is immersed by the fault of Adam! He will manage in the world, he will follow the will of force, the imperialist instinct, the law of this world which is his world. God will be only an ally, a mighty one." (op. cit., pp. 52-53.)
The result of Protestantism will be that men will attach themselves more to the goods of this world and will forget the eternal goods. And if a certain Puritanism comes to exercise an exterior supervision over public morality, it will not impregnate men's hearts with the truly Christian spirit, which is a supernatural spirit, called primacy of the spiritual. Protestantism will be led necessarily to proclaim the emancipation of the temporal vis-à-vis the spiritual. Now it is precisely that emancipation that is going to be rediscovered in liberalism. The popes then had good reason to denounce this naturalism of Protestant inspiration as the origin of the liberalism that disrupted Christianity in 1789 and 1848. The Leo XIII says:
This audacity of faithless men, which threatens civil society every day with more serious destruction, and which stirs up anxiety and trouble in all minds, has its cause and its origin in those poisoned doctrines which, spread out in these latest times among the peoples like seeds of vices, have born very malignant fruits in their season. Indeed you know very well, Venerable Brethren, that the cruel war that has been declared since the sixteenth century against the Catholic Faith by the innovators, aimed at this goal of turning aside all revelation and overthrowing the whole supernatural order, in order that access may be opened up to the discoveries or rather the frenzies of unaided reason." (Quod apostolici, December 28, 1878.)
And closer to our time, Pope Benedict XV:
Quote:Since the first three centuries and the origins of the Church, in the course of which the blood of Christians fertilized the entire earth, one can say that the Church never was in such a danger as that which showed itself at the end of the eighteenth century. It was then indeed that a Philosophy in delirium, a prolonging of the heresy and the apostasy of the Innovators, acquired a universal power of seduction over minds and brought about a total bewilderment, with the settled purpose of ruining the Christian foundations of society, not only in France, but little by little in all the nations." (Letter Anno jam exeunte, March 7, 1917.)
Birth of Political Naturalism
Protestantism had set up a very harsh attack against the Church and caused a deep tearing of Christianity in the sixteenth century, but it did not succeed in penetrating the Catholic nations with the venom of its political and social naturalism, until this secularizing spirit had reached the university people, and then those who were called the "Philosophers of the Lights."
In reality, philosophically, Protestantism and juridical positivism have a common origin in the nominalism of the decadent Middle Ages, which led as well to Luther with his purely extrinsic and nominal idea of the Redemption, as to Descartes with his idea of an unintelligible divine law submitted to the pure good pleasure of God's will. All of Christian philosophy however affirmed with Saint Thomas Aquinas the unity of the eternal divine law and of the natural human law: "The natural law is nothing except a participation in the eternal law by the rational creature," writes the Angelic Doctor. But with Descartes, a break is already made between the divine right and the natural, human right. After him the university people and the jurists will not be long in practicing the same separation. Thus Hugo Grotius (1625), summed up by Paul Hazard:
Quote:But divine right? Grotius tries to safeguard it. What we have just said, he declares, would take place even if we should grant—what cannot be conceded without a crime—that there is no God, or that human affairs are not the object of His solicitude. Since God and Providence exist without any doubt, we have here a source of right, in addition to that which emanates from nature. "This natural right itself can be attributed to God, since the divinity has willed that such principles exist in us." The law of God, the law of nature…continues Paul Hazard, this double formula, it is not Grotius who invented it, the Middle Ages knew it already. Where is its character of newness? How does it happen that it is criticized, condemned by the doctors? For whom does it create a stir? The novelty consists in the separation of the two terms, which makes a way for itself; in their opposition, which tends to assert itself; in an attempt at conciliation as an afterthought, which by its mere self supposes the idea of a rupture. (La crise de conscience europeenne, Paris, Fayard, 1961, 3rd part, chapter 3.)
The jurist Pufendorf (1672) and the philosopher Locke (1689) completed the secularization of the natural right. The philosophy of the Enlightenment imagines a "state of nature" that has no more to do with the realism of Christian philosophy and that culminates in the idealism with the myth of the good savage of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The natural law is reduced to a cohesion of sentiments which man has of himself and which are shared by the majority of men; the following dialogue is found in Voltaire:
Quote:B. What is the natural law?
A. The instinct that makes us feel justice.
B. What do you call just and unjust?
A. What appears as such to the entire world.
Such an outcome is the fruit of a reason that has lost its way, that in its thirst for emancipation from God and His revelation has likewise burned the bridges connecting him with the simple procedures of the natural order, which the supernatural divine revelation recalls and the Magisterium of the Church confirms. If the Revolution separated the civil power from the power of the Church, that is, at root, because it had already for a long time been separating faith and reason for those who adorned themselves with the name of philosophers. It will not be out of place to recall what Vatican Council I teaches on this subject:
Quote:Not only can faith and reason never be in disagreement, but they mutually lend themselves support as well; since right reason demonstrates the foundations of the faith and, illuminated with the light of faith, devotes itself to the knowledge of the divine things while faith, for its part, frees and protects reason from errors and teaches it with a multi-faceted learning. (Constitution de fide catholica "Dei Filius," Denziger 1799).
But the Revolution took place precisely in the name of the goddess Reason, of reason deified, of the reason that sets itself up as the supreme norm of truth and falsity, of good and evil.
Naturalism, Rationalism, Liberalism
You will catch a glimpse from this of how much all these errors overlap one another: liberalism, naturalism, finally rationalism, which are only complementary aspects of what must be called the Revolution. There where right reason, illuminated by the Faith, sees only harmony and subordination, the deified reason hollows out abysses and raises up walls: nature without grace, material prosperity without the searching for eternal goods, the civil power separated from the ecclesiastical power, politics without God or Jesus Christ, the rights of man against the rights of God, and finally freedom without truth.
It is in that spirit that the Revolution happened; it was being prepared for more than two centuries already in people's minds, as I have tried to show you. But it is only at the end of the eighteenth century that it succeeded and bore its decisive fruits: its political fruits, in favor of the writings of the philosophers, the encyclopedists, and of an unimaginable activity of Freemasonry (1517: revolt of Luther, who burned the Bull of the Pope at Wittenberg; 1717: foundation of the Grand Lodge of London), which in a few decades had penetrated and set up cells in the whole ruling class.
Freemasonry: Propagator of These Errors
With what precision, with what clear-sightedness the Sovereign Pontiffs denounced this enterprise. Pope Leo XIII exposes it in Quod apostolici already quoted, and again in the Encyclical Humanum Genus of August 20, 1884, on the sect of the Freemasons:
In our time the instigators of evil seem to have formed a coalition in an immense effort, under the impulse and with the help of a society spread out in a great number of places and skillfully organized, the Society of the Freemasons.
In their vigilant solicitudes for the salvation of the Christian people, Our predecessors had very quickly recognized this principal enemy at the moment when, coming out of the darkness of an occult conspiracy, it sprang forth to the attack in the full light of day.
Leo XIII then mentions the popes who have already condemned Freemasonry: Clement XII, in the Encyclical In Eminenti, of April 27, 1738, brought excommunication against the Freemasons; Benedict XIV renewed this condemnation in the Encyclical Providas of March 16, 1751; Pius VII with the Encyclical Ecclesiam of September 13, 1821, particularly denounced the Carbonari; Leo XII with his Apostolic Constitution Quo graviora of March 13, 1826, unmasked in addition the secret society L'Universitaire, which was attempting to pervert the youth; Pius VIII with his Encyclical Traditi of May 24, 1829; Pius IX, in his consistorial allocution of September 25, 1865, and the Encyclical Quanta cura of December 8, 1864, spoke in the same way.
