Category Archives: Apostasy

On the controversy surrounding Maddi Runkles and Heritage Christian Academy

Image result for maddi runkles

“On May 20, 2017 New York Times writer, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, published a feature piece entitled, Pregnant at 18. Hailed by Abortion Foes. Punished by Christian School.”  The Christian school’s crime? Not allowing a visibly pregnant and unmarried eighteen year old student, Maddi Runkles, to “walk” in her high school graduation ceremony.”

This headline has been widespread by The New York Times and the national media, but if our readers haven’t seen it yet, this is a good video explaining it from Michael Matt:

We now see groups such as Students for Life of America and Life News(not to be confused with Life Site News) siding with the media regarding this issue.  But as Remnant writer Chris Jackson asks, does anyone else see a problem with this story?

Excerpt from this excellent article(with additional commentary below):

“First, there is hardly any recognition that conceiving a child out of wedlock is a terrible tragedy, especially, as in this case, when the mother and father have no plans to marry. Here, both parties choosing to commit the sin of fornication has created a situation where the child will be most likely deprived of a father and won’t be born into a stable family unit. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that the mother is barely graduating high school and now must find a way to support herself, no doubt placing a burden on her own family to care for her child. And these are only the consequences to Miss Runkles’ immediate family and the child. Further lost in all of this, is the bad example it gives to Miss Runkles’ siblings, if she has any, her classmates, and the Christian community at large, not to mention society.

For these reasons, conceiving a child out of wedlock used to be accompanied by both the parents and the families involved feeling a natural and healthy sense of grief, guilt, and yes, shame. These are the emotions tragic situations are supposed to create.  In the past, the parents of the young woman involved would most often keep the situation discreet and private, withdrawing the girl from school and sometimes sending the girl out of town to live with relatives or to religious sisters at convents who cared for unwed mothers during pregnancy after which the girls would give the child up for adoption.

This is often sneered at by moderns who accuse these parents of abandoning or punishing their daughters. In reality, the parents were attempting to save their daughters from the public humiliation, disapprobation, and hardship that would ensue if she were to continue at school or in the community obviously pregnant and unmarried.  The other option, of course, was a quick marriage between the mother and father as soon as the pregnancy was discovered if that was, in fact, feasible.

Of course there never was or will be a perfect solution to such a situation as the situation is in and of itself, a tragic consequence of sin. But this is a fact that has apparently been lost on many in the pro-life movement, as well meaning as they are. For example, Kristan Hawkins, the Students for Life president, said “She [Miss Runkles] made the courageous decision to choose life, and she definitely should not be shamed.”

But is the school really choosing to “shame” Miss Runkles for choosing not to slaughter her unborn child by not allowing her to walk in a graduation ceremony? The notion is absurd.

The article goes on to say, “The anti-abortion group, which took her to a recent rally in Washington, argues that she should be lauded, not punished, for her decision to keep her baby.”

Yet, the pro-life group confuses the issue. The decision not to let Miss Runkles walk had absolutely nothing to do with her decision not to get an abortion.  It seems like some pro-life groups are so obsessed with the good end of preventing abortions that they will use any means necessary to accomplish the goal, even if that means lauding and holding up as a hero, a poor teenage girl who is in a very tragic situation due to her own choices. Does it not show to what level we have sunk as a society when one is honored as a celebrity for conceiving a child in sin as long as they refrain from murdering it?

Is this the bar we want to set?

But besides all of this, I found one thing most interesting and it is something I have seen discussed almost nowhere amongst the many stories out there including the comment boxes. Notice that the narrative is that an evil Christian school “shamed” Miss Runkles for getting pregnant out of wedlock.

Instead, why aren’t we asking Miss Runkles herself, or her family, why they are apparently not feeling any shame about their daughter being in her current situation? Why would Christian parents insist that their visibly pregnant daughter proudly walk across a stage at a Christian school drawing attention to the fact she is pregnant out of wedlock? Why would Miss Runkles want to do this? Why would Christian parents go to the left wing media and press to publicize the fact that their daughter conceived illegitimately to the entire world in order to “shame” her high school?

In a saner time, you could not have paid parents of an unmarried and visibly pregnant teenager to have their daughter walk across a stage in front of her classmates, much less publicize the affair to the media.. That is because the young girls in this situation, and their parents, used to have a healthy and completely natural sense of shame. They didn’t need a school to impose it upon them. They already felt it deeply.