Then, deploring how little the governments were taking into account these very serious warnings, Leo XIII reports the dreadful progress of the sect:
Quote:It results from this that, in the lapse of a century and a half, the sect of the Freemasons has made unbelievable progress. Using at the same time boldness and cunning, it has invaded all the ranks of the social hierarchy and is beginning to seize a power, in the bosom of the modern States, which is equivalent to sovereignty.
What would he say now, when there is no government that does not comply with the decrees of the Masonic lodges! (Even the communist countries should not be excepted, since the communist party is a pure Masonic society, with the sole difference that it is perfectly legal and public.) And it is now for the assault on the hierarchy of the Church that the Masonic spirit or Masonry itself rises up with ranks closed. But I will come back to that.
What is then the Masonic spirit? Here you have it declared in a few words from the mouth of Senator Goblet d'Aviello, member of the Grand Orient of Belgium, speaking on August 5, 1877, at the lodge of the Philanthropic Friends of Brussels:
Quote:Say to the beginners that Masonry…is above all a school of vulgarization and a finishing school, a sort of laboratory where the great ideas of the age come to be combined and affirmed in order to spread out in the secular world in a tangible and practical form. Tell them, in a word, that we are the philosophy of liberalism.
It is enough to tell you, dear readers, that even if I do not always name it, Freemasonry is at the center of the topics of which I am going to speak to you in all the following subjects.
Additional chapters will appear in coming months, and the complete book should be ready by the first of the year!
1. Father Paul Aulagnier, September 17, 1981.
|
|
|
| Global Wealth Tax Proposal Submitted to World Economic Forum |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-22-2022, 07:29 PM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
Global Wealth Tax Proposal Submitted to World Economic Forum
New American [adapted]| January 21, 2022
An alliance of leftist millionaires has submitted a report to the World Economic Forum calling for a global wealth tax.
In a letter promoted by the liberal organizations Patriotic Millionaires, Millionaires for Humanity, and Tax Me Now, 102 millionaires called for “a complete overhaul” of the “international tax system.”
“The bedrock of a strong democracy is a fair tax system,” said the letter, ignoring the inherent dangers of democracy, as contrasted with a republican form of government. It went on to say that, “The world — every country in it — must demand the rich pay their fair share. Tax us, the rich, and tax us now.”
Under the globalist proposal, which the signatories submitted to the World Economic Forum, a progressive tax on millionaires and billionaires would be imposed worldwide, on top of national taxes. It would start at a rate of two percent for individuals worth more than $5 million, three percent for those worth more than $50 million, and five percent for those worth more than $1 billion.
The proposal’s advocates estimate it would raise $2.52 trillion annually. They boast that this revenue is enough to fund two COVID shots and a booster for everybody worldwide, and it could be used to implement universal healthcare and other social programs globally.
Regardless of what its advocates claim, a global tax is not designed — or necessary — to actually help those in need. Rather, it is a necessary step toward creating and sustaining a one-world technocratic government. Furthermore, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations, and other globalist entities have been seeking for years to create a worldwide tax regime.
Furthermore, by having the power to tax individuals’ incomes, such an international regime would have significant power to control the everyday lives of those under its jurisdiction.
Regardless of what comes of this specific proposal, a global tax regime is already starting to be implemented. In October 2021, 136 countries including the United States — led by the OECD — agreed to implement a 15-percent global minimum tax rate. That the United States will join a tax system that restricts its national sovereignty and undermines its economic competitiveness illustrates how its leaders have abandoned any semblance of putting national interests first. [emphasis mine]
|
|
|
|
| Vatican includes women’s ordination group on synod website |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-21-2022, 09:24 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Vatican includes women’s ordination group on synod website
![[Image: AP22020521054725.jpg.jpg?itok=6Mg05bns]](https://www.americamagazine.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_750_x_503_/public/main_image/2022/01/20/AP22020521054725.jpg.jpg?itok=6Mg05bns)
Members of the Women's Ordination Conference group stage a protest in front of St. Peter's Basilica, in Rome, on Oct. 17, 2011. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini, File)
America Magazine | January 20, 2022
ROME (AP) — The Vatican has included a group that advocates for women’s ordination on a website promoting a two-year consultation of rank-and-file Catholics, indicating that Pope Francis wants to hear from all Catholics during the process.
The inclusion of the Women’s Ordination Conference on the website promoting the Vatican’s 2023 “synod,” or meeting of bishops, is significant since the Vatican has long held the group at arm’s length. Catholic doctrine forbids the ordination of women as priests.
In the run-up to the synod, the Vatican has asked dioceses, religious orders and other Catholic groups to embark on listening sessions so ordinary Catholics can talk about their needs and hopes for the church.
The Women’s Ordination Conference launched a “Let Her Voice Carry” campaign to do just that, providing a “tool kit” for users to understand the synod process and participate in it. It has also launched a series of online listening sessions so participants can engage virtually.
Last year, the Vatican office made headlines after it initially included and then removed a link to an advocacy group for the Catholic LGBTQ community which had also launched a campaign to seek the views of gay Catholics in the pre-synod process. The website moderators apologized and restored the link to the group, New Ways Ministry.
[Vatican apologizes for removing Catholic LGBT advocacy group from synod website]
Francis has called for women to take on greater decision-making roles in the church but has strongly upheld the ban on their ordination.
Kate McElwee, executive director of the Women’s Ordination Conference, said she was surprised that the Vatican had accepted the group’s inclusion on the “Resources” site and said it showed “a lot of courage” from the synod office.
“The integrity and impact of the synod will depend on the inclusion of courageous conversations about women’s equality,” she told The Associated Press in an email. “I hope that this move from the synod office empowers more women to engage with the process and speak out.”
She noted that the Vatican’s synod organizers have stressed the need to listen to those on the margins of the church, and that “women’s ordination advocates, and particularly those women called to priesthood, are some of the most marginalized in the church.”
|
|
|
|
| Francis Will Institute Female "Catechists," "Lectors," "Acolytes" on January 23, 2022 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-21-2022, 08:49 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Farce: Francis Will Institute Female "Catechists," "Lectors," "Acolytes"
![[Image: n4whguzo6t24msu5ic7ugxe9x20zf896799cnln....ormat=webp]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/FxK6pqhk7ZiS1AZwTDoBU6KMY/n4whguzo6t24msu5ic7ugxe9x20zf896799cnln.webp?format=webp)
gloria.tv | January 21, 2022
Francis will confer his recently invented “ministry of catechist” as well as female Novus Ordo "lectors" and "acolytes" upon women for the first time in Saint Peter’s Basilica on Sunday.
The institution of female "lectors" and "acolytes" is mere window dressing as in the NO, everybody is a "lector" or "acolyte" whether instituted or not.
Candidates from the Amazonian region in Peru, Brazil, Ghana, Poland, and Spain will be formally made "catechists" by Francis. The ministry of "lector" will be conferred to candidates from South Korea, Pakistan, Ghana, and Italy. The rite was made up by the Liturgy Congregation. Before the homily, the candidates will be summoned, called by name and presented to the audience.
Those called to the ministry of "lector" receive a Bible, the catechists a cross.
|
|
|
|
| January 22, 2022 will be the 48th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-21-2022, 08:39 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
January 22nd, 2022 is the 48th Anniversary of the United States Supreme Courts infamous ruling, Roe vs Wade, that legalized the murder of unborn children.
Since 1973, there have been over 63,509,000 abortions performed in the United States alone. Since 1980, the worldwide total number of abortions exceeds 1,642,200,000
|
|
|
|
| Moral Principles and Medical Practice - Abortion [Imprimatur 1897] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-21-2022, 08:30 AM - Forum: Abortion
- Replies (3)
|
|
A Series of Lectures on the Evils of Abortion and the Defense of the Unborn
Lecture I: Medical Jurisprudence
Lecture II: Craniotomy
Lecture III: Abortion
Lecture IV: Views of Scientists and Sciolists
Lecture I : The Foundation of Medical Jurisprudence
Gentlemen: 1. When I thoughtfully consider the subject on which I am to address you in this course of lectures, i.e., Medical Jurisprudence, I am deeply impressed with the dignity and the importance of the matter.
The study of medicine is one of the noblest pursuits to which human talent can be devoted. It is as far superior to geology, botany, entomology, zoology, and a score of kindred sciences as its subject, the body of man, the visible lord of the creation, is superior to the subject of all other physical sciences, which do so much honor to the power of the human mind; astronomy, which explores the vast realms of space, traces the courses and weighs the bulks of its mighty orbs; chemistry, which analyzes the minutest atoms of matter; physics, which discovers the properties, and mechanics, which utilizes the powers of an endless variety of bodies--all these noble sciences together are of less service to man than that study which directly promotes the welfare of his own structure, guards his very life, fosters the vigor of his youth, promotes the physical and mental, aye, even the moral, powers of his manhood, sustains his failing strength, restores his shattered health, preserves the integrity of his aging faculties, and throughout his whole career supplies those conditions without which both enjoyment and utility of life would be impossible.
The physician, indeed, is one of the most highly valued benefactors of mankind. Therefore he has ever been held in honor among his fellow-men; by barbarous tribes he is looked upon as a connecting link between the visible and the invisible world; in the most civilized communities, from the time of Hippocrates, the father of medicine, to the present day, he has been held in deeper veneration than the members of almost any other profession; even in the sacred oracles of Revelation his office is spoken of with the highest commendation: "Honor the physician," writes the inspired penman, "for the need thou hast of him; for the Most High hath created him. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head, and in the sight of great men he shall be praised. The Most High has created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man shall not abhor them. The virtue of these things is come to the knowledge of men, and the Most High has given knowledge to men, that He may be honored in His wonders. By these He shall cure and shall allay their pains, and of these the apothecary shall make sweet confections, and shall make up ointments of health, and of His works there shall be no end" (Ecclus. xxxiii. 1-7).
2. It is well to remind you thus, gentlemen, at the opening of this new year of studies, of the excellence of your intended profession; for you cannot help seeing that a science so noble should be studied for a noble purpose. In this age of utilitarianism, it is, alas! too common an evil that the most excellent objects are coveted exclusively for lower purposes. True, no one can find fault with a physician for making his profession, no matter how exalted, a means of earning an honest livelihood and a decent competency; but to ambition this career solely for its pecuniary remuneration would be to degrade one of the most sublime vocations to which man may aspire. There is unfortunately too much of this spirit abroad in our day. There are too many who talk and act as if the one highest and worthiest ambition of life were to make as large a fortune in as short a time and in as easy a way as possible. If this spirit of utilitarianism should become universal, the sad consequence of it to our civilization would be incalculable.
Fancy what would become of the virtue of patriotism if officers and men had no higher ambition than to make money! As a patriotic army is the strongest defence of a nation's rights, so a mercenary army is a dreadful danger to a people's liberty, a ready tool in the hand of a tyrant; as heroism with consequent glory is the noble attribute of a patriot, so a mercenary spirit is a stigma on the career of any public officer.
We find no fault with an artisan, a merchant, or a common laborer if he estimate the value of his toil by the pecuniary advantages attached to it; for that is the nature of such ordinary occupations, since for man labor is the ordinary and providential condition of existence. But in the higher professions we always look for loftier aspirations. This distinction of rewards for different avocations is so evident that it has passed into the very terms of our language: we speak of "wages" as due to common laborers, of a "salary" as paid to those who render more regular and more intellectual services; of a "fee" as appointed for official and professional actions; and the money paid to a physician or a lawyer is distinguished from ordinary fees by the especial name of "honorary" or "honorarium." This term evidently implies, not only that special honor is due to the recipients of such fees, but besides that the services they render are too noble to be measured in money values, and therefore the money offered is rather in the form of a tribute to a benefactor than of pecuniary compensation for a definite amount of service rendered.
Wages may be measured by the time bestowed, or by the effect produced, or by the wants of the laborer to lead a life of reasonable comfort; a salary is measured by the period of service; but an honorary is not dependent on time employed, or on needs of support, or on effect produced, but it is a tribute of gratitude due to a special benefactor. Whatever practical arrangements may be necessary or excusable in special circumstances, this is the ideal which makes the medical profession so honorable in society.
3. From these and many other considerations that might be added, it is evident, gentlemen, that in the pursuit of the distinguished career for which you are preparing, you are expected to make yourselves the benefactors of your fellow-men. Now, in order to do so, it will not suffice for you to understand the nature of the various diseases which flesh is heir to, together with the specific powers of every drug described in works on materia medica. The knowledge of anatomy and surgery, and of the various branches that are taught by the many professors with whom I have the honor of being associated in the work of your medical education, no matter how fully that knowledge be mastered, is not sure by itself to make you benefactors to your fellow-men, unless your conduct in the management of all your resources of science and art be directed to procure the real welfare of your patients. Just as a skilful politician may do more harm than good to his country if he direct his efforts to improper ends, or make use of disgraceful means; as a dishonest lawyer may be more potent for the perversion than the maintenance of justice among his fellow-citizens; so likewise an able physician may abuse the beneficent resources of his profession to procure inferior advantages at the sacrifice of moral rights and superior blessings.
Your career, gentlemen, to be truly useful to others and pursued with safety and benefit to yourselves, needs to be directed by a science whose principles it will be my task to explain in this course of lectures--the science of Medical Jurisprudence.
It is the characteristic of science to trace results to their causes. The science of Jurisprudence investigates the causes or principles of law. It is defined as "the study of law in connection with its underlying principles." Medical Jurisprudence, in its wider sense, comprises two departments, namely, the study of the laws regarding medical practice, and, more, especially, the study of the principles on which those laws are founded, and from which they derive their binding power on the human conscience. The former department, styled Medical Law, is assigned in the Prospectus of this College to a gentleman of the legal profession. He will acquaint you with the laws of the land, and of this State in particular, which regulate the practice of medicine; he will explain the points on which a Doctor may come in contact with the law courts, either as a practitioner having to account for his own actions, under a charge of malpractice perhaps, or as an expert summoned as a witness before a court in matters of civil contests or criminal prosecutions. His field is wide and important, but the field of Medical Jurisprudence, in its stricter or more specific sense, is wider still and its research much deeper: it considers those principles of reason that underlie the laws of the land, the natural rights and duties which these laws are indeed to enforce to some extent, but which are antecedent and superior to all human laws, being themselves founded on the essential and eternal fitness of things. For things are not right or wrong simply because men have chosen to make them so. You all understand, gentlemen, that, even if we were living in a newly discovered land, where no code of human laws had yet been adopted, nor courts of justice established, nor civil government organized, still even there certain acts of Doctors, as of any other men, would be right and praiseworthy, and others wrong and worthy of condemnation; even there Doctors and patients and their relatives would have certain rights and duties.