Parents also used to have a healthy sense of discretion about so sensitive a matter and would try to minimize any scandal that might ensue over the affair. And so they would not even so much as asked the school if their daughter could make a spectacle of herself by walking at graduation as the entire notion would have been absurd and damaging not only to the child and family, but to the community at large. Ironically, if schools in those days had forced unwed and visibly pregnant teenagers to walk in high school graduating ceremonies they would have been rightly accused of shaming these poor girls and the practice would have caused a just uproar.

But in our day and age, there is no sense of shame. Far from it. Instead, a poor girl who conceived a child out of wedlock is not encouraged to keep a low profile, but instead encouraged by a pro-life group and her parents to proudly demand that her school celebrate this tragedy.  Why? Because she could have legally murdered the child, but chose not to. This is the very definition of shameless.

As evangelical Christians, the Runkles are no doubt familiar with the Bible, especially the Gospels. In the Gospel of Matthew we see how St. Joseph treated what he believed to be a similarly tragic situation, before he was enlightened by an angel.

When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

Notice that St. Joseph, far from publicizing the event and daring anyone to “shame” himself or Mary, wisely chose not to make the matter public and instead kept the matter as private as possible out of love for Mary. This is the path of virtue and charity we have so far strayed from. As the Haydock Commentary confirms:

Joseph her husband, knowing her strict virtue, was surprised at this her pregnancy, but “being a just man,” and not willing to expose her, by denouncing her, or giving her a bill of divorce, he had a mind to dismiss her privately, committing the cause to God. Let us learn from Joseph to be ever tender of our neighbor’s reputation, and never to entertain any injurious thoughts, or any suspicions to his prejudice.

Yet in today’s world we are so proud that even St. Joseph’s response of dismissing her privately would be seen as “shaming.”  The only answer the enemies of the Faith give is to flaunt the sin and tragedy and demand that society being accepting of it and celebrate it. And sadly at least one pro-life organization as well as most conservative news media have swallowed this poisoned premise in order to allegedly influence mothers not to kill their children.

However, promoting the pro-life cause by normalizing illegitimacy is like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Normalizing illegitimacy encourages more illegitimacy and thus a higher chance the final “choice” will be abortion and not life.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

[W]here the parents [of illegitimate children] fall but slightly in social esteem the public regard for chastity is deplorably lax..[T]he presence of illegitimacy in a community always tends to weaken the popular appreciation of chastity, and the popular disapproval of its violation. “

 

If I might add a point to Mr. Jackson’s article, let us also remember how God treats one who has fallen into sin, but has asked for forgiveness.  When the sin is confessed, Our Lord is overjoyed to pardon the sinner and forget the sin as only He can.  However, we often still owe a remaining “debt” to Him, especially in regard to grievous sins.  This temporal punishment is a consequence of the sinful action, even if the sin itself has been forgiven.  This is why we are obliged to do penance and, if necessary, be purified in Purgatory.  God is both infinitely merciful and just.

Yes, we are certainly happy that Miss Runkles has chosen not to abort and that there will be a new life to grace the Earth, but consequences must still exist for the action done.  It is unfortunate that some groups calling themselves “pro-life” are siding with the vile, anti-Catholic media on this issue, but there has been a creeping compromise in the Pro-Life movement for a long time.  For example, the common Protestant acceptance of contraception is now prevalent in a large number of groups.  This is why we published a post against the contraceptive mentality, which readers may find here: https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/being-truly-pro-life-a-rebuttal-against-the-contraceptive-mentality/

Other groups will go even further and declare themselves secular.  While their fight against abortion might be praiseworthy in many respects, how can one win his battle if he does not recognize the One who is the Truth?  The same goes for this new emerging group of “pro-life feminists”(!), an oxymoron.  It can be very dangerous to only partially affirm the truth, even out of an apparent “prudence”.  This is why, with a few noble exceptions, those who will most earnestly fight for Life will be found in the traditional Catholic communities.

~ Steven C.

Source:   http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3211-the-death-of-shame-pro-life-group-celebrates-illegitimacy

Hatred of Catholic Tradition

Modernism is rooted not only in pride but in hatred of the Church’s History.

Pope St. Pius X explains:

“They [the Modernists] recognize that the three chief difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy, the authority of the fathers and tradition, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war… They exercise all their ingenuity in diminishing the force and falsifying the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight…The Modernists pass the same judgment on the most holy Fathers of the Church as they pass on tradition; decreeing, with amazing effrontery that, while personally most worthy of all veneration, they were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.” — Pope Pius X

To wage war against the Church’s tradition is to wage war against Her history because Her history is found in Her tradition, which is the bulwark of our Faith.  Modernism ultimately undermines the very nature of the Church, for the Modernists put their authority on their new man-made religion which has little to nothing to do with the Catholic Religion practiced for the past 2,000 years.  While Traditional Catholics are trying to uphold the Church’s history, the Modernists want to tear it down by destroying all that the Church holds sacred, including and especially the deposit of Faith. Ultimately, the aim of the Modernists has been to fashion a new religion and a new church, divorced of the True Church that has sanctified men throughout history.

“The customs of God’s people and the institutions of our ancestors are to be considered as laws. And those who throw contempt on the customs of the Church ought to be punished as those who disobey the law of God.”   ~St. Augustine

Many Saints have spoken on tradition and the importance of adhering to it, in the same way as our forefathers:

“The best advice that I can give you is this: Church-traditions— especially when they do not run counter to the faith— are to be observed in the form in which previous generations have handed them down… The traditions which have been handed down should be regarded as apostolic laws.”

Without question, as things worsen in the Church and the Modernists continue to wage war against all that is good and holy, we are in the final battle, between those who serve God and the Church and those who serve themselves and their God, mammon. The Immaculate Heart of Our Lady triumphs.

~Damsel of the Faith

Vatican Archbishop personally featured in blasphemous, homosexual painting

I stumbled upon this story – a disgusting corruption of art manifested through erotic, homosexualist “art”.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/leading-vatican-archbishop-featured-in-homoerotic-painting-he-commissioned?utm_source=LifePetitions+petition+signers&utm_campaign=1679bbcc8c-Catholic_1_171_17_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c5c75ce940-1679bbcc8c-397764521

The Archbishop that commissioned the painting of this homoerotic painting currently sits on the Academy for Life at the Vatican. Appears he belongs on the Academy of Death, if anything. This blasphemous mural was commissioned by the Bishop in 2007, having himself featured in the painting in a provocative position.  According to the “artist” who is a homosexual himself, the individuals in the painting are meant to be “erotic.” The images speak for themselves.  The painting still hangs disgracefully in the Cathedral church of this Bishop. To be frank, this alone is a statement on the state of soul of the bishop. Outward approval of perversion is inner proof of death, death of salvific grace and a rejection of the salvific truths of the Church.

The Homosexualization of the Catholic Church is self evident and it’s a perversion of epic proportions, glorifying one of the four sins that cries to heaven for vengeance.  Corruption of art is a corruption of the soul, for art opens a window to the soul, an avenue of heavenly beauty; beautiful art has the power to lift the soul to God and to help us dwell on the things of heaven. Satan attacks any instrument God uses for good and he twists and perverts it.

Sacred Art is meant to be a book of doctrine. “Painting is employed in churches so that those who cannot read or write may at least read on the walls what they cannot decipher on the page.” ~Pope St. Gregory the Great

Let us pray for the Bishop and all those who corrupt the Church with their wicked passions and distorted desires.

~Damsel of the Faith

Sacrilege at the Altar of God

Featured Image

“A person sins by sacrilege when he mistreats sacred persons, places, or things.” ~Baltimore Catechism

“A sacrilege is the profanation of a place, of a person, or of a thing consecrated to God and set apart for his worship.”  ~Catechism of Pope St. Pius X

BRISBANE, Australia, December 15, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic archdiocese of Brisbane, which is led by Archbishop Mark Coleridge, has defended the staging of a sexually charged, explicitly anti-Christian ballet and fashion show in a Catholic church.

Held in St. Patrick’s Church in Fortitude Valley in October 2016, the event included an erotically suggestive ballet performed in front of the high altar in the sanctuary, during which an almost nude man and woman, wearing flesh-toned undergarments, re-enacted the fall of Adam and Eve, according to images published on the Stumbling Block blog, and others posted by the event organizers themselves.

The aisle of St. Patrick’s, a consecrated church in which Mass is held weekly, became the “catwalk” for a fashion show in which models strutted up to the sanctuary to pose before the high altar and tabernacle.

St. Patrick’s, built in the 19th century, is administered by St. Stephen’s Cathedral, which is under Coleridge’s pastoral care.