In such a land, the lecturer on Medical Law would have nothing to explain; for there would be no human laws and law courts with which a physician could come in contact. But the lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence proper would have as much to explain as I have in this country at present; because he treats of the Ethics or moral principles of Medical Practice, he deals with what is ever the same for all men whereever they dwell, it being consequent on the very nature of man and his essential relations to his Maker and his fellow-man. Unfortunately the term " Medical Jurisprudence " has been generally misused. Dr. Ewell, in his text book on the subject, writes: "While the term 'Medical Jurisprudence' is a misnomer,--the collection of facts and conclusions usually passing by that name being principally only matters of evidence, and rarely rules of law,--still the term is so generally employed that it would be idle to attempt to bring into use a new term, and we shall accordingly continue the employment of that which has only the sanction of usage to recommend it" (Ch. I).
I prefer to use terms in their genuine meaning; for misnomers are out of place in science, since they are misleading. Yet, to avoid all danger of misunderstanding, I will call my subject "Moral Principles and Medical Practice," and distinctly style it "The Basis of Medical Jurisprudence."
On what lines will my treatment of the subject depart from the beaten path? On the same lines on which most other improvements have been made in the science of medicine. Science has not discovered new laws of physical nature that did not exist before; but it has succeeded in understanding existing laws more perfectly than before, and has shaped its practice accordingly. So, too, the leaders of thought among physicians, especially in English-speaking countries, now understand the laws of moral nature-- the principles of Ethics--more thoroughly than most of their predecessors did, and they have modified their treatment so as to conform it to these rules of morality. Hitherto Medical Jurisprudence had regulated the conduct of practitioners by human, positive laws, and sanctioned acts because they were not condemned by civil courts.
Now we go deeper in our studies, and appeal from human legislation to the first principles of right and wrong, as Jurisprudence ought to do; and, in consequence, some medical operations which used to be tolerated, or even approved, by many in the profession are at present absolutely and justly condemned. The learned physician these days is no longer afraid to face the moral philosopher; there is no longer any estrangement between Ethics and Medical Practice. Medicine, sent from Heaven to be an angel of mercy to man, is now ever faithful to its beneficent mission; it never more performs the task of a destroying spirit, as--not in wantonness, but in ignorance--it did frequently before. On these lines, then, of the improved understanding of first principles, I will now proceed to develop the teachings of Medical Jurisprudence.
The first principle that I will lay down for explanation is, that a man is not to be held responsible for all his acts, but only for those which he does of his own free will, which, therefore, it is in his power to do or not to do. These are called human acts, because they proceed from a distinctively human power. A brute animal cannot perform such acts; it can only do under given circumstances what its impulses prompt it to do; or, when it experiences various impulses in different directions, it can only follow its strongest impulse; as when a dog, rushing up to attack a man, turns and runs away before his uplifted stick. When a bird sings, it cannot help singing; but a man may sing or not sing at his choice; his singing is a human act. When, however, under the impulse of violent pain, a person happens involuntarily to sigh or groan or even shriek, this indeed is the act of a man, but, inasmuch as it is physically uncontrollable, it is not a human act. So whatever a patient may do while under the influence of chloroform is not a human act, and he is not morally responsible for it. His conduct under the circumstances may denote a brave or a cowardly disposition, or it may indicate habits of self-command or the absence of them. His prayers or curses while thus unconscious are no doubt the effects of acquired virtues or vices; yet, in as far as his will has no share in the present acts, they are not free or human acts. He deserves praise or blame for his former acts, by which he acquired such habits, but not for his unconscious acts as such.
From this principle it follows that a physician is not responsible to God or man for such evil consequences of his prescriptions or surgical operations as are entirely beyond his will and therefore independent of his control. If, however, his mistakes arise from his ignorance or want of skill, he is blamable in as far as he is the wilful cause of such ignorance; he should have known better; or, not knowing better, he should not have undertaken the case for which he knew he was not qualified.
But it often happens that the best informed and most skilful practitioner, even when acting with his utmost care, causes real harm to his patients; he is the accidental, not the wilful, cause of that harm, and therefore he is free from all responsibility in the matter.
The practical lessons, however, which all of you must lay to heart on this subject are: 1st. That you are in duty bound to acquire sound knowledge and great skill in your profession; since the consequences involved are of the greatest moment, your obligation is of a most serious nature. 2d. That in your future practice you will be obliged on all occasions to use all reasonable care for the benefit of your patients. 3d. That you cannot in conscience undertake the management of cases of unusual difficulty unless you possess the special knowledge required, or avail yourselves of the best counsel that can reasonably be obtained.
5. A second principle of Ethics in medical practice, gentlemen, is this, that many human acts may be highly criminal of which, however, human laws and courts take no notice whatsoever. In this matter I am not finding fault with human legislation. The laws of the land, considering the end and the nature of civil government, need take no cognizance of any but overt acts; a man's heart may be a very cesspool of vice, envy, malice, impurity, pride, hatred, etc., yet human law does not and ought not to punish him for this, as long as his actions do not disturb the public peace nor trench upon the happiness of his neighbor. Even his open outward acts which injure only himself, such as gluttony, blasphemy, impiety, private drunkenness, self-abuse, even seduction and fornication, are not usually legislated against or punished in our courts. Does it follow that they are innocent acts and lawful before God? No man in his right senses will say so.
The goodness and the evil of human acts is not dependent on human legislation alone; in many cases the moral good or evil is so intrinsic to the very nature of the acts that God Himself could not change the radical difference between them. Thus justice, obedience to lawful authority, gratitude to benefactors, are essentially good; while injustice, disobedience, and ingratitude are essentially evil. Our reason informs us of this difference; and our reason is nothing else than our very nature as intelligent beings capable of knowing truth. The voice of our reason or conscience is the voice of God Himself, who speaks through the rational nature that He has made. Through our reason God not only tells us of the difference between good and evil acts, but He also commands us to do good and avoid evil;--to do certain acts because they are proper, right, orderly, suitable to the end for which we are created; and to avoid other acts because they are improper, wrong, disorderly, unsuitable to the end of our existence. There is a third class of acts, which, in themselves, are indifferent, i.e., neither good nor evil, neither necessary for our end nor interfering with its attainment. These we are free to do or to omit as we prefer; but even these become good and even obligatory when they are commanded by proper authority, and they become evil when forbidden. In themselves, they are indifferent acts.
6. These explanations are not mere abstractions, gentlemen, or mere philosophical speculations. True, my subject is philosophical; but it is the philosophy of every-day life; we are dealing with live issues, which give rise to the gravest discussions of your medical journals; issues on which practically depend the lives of thousands of human beings every year, issues which regard physicians more than any other class of men, and for the proper consideration of which Doctors are responsible to their conscience, to human society, and to their God. To show you how we are dealing with present live issues, let me give you an example of a case in point. In the "Medical Record," an estimable weekly, now in almost the fiftieth year of its existence, there was lately carried on a lengthy and, in some of its parts, a learned discussion, regarding the truth of the principles which I have just now explained, namely, the intrinsic difference between right and wrong, independently of the ruling of law courts and of any human legislation. The subject of the discussion was the lawfulness in any case at all of performing craniotomy, or of directly destroying the life of the child by any process whatever, at the time of parturition, with the intention of saving the life of the mother.
I will not examine this important matter in all its bearings at present; I mean to take it up later on in our course, and to lay before you the teachings of science on this subject, together with the principles on which they are based. For the present I will confine myself to the point we are treating just now, namely, the existence of a higher law than that of human tribunals, the superiority of the claims of natural to those of legal justice. Some might think, at first sight, that this needs no proof. In fact we are all convinced that human laws are often unjust, or, at least, very imperfect, and therefore they cannot be the ultimate test or fixed standard of right and wrong; yet the main argument advanced by one of the advocates of craniotomy rests upon the denial of a higher law, and the assertion of the authority of human tribunals as final in such matters.
In the "Medical Record " for July 27, 1895, p. 141, this gentleman writes in defence of craniotomy: "The question is a legal one per se against which any conflicting view is untenable. The subdivisions under which the common law takes consideration of craniotomy are answers in themselves to the conclusions quoted above, under the unfortunate necessity which demands the operation." Next he quotes the Ohio statute law, which, he remarks, was enacted in protection of physicians who are confronted with this dire necessity. He is answered with much ability and sound learning by Dr. Thomas J. Kearney, of New York, in the same "Medical Record" for August 31, 1895, p. 320, who writes: "Dr. G. bases his argument for the lawfulness of craniotomy in the teachings of common law, contending, at least implicitly, that it is unnecessary to seek farther the desired justification. However, the basis of common law, though broad, is certainly not broad enough for the consideration of such a question as the present one. His coolness rises to sublime heights, in thus assuming infallibility for common law, ignoring the very important fact that behind it there is another and higher law, whose imperative, to every one with a conscience, is ultimate. It evidently never occurs to him that some time could be profitably spent in research, with the view to discovering how often common-law maxims, seen to be at variance with the principles of morality, have been abrogated by statutory enactments. Now the maxims of common law relating to craniotomy, the statutes in conformity therewith, as well as Dr. G.'s arguments (some of them at least), rest on a basis of pure unmitigated expediency; and this is certainly in direct contravention of the teachings of all schools of moral science, even the utilitarian."
Dr. Kearney's doctrine of the existence of a higher law, superior to all human law, is the doctrine that has been universally accepted, in all Christian lands at least, and is so to the present day. Froude explains it correctly when he writes: "Our human laws are but the copies, more or less imperfect, of the eternal laws so far as we can read them, and either succeed and promote our welfare or fail and bring confusion and disaster, according as the legislator's insight has detected the true principle, or has been distorted by ignorance or selfishness" (Century Diet., " Law ").
Whoever calmly reflects on the manner in which laws are enacted by legislative bodies, under the influence of human passions and prejudices, often at the dictation of party leaders or of popular sentiment, of office-seekers or wealthy corporations, etc., will not maintain for a moment that human laws and human tribunals are to be accepted as the supreme measure or norma of right and wrong. The common law of England, which lies at the basis of our American legislation, and is an integral portion of our civil government, is less fluctuating than our statutory law, and is in the main sound and in conformity with the principles of Jurisprudence. But no one will claim infallibility for its enactments; the esteem we have for it is chiefly due to its general accord with the requirements of the higher law.
7. There is, then, a higher law, which all men are bound to obey, even lawgivers and rulers themselves as well as their humblest subjects, a law from which no man nor class of men can claim exemption, a law which the Creator cannot fail to impose upon His rational creatures: although God was free to create or not to create as He chose, since He did not need anything to complete His own happiness,--yet, if He did create, He was bound by His own wisdom to put order into His work; else it would not be worthy of His supreme wisdom. As the poet has so tersely expressed it, "Order is Heaven's first law."
How admirably is this order displayed in the material universe! The more we study the sciences-- astronomy, biology, botany, physiology, medicine, etc.--the more we are lost in admiration at the beautiful order we see displayed in the tiniest as well as in the vastest portions of the creation. And shall man alone, the masterpiece of God in this visible universe, be allowed to be disorderly, to be a failure in the noblest part of his being, to make himself like to the brute or to a demon of malice, to waste his choicest gifts in the indulgence of debasing pleasure? The Creator is bound by His own wisdom to direct men to high purposes, worthy of their exalted intellectual nature. But how shall He direct man? He compels material things to move with order to the accomplishment of their alloted tasks by the physical laws of matter. He directs brute animals most admirably to run their appointed careers by the wonderful laws of instinct, which none of them can resist at will. But man He has made free; He must direct him to do worthy actions by means suitable to a free being, that is, by the enacting of the moral law.
He makes known to us what is right and wrong. He informs every one of us, by the voice of reason itself, that He requires us to do the right and avoid the wrong. He has implanted in us the sense of duty to obey that law. If we do so, we lead worthy lives, we please Him, and, in His goodness, He has rewards in store.
But can He be pleased with us if we thwart His designs; if we, His noblest works on earth, instead of adding to the universal harmony of His creation, make monsters of ourselves, moral blots upon the beautiful face of His world? It were idle for Him to give us the knowledge of His will and then to stand by and let us disfigure His fairest designs; to bid us do what is right, and then let us do wrong without exacting redress or atonement. If He is wise, He must not only lay down the law, but He must also enforce it; He must make it our highest interest to keep His law, to do the right; so that ultimately those men shall be happy who have done it, and those who have thwarted His designs shall be compelled to rue it. He will not deprive us of liberty, the fairest gift to an intelligent creature, but He will hold out rewards and punishments to induce us to keep the law and to avoid its violation. Once He has promised and threatened, His justice and His holiness compel Him to fulfil His threats and promises. A man can commit no rasher act than to ignore, defy, and violate that higher law of which we are speaking, and which, if it must direct all men, especially requires the respect and obedience of those into whose hands he has placed at times the lives of their fellow-men, the greatest of earthly treasures.
I have insisted so much, gentlemen, on the existence of the higher law, on its binding power and on the necessity of observing it, because it is the foundation of my whole course of lectures. If there were no higher law, then there would be no Medical Jurisprudence, in the true sense of the word. For Jurisprudence studies the principles that underlie legal enactments, and if there were no higher law, there would be no such principles; then the knowledge of the human law would fill the whole programme. This in fact is the contention of the defendant of craniotomy to whom I have referred; and he boldly applies his speculation to a matter in which the physician has the most frequent opportunity to exhibit his fidelity to principle, or his subserviency to the requirements of temporary expediency at the sacrifice of duty.
8. You will find, gentlemen, as we proceed in our course, that Doctors have very many occasions in which to apply the lessons of Jurisprudence in their medical practice. I even suspect that they need to be more conscientious in regard to the dictates of the higher law than any other class of men, the clergy alone, perhaps, excepted. They need this not only for their own good, but also for the good of their patients and of the community at large. The reasons are these:
A. The matters entrusted to their keeping are the most important of all earthly possessions; for they are life itself, and, along with life, health, the necessary condition of almost all temporal enjoyment. No other class of men is entrusted with more weighty earthly interests. Hence the physician's responsibility is very great; hence the common good requires that he be eminently faithful and conscientious.
B. With no other class of men does the performance of duty depend more on personal integrity, on conscientious regard for the higher law of morality than with the Doctor. For the Doctor's conduct is less open to observation than that of other professions. The lawyer may have many temptations to act unjustly; but other lawyers are watching him, and the courts of justice are at hand to check his evil practices. As to the judge, he is to pronounce his decisions in public and give reasons for his ruling. The politician is jealously watched by his political opponents. The public functionary, if he is unjust in his dealings, is likely sooner or later to be brought to an account. But the physician, on very many occasions, can be morally sure that his conduct will never be publicly scrutinized. Such is the nature of his ministrations, and such too is the confidence habitually reposed in his integrity, that he is and must be implicitly trusted in matters in which, if he happens to be unworthy of his vocation, he may be guilty of the most outrageous wrongs.