In a statement issued on Coleridge’s behalf, archdiocesan spokesperson Aidan Turner asserted “proper precautions” were taken.

“The altar and the Blessed Sacrament were moved before the event and returned after it ended,” Taylor told LifeSiteNews in an email. “The Archdiocese has received one complaint about this matter, three months after the event…” Read more: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-archdiocese-allows-sacrilegious-sexually-charged-fashion-show-in-a

For me, blasphemies of this nature are their own abominations of desolation.

Only one soul speaks up about this pollution of the Sanctuary of God? That is disgraceful. Where are Catholics to defend the sanctity of the altar?

The Modernists never cease their hellbent quest to destroy the Catholic Church.  What they allow to happen in the House of God says quite enough about their faith (or lack thereof).  It condones the obvious fact that they do not believe the Catholic Faith or adhere to the Catholic Faith nor do they believe the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ was worth the many souls He redeemed, for the Great Commission is simply ignored and rejected; God is abandoned and trampled upon in his own sanctuary (both literally and figuratively), while his Representatives drag him through the mud and mire.  Please pray for their conversion, for they will have sacrilege upon sacrilege to account for, soul after soul lost that will have to be answered for.

Let the churches be restored, for the honor and glory of God and the salvation of souls:

“All should come to our churches and there be taught the truth of the Catholic faith, sing the praises of God, be enriched with benediction of the Blessed Sacrament given by the priest and be strengthened with help from heaven against the adversities of this life. Let all try to learn those prayers which are recited at vespers and fill their souls with their meaning. When deeply penetrated by these prayers, they will experience what St. Augustine said about himself: ‘How much did I weep during hymns and verses, greatly moved at the sweet singing of thy Church. Their sound would penetrate my ears and their truth melt my heart, sentiments of piety would well up, tears would flow and that was good for me.'”   ~Pope Pius XII, “Mediator Dei”, 1947

“Our churches are holy because they belong to God, and on account of the celebration of the holy Sacrifice therein, and the prayer and praise offered to the divine Guest who dwells there. More truly than the figurative tabernacle or the ancient temple, they are separated solemnly and for ever by their dedication from all the dwellings of men, and exalted far above all earthly palaces. Still notwithstanding the magnificent rites performed within them on the day they were consecrated to God, notwithstanding the holy oil with which their walls remain for ever impregnated, they themselves are devoid of feeling and life. What else, then, can be meant, but that the solemn function of the dedication, and the annual feast that commemorates it, do not point merely to the material building, but rise to living and more sublime realities? The principal glory of the noble edifice will be to symbolize those great realities. Under the shelter of its roof the human race will be initiated into ineffable secrets, the mystery whereof will be consummated in another world in the noonday light of heaven.”   ~Liturgical Year

“And they said every man to his neighbour: Let us raise up the low condition of our people, and let us fight for our people, and our sanctuary.”  ~1 Maccabbes 3:42

Let us defend the sanctuary!

~Damsel of the Faith

Christianity without compromise

     

“A Christianity which keeps a grip on itself, refuses every compromise with the world, takes the commands of God and the Church seriously, preserves its love of God and of men in all its freshness, such a Christianity can be, and will be, a model and a guide to a world which is sick to death and clamors for directions, unless it be condemned to a catastrophe that would baffle the imagination.”  ~Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge

“There never was a time, Venerable Brethren, when the salvation of souls did not impose on all the duty of associating their sufferings with the torments of our Divine Redeemer. But today that duty is more clear than ever, when a gigantic conflict has set almost the whole world on fire and leaves in its wake so much death, so much misery, so much hardship; in the same way today, in a special manner, it is the duty of all to fly from vice, the attraction of the world, the unrestrained pleasures of the body, and also from worldly frivolity and vanity which contribute nothing to the Christian training of the soul nor to the gaining of Heaven.”   ~Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943

As the Church goes, so does the world.  When the Church is restored, society will enjoy peace, the true peace that comes from the love of Christ and the practice of the Catholic Faith.

~Damsel of the Faith

“Who can accept Marriage?”

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/pope-francis-catastrophic-speech-of.html

The Pope blasphemes Catholic Marriage.

“They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them to mature, help fidelity to mature.”