The highest interests of earth are in his hands. If he is not conscientious, or if he lets himself be carried about by every wind of modern speculations, he can readily persuade himself that a measure is lawful because it is presently expedient, that acts can justly be performed because the courts do not punish them; and thus he will often violate the most sacred rights of his patients or of their relatives. Who has more frequent opportunities than a licentious Doctor to seduce the innocent, to pander to the passions of the guilty, to play into the hands of greedy heirs, who may be most willing to pay him for his services? No one can do it more safely, as far as human tribunals are concerned. As a matter of fact, many, all over this land and other lands, are often guilty of prostituting their noble profession to the vilest uses. The evil becomes all the more serious when false doctrines are insinuated, or publicly advocated, which throw doubt upon the most sacred principles of morality. True, the sounder and by far the larger portion of medical men protest against these false teachings by their own conduct at least; but it very frequently happens that the honest man is less zealous in his advocacy of what is right than is the propagandist of bold speculations and dangerous new theories in the spreading of what is pernicious.
The effect thus produced upon many minds is to shake their convictions, to say the least; and I need not tell you, gentlemen, that weak convictions are not likely to be proof against violent and repeated temptations. In fact, if a physician, misled by any of those many theories which are often inculcated or at least insinuated by false scientists, can ever convince himself, or even can begin to surmise that, after all, there may be no such thing as a higher law before which he is responsible for even his secret conduct, then what is to prevent him from becoming a dangerous person to the community? If he sees much temporal gain on the one hand, and security from legal prosecution on the other, what would keep him in the path of duty and honesty? Especially if he can once make himself believe that, for all he knows, he may be nothing more than a rather curiously developed lump of matter, which is to lose forever all consciousness in death. Why should he not get rid of any other evolved lump of matter if it stand in the way of his present or prospective happiness? Those are dangerous men who inculcate such theories; it were a sad day for the medical profession and for the world at large if ever they found much countenance among physicians. Society cannot do without the higher law; this law is to be studied in Medical Jurisprudence.
It is my direct object, gentlemen, to explain this law to you in its most important bearings, and thus to lay before you the chief duties of your profession. The principal reason why I have undertaken to deliver this course of lectures--the chief reason, in fact, why the Creighton University has assumed the management of this Medical College--is that we wish to provide for the West, as far as we are able, a goodly supply of conscientious physicians, who shall be as faithful and reliable as they will be able and well informed; whose solid principles and sterling integrity shall be guarantees of upright and virtuous conduct.
That this task of mine may be successfully accomplished, I will endeavor to answer all difficulties and objections that you may propose. I will never consider it a want of respect to me as your professor if you will urge your questions till I have answered them to your full satisfaction. On the contrary, I request you to be very inquisitive; and I will be best pleased with those who show themselves the most ready to point out those difficulties, connected with my lectures, which seem to require further answers and explanations.
|
|
|
|
| Austrian parliament votes to impose mandatory vaccines on all adults |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-20-2022, 03:14 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
BREAKING: Austrian parliament votes to impose mandatory vaccines on all adults
In what was essentially a procedural vote, 137 Austrian MPs voted in favor of the mandate, while 33 voted against it.
![[Image: shutterstock_2077601578-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/shutterstock_2077601578-810x500.jpg)
Thu Jan 20, 2022 - 1:36 pm EST
VIENNA (LifeSiteNews) — The Austrian parliament has passed the highly controversial universal vaccine mandate for all adults which was first announced in November 2021.
In what was essentially a procedural vote, 137 Austrian MPs voted in favor of the mandate, while 33 voted against it.
About a dozen MPs said they were sick and unable to be in parliament for the vote. At least some of them likely were afraid to cast a no vote in opposition to the party line.
The result is far from unexpected as the mandate was practically assured of approval to begin with. Four out of the five main Austrian parties had worked with Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer on the plans, including his own conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the Greens.
Only Austria’s right-wing populist Freedom Party (FPÖ) voted against the mandate.
The new law will now enter into effect in February. When it does, all adults over 18 will be legally obliged to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or take steps to get vaccinated under penalty of heavy fines and even jail sentences. Enforcement of the law, however, will only begin in mid-March.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre 1984: "It is because we hold on to Tradition that we are persecuted!' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-20-2022, 12:00 PM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Angelus - January 1985
The Sermon of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
at Martigny, Switzerland
9 December 1984
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
My dear brethren,
Before giving you a few words of edification on this day which is still under the halo of the Immaculate Conception and of St. Pius X, may I make an allusion to the few lines which were published these last days by the local bishop, Mgr. Schwery. You were asked not to come to this Holy Mass; you were told that by coming here, you were disobeying the local bishop and that you were disobeying the Supreme Pontiff. These are very grievous utterances and absolutely without foundation. It is true that we have been undergoing a persecution, but this persecution has no foundation; it is inspired by a spirit which is not Catholic, a spirit of novelties, a spirit which is more like Luther's than like the spirit of the Catholic Faith. It is because we faithfully and integrally hold on to the Tradition of the Church that we are persecuted.
So I ask you: is it right that you be persecuted in such a way? Is it right that we be chased by such hostility? As proof of the error of those who continue to persecute us, I have but one example to give you: You have just seen, just a while ago, all these seminarians and priests in procession; if this is not of the Church, then there has never been a Catholic Church! What else are we doing than praying as we have been asked to pray for all our life? I am celebrating nothing else than the Mass of my ordination, and yourselves, you are assisting at the Mass at which you have been assisting all your life! This Mass is the same at which your parents, your grandparents, your ancestors, assisted, and now they have been sanctified and are in heaven. All the saints have been sanctified by this holy Mass, by these sacraments, by the predication which we are preaching.
We are obliged to conclude that those who are persecuting in such a way have no longer a Catholic spirit; they have given up the Catholic spirit because they persecute not so much ourselves but all that we represent. Now, we represent the holy Tradition of the Church of twenty centuries—twenty centuries of Christianity, twenty centuries of the sanctification of souls. Those who criticize twenty centuries of Catholicism no longer have a Catholic spirit! I wanted to say that because the utterances of the local bishop are so injurious, so unjust, that I could not be silent in the face of such an injustice—an injustice which reaches not only my own person—that would not be much—but reaches also all our priests, all our seminarians, and yourselves. Therefore we protest, and we say: "Let us be judged! Let it be judged whether we are like those Catholics who have gone before us, especially like St. Pius X, for instance, the last Pope canonized whom we celebrate today, or not!" If St. Pius X were living today, he would heartily approve us, he would bless us, he would encourage us, he would hold us up as an example to be followed! But since some innovators, who are more protestant than Catholic, have invaded the Church, they have, of course, been condemning those who maintain Tradition. But let us be faithful, my dear brethren. Let us have no fear at all. Let us pray for those who persecute us. Let us ask God to open their eyes that they may become aware of the subversion which reigns in the Church today, so that they also may find again the way of Tradition and the way of the reconstruction of the Church as we wish to do, under the protection of the Virgin Mary and of St. Pius X.
Yesterday, during Vespers, we sang the antiphon of the Magnificat: "hodie, sine ulla peccati labe concepta est Maria, hodie contritum est ab ea caput sepentis antiqui: today, without any sin, without any stain of sin, the Virgin Mary was conceived; today the serpent's, the devil's, head was crushed by Mary!" My dear brethren, these are truths which we must always have before our eyes, which are as the foundation of our faith. They are the expression of two essential dogmas of our Christian life.
That the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in Her conception, that She had not the stain of Original Sin, and that we celebrate the Immaculate Conception as a great hope, an immense hope, a light coming from heaven and which will lead us who were in darkness to heaven, is because all of us have the stain of Original Sin and all its consequences. Thanks to the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, thanks to the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we received the Sacrament of Baptism and by Baptism, the guilt of Original Sin was cleansed from our souls; however, we remain sick. We remain with the influences of Original Sin. We are sick persons. We admit this just before receiving Holy Communion; you will repeat it three times in a few minutes: "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but just say the word and my soul shall be healed," and you will repeat three times: ". . . and my soul shall be healed." Why healed? It is because it is sick. Yes, we are sick persons, the consequences of Original Sin are our sickness, they do remain. We are sick in our soul because we have all the bad tendencies which push us to sin. St. Thomas calls that "fomes peccati"—there are these tendencies to sin which are still in us, though we received the grace of baptism, though we struggle, though we receive the Sacrament of Penance and the Sacrament of Holy Communion, we remain with this tendency to sin. Therefore we need the Doctor of our soul! The consequences of Original Sin are present. They are also manifested by sickness . . . if we would not have Original Sin, if we would not be one with our first parents by the flesh which we received from our parents, then we would not be sick, there would be no illness. Our Lord was never ill during His life; the Most Blessed Virgin Mary did not suffer from any sickness during her life, but He chose to die, to die for our Redemption, and the Virgin Mary chose to die to imitate her Divine Son, but She was not subject to death because She did not have the stain of Original Sin; this is why She was assumed into heaven with Her body. She rose from the dead because She did not have the consequences of Original Sin.
Yes, we are sick, and we must convince ourselves of this, in order to have an immense desire in our soul to be healed, to come back into the Divine Order, to do the Lord's will. The remedy is Our Lord Jesus Christ, it is His Cross, it is His Blood, it is His Passion, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is the Holy Victim immolated on the Cross which we receive in Holy Communion and which heals our soul. In the prayer just before Communion, we admit this: "ad medelam percipiendam—may we receive it as a remedy: O Lord, come in us so that we may receive the remedy which we need for our souls." Such is the teaching of the Church. Thus, knowing this, we must accept sufferings, penance, to make reparation for our sins, for our faults, in order to put our soul back in the order willed by God. And we are reminded of this by the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. O how blessed the Virgin Mary is! Without any stain! Without any stain! "Sine macula!"
The second dogma to which the Antiphon of the Magnificat makes allusion is that the Virgin Mary has crushed the serpent's head, has crushed Satan's head! This truth is recalled in an admirable way by St. John in the Apocalypse. In the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse, St. John described the signs of heaven: "And behold a sign, a woman shining as the sun, with the moon under her feet, and with a crown of twelve stars, appeared in heaven." It was the Virgin Mary described in the Apocalypse. And immediately after another sign appeared to St. John: the dragon! The red dragon, horrible to see with his horns, his many heads, and it strove to devour the child who was to be born of the woman and it ran after her trying to devour this child. Then, at this moment, St. John described the battle which occurred in heaven, between St. Michael and his Angels, those who followed him, and the Dragon with those who followed the Dragon; and he said that the Dragon drew with him, by his tail, the third part of the stars, probably signifying that a third of the angels unfortunately followed the revolt of the Dragon who, said St. John, is called the Devil, Satan.
Then a frightful war was waged in heaven and St. Michael triumphed "by the Blood of the Lamb." By the Blood of the Lamb; it was the Blood of the Lamb which gave victory to St. Michael and his Angels over the Dragon, who was thrown down to earth. Then a canticle arose: "Blessed be the heavens, blessed are the elect of heaven who henceforth are delivered from Satan and from all his followers! But woe to the earth and to the sea which received Satan, because Satan is in an enormous fury, because he has been thrown from the heights of heaven down to earth" and he knows, said the Apocalypse, that he has but a short time, "modicum tempus," a very short time is left to him. Therefore, he will work and strive to destroy the child of the woman. He ran after Mary and from his mouth a filthy river came and inundated the earth so that the woman and child disappear in these filthy waters. But the earth came to Mary's aid, and an abyss was opened and this filthy river was absorbed by the earth. Then Mary and Jesus were saved. But now Satan's rage is turned against the children of the Virgin and against those who observe the Commandments of God and the Commandments of Jesus. This is what the Apocalypse says.
Now, my dear brethren, we are constantly witnessing this struggle, this action continues. Yes, the Devil is working here below and Mary continues crushing his head. Unfortunately, the powers of Hell being loosed have a considerable influence here below. If the Devil would lead astray only enemies of the Church! But, alas, he succeeds in penetrating into the very heart of the flock of Our Lord; he succeeds in penetrating into the interior of the Church, as St. Pius X said. And thus members of the Church, and often members of the clergy, let themselves be corrupted by the false ideas which Satan spreads in the world. This is what we witness today, my dear brethren! The false ideas of the world destroying the Church from within, corrupting the realization of Catholicism; these false ideas being spread in the Church. And one of these false modern ideas is ecumenism, it is religious freedom, it is the Rights of Man, it is the revolt of man against God: freedom of thought, freedom to choose one's religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience—"liberties" which have been condemned many, many times by all the Popes—by Pius IX, by Leo XIII, by St. Pius X, by Pius XI and by Pius XII. They warned the faithful, and all the bishops, against these ideas: "Beware!" Leo XIII called this "the New Right," a New Right which rose against the Right of the Church, a right of secularism, a right of atheism, a right to forget God, to persecute God, Our Lord Jesus Christ. All this has been condemned by the Popes and now we are witnessing these ideas rising again since Vatican II.
The facts are before our eyes: these dialogues with error. They would like to have the same place given to error as to Truth, the same honor given to error as to Truth, the same honor given to vice as to virtue. We see it in the laws; all the laws of the states, especially the atheistic and socialist states, put vice and virtue on the same level. We could say they only praise vice and legalize it: abortions, divorces, who knows what else? We can quote many laws which are contrary to the law of the Good Lord. This revolt of the world against God is a terrible thing, supported by Satan—supported by the Dragon and by all his disciples.
Now, instead of doing as the Virgin Mary, crushing Satan's head—not dialoguing with him!—what was it that lost Eve? It was dialogue with Satan! She held a dialogue with Satan, and she was lost! When one dialogues with Satan, when one dialogues with evil, when one dialogues with error, one is lost! And this is what we are witnessing today. One must fight against error; one must proclaim the Truth; one must fight against vice and practice virtue; one must crush Satan's head at the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary!
But, today, dialogue is in vogue in the world. I will give you an example. I just came back from South America. Well, the president of Colombia who is supposedly a Catholic president, and who was elected by the Conservatives, by what could be called the "right," well, this conservative president, for the two years that he has been president of his country has himself established a dialogue with the enemies of his country, with those whom they call guerillas. And what good results have come from two years of dialogue? The ten to fifteen thousand armed men who were in the guerilla movement two years ago now number seventy thousand! The guerilla movement now possesses 70,000 armed men who are linked to Moscow, China and Cuba. Here is a country which can pass to the domination of Communism because of the dialogue of a man of the right! Here is the result of this dialogue: he [the president] has permitted the young guerillas to attend the universities, even granting them scholarships to attend. As a result the universities are communist. I don't know if you realize the danger the modern world is running of communist implantation. Colombia is a base from which the communists would be able to have a command upon the Pacific, on the Gulf of Mexico and on the Sea of Antilles, and on all of South America. They know very well that if they take this country, they have all of South America before them, as they have done in Ethiopia—it is a similar situation.
So, these are the consequences of dialogue! One cannot dialogue with communism; one must fight them. This is what Pius XI said: "Communism is intrinsically evil." One does not discuss anything with something intrinsically evil.
The Blessed Virgin Mary gives us the example; St. Pius X gives us the example. St. Pius X fought against modern errors, fought against Modernism, fought against "Le Sillon," fought against all the errors which cause decay in the Church.
We have two examples, my dear brethren: the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Pius X. I think both had the same desire: could the Blessed Virgin Mary desire anything other than the Kingdom of her Divine Son? "Instaurare omnia in Christo—to restore all things in Christ"—this was the desire of St. Pius X, to put everything in the hands of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, my dear brethren, must be our desire. You were singing it a few minutes ago when we came into this wonderful assembly hall where so many have come; where you have prayed so much during this holy night of vigil. Yes, you were singing: "Let the Kingdom of Jesus Christ Our Lord come! Let Him reign over us!"
While the world proclaims its errors, let us pray that Jesus Christ Our Lord reign. Let this be our ideal; let us continue our fight; let us be firm in the restoration of the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ, first within ourselves, in our families, in our cities. Let us be courageous and undertake a crusade! At a time when we see the situation of the world truly under a light which could lead to pessimism if we do not look at it supernaturally, at the same time we are witnessing that everywhere some wonderful resistance is arising. Souls are understanding the danger, gathering themselves, uniting themselves to pray and to pray especially to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is what will save us! So, today, let us make the resolution, with St. Pius X, to go to the Virgin Mary and beg her to come down to us and crush the Serpent's head so that her Divine Son may reign.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: Letter on the Indult 1989 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-20-2022, 11:39 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
From the Dominicans of Avrillé:
A Letter from Archbishop Lefebvre, regarding Indult Masses
Let us put this document in context: It was written several months after “Operation Survival,” the consecration of the four bishops on 30 June 1988, which was accomplished not only without the approval of Pope John Paul II, but also against his will. The Fraternity of St. Peter was created the day following the consecrations, and conciliar Rome was busy trying to ‘pull in’ the more or less traditional Catholics.
It is always good to reread Archbishop Lefebvre, particularly in order to understand that beyond some conciliatory steps and words towards the supreme authority (of the Church), he was not fooled. He was well aware of the Fight for the Faith that (unfortunately) it was necessary to lead against this authority. [emphasis - The Catacombs]
Here is the text of his letter [bold emphasis is added by us -the Dominicans of Avrillé]:
Quote:Saint-Michel en Brenne, 18 March 1989
I am responding immediately to your kind letter which I received yesterday at Saint-Michel1, to tell you what I think about those priests who have received a “celebret” from the Roman Commission2 charged with dividing and destroying us.
It is evident that by putting themselves in the hands of the current conciliar authorities, they are implicitly accepting the Council and the ensuing reforms, even if they have received some privileges which remain exceptional and provisory.
Their speech is paralyzed because of this acceptance. The bishops are watching them! It is very regrettable that these priests are not aware of this reality. But we cannot fool the faithful.
The same may be said regarding these “traditional Masses” organized by the dioceses. They are celebrated between two conciliar masses. The celebrating priest says the new as well as the old. How, and by whom is Holy Communion distributed? What will the sermon be? etc.
These masses are scams which lead the faithful to compromise their principles! Many have already abandoned them.
What must change is their liberal and modernist doctrine. We must arm ourselves with patience and pray. God’s hour will come.
God’s blessings to you on this holy feast of Easter.
Best regards to you in Christ and Mary.
Abp. Lefebvre
1 Saint-Michel en-Brenne is the Mother House of the sisters of the Society.
2 Ecclesia Dei Commission
|
|
|
|
| IRS To Require Facial Recognition To View Tax Returns |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-20-2022, 08:39 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- Replies (1)
|
|
IRS To Require Facial Recognition To View Tax Returns
![[Image: irs%20bldg_0.JPG?itok=zlb5NsSP]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/irs%20bldg_0.JPG?itok=zlb5NsSP)
ZH | JAN 20, 2022
The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has partnered with a Virginia-based private identification firm which requires a facial recognition selfie among other things, in order to create or access online accounts with the agency.
According to KrebsonSecurity, the IRS announced that by the summer of 2022, the only way to log into irs.gov will be through ID.me. Founded by former Army Rangers in 2010, the McLean-based company has evolved to providing online ID verification services which several states are using to help reduce unemployment and pandemic-assistance fraud. The company claims to have 64 million users.
Quote:Some 27 states already use ID.me to screen for identity thieves applying for benefits in someone else’s name, and now the IRS is joining them. The service requires applicants to supply a great deal more information than typically requested for online verification schemes, such as scans of their driver’s license or other government-issued ID, copies of utility or insurance bills, and details about their mobile phone service.
When an applicant doesn’t have one or more of the above — or if something about their application triggers potential fraud flags — ID.me may require a recorded, live video chat with the person applying for benefits. -KrebsonSecurity
For the sake of his article, Krebs made himself a guinea pig and signed up with ID.me to describe the lengthy process that "may require a significant investment of time, and quite a bit of patience."
After uploading images of one's driver's license, state issued ID or passport.
Quote:If your documents get accepted, ID.me will then prompt you to take a live selfie with your mobile device or webcam. That took several attempts. When my computer’s camera produced an acceptable result, ID.me said it was comparing the output to the images on my driver’s license scans. -KrebsonSecurity
Once that's accepted, Id.me will ask to verify your phone number - and will not accept numbers tied to voice-over-IP services such as Skype or Google Voice.
Krebs' application became stuck at the "Confirming your Phone" stage - which led to a video chat (and having to resubmit other information) which had an estimated wait time of 3 hours and 27 minutes. Krebs - having interviewed ID.me's founder last year - emailed him, and was able to speak with a customer service rep one minute later "against my repeated protests that I wanted to wait my turn like everyone else."
As far as security goes, CEO Blake Hall told Krebs last year that the company is 'certified against the NIST 800-63-3 digital identity guidelines" and "employs multiple layers of security, and fully segregates static consumer data tied to a validated identity from a token used to represent that identity."
"We take a defense-in-depth approach, with partitioned networks, and use very sophisticated encryption scheme so that when and if there is a breach, this stuff is firewalled," said Hall. "You’d have to compromise the tokens at scale and not just the database. We encrypt all that stuff down to the file level with keys that rotate and expire every 24 hours. And once we’ve verified you we don’t need that data about you on an ongoing basis."
Krebs believes that things such as facial recognition for establishing one's identity is a "Plant Your Flag" moment, because "Love it or hate it, ID.me is likely to become one of those places where Americans need to plant their flag and mark their territory, if for no other reason than it will probably be needed at some point to manage your relationship with the federal government and/or your state."
The top commenter in his comments section, meanwhile, begs to differ...
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholicsay.com%2Fwp-co...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholicsay.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fvirgin_of_the_apocalypse_miguel_cabrera_lg.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: idm-choosetoadd.png?itok=6LMSqOkA]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/idm-choosetoadd.png?itok=6LMSqOkA)
![[Image: idme-waittime.png?itok=pnAVEiG_]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/idme-waittime.png?itok=pnAVEiG_)
![[Image: top%20comm.PNG?itok=VsusuYai]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/top%20comm.PNG?itok=VsusuYai)