Accompany them to what?  When the Church was in a healthy state and Popes taught the Catholic Faith, this would have meant to “accompany” them back to the state of Sanctifying grace, without which there is no life in the soul.  How do you “wait” on cohabitators to achieve a supposedly Catholic Marriage without admonishing them and warning them that they are living contrary to the laws of God and are bringing damnation to their souls, telling them that to amend this they must leave their sinful situation? To Pope Francis, cohabitation is the new marriage which ultimately means Marriage is meaningless and basically non-existent.  Is cohabitation to be raised to the permanence and holiness of Marriage? Are the pleasures of sin to be raised to the dignity of a Sacrament and upheld as a means to the end of fidelity and holiness?  Is Marriage too hard to live by now, with its duties, obligations and responsibilities?  What happened to picking up our crosses and following Christ?  Why do we have to pander to the pleasures of the people? The Pope, like those disciples of Christ who walked away from Him after He said that we must eat His Body, is ultimately saying concerning marriage, “this saying is hard. Who can accept it?” (John 6: 60).  Instead of accepting Christ and His teachings, it seems we have to be accepting of the modern culture that is entrenched in sin, all in the name of a false mercy and pastoral charity.

Fidelity does not exist in sin.  Cohabitation is unlawful and a blasphemy to the unity and indissolubility of lawful marriage based on fidelity to Christ and His Church.  If there is no fidelity to God by keeping His Commandments, there can be no fidelity to each other.  A lawful Marriage is a lifelong covenant and vow made before God by a man and woman. Anything else is a mortal sin and to see the Pope approving of mortal sin (of course this isn’t the first time) is a shameful disgrace.

Why don’t we take a refresher course?  The definition and meaning of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony from The Baltimore Catechism #3:

Q. 1005. What is the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The Sacrament of Matrimony is the Sacrament which unites a Christian man and woman in lawful marriage.

Q. 1006. When are persons lawfully married?

A. Persons are lawfully married when they comply with all the laws of God and of the Church relating to marriage. To marry unlawfully is a mortal sin, and it deprives the souls of the grace of the Sacrament.

Q. 1007. When was marriage first instituted?

A. Marriage was first instituted in the Garden of Eden, when God created Adam and Eve and made them husband and wife, but it was not then a Sacrament, for their union did not confer any special grace.

Q. 1008. When was the contract of marriage raised to the dignity of a Sacrament?

A. The exact time at which the contract of marriages was raised to the dignity of a Sacrament is not known, but the fact that it was thus raised is certain from passages in the New Testament and from the constant teaching of the Church ever since the time of the apostles. Our Lord did not merely add grace to the contract, but He made the very contract a Sacrament, so that Christians cannot make this contract without receiving the Sacrament.

Q. 1009. What is the outward sign in the Sacrament of Matrimony, and in what does the whole essence of the marriage contract consist?

A. The outward sign in the Sacrament of matrimony is the mutual consent of the persons, expressed by words or signs in accordance with the laws of the Church. The whole essence of the marriage contract consists in the surrender by the persons of their bodies to each other and in declaring by word or sign that they make this surrender and take each other for husband and wife now and for life.

Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:

  1. To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
  2. To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
  3. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

Q. 1011. Can a Christian man and woman be united in lawful marriage in any other way than by the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. A Christian man and woman cannot be united in lawful marriage in any other way than by the Sacrament of Matrimony, because Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

And the true nature of Marriage according to Pope Leo XIII:

“Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature… As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.” ~Pope Leo XIII, “Arcanum”, 1880 A.D.

It’s blasphemy to put the profane on par with the holy.

~Damsel of the Faith


 

The Knight of Tradition is adding to the post by giving us some important information on the subject of situation ethics, or in other words as I like to call it, the fruit of Modernism:

As Rorate Caeli adequately covered in the linked article above, such a line of thinking has been already indicated in a few of this Pope’s documents, especially in the infamous Amoris Laetitia; the relevant parts of which are restated below:

(Part of 33.) “Yet if this freedom lacks noble goals or personal discipline, it degenerates into an inability to give oneself generously to others. Indeed, in many countries where the number of marriages is decreasing, more and more people are choosing to live alone or simply to spend time together without cohabiting.”

293. The Fathers also considered the specific situation of a merely civil marriage or, with due distinction, even simple cohabitation, noting that “when such unions attain a particular stability, legally recognized, are characterized by deep affection and responsibility for their offspring, and demonstrate an ability to overcome trials, they can provide occasions for pastoral care with a view to the eventual celebration of the sacrament of marriage”.

On the other hand, it is a source of concern that many young people today distrust marriage and live together, putting off indefinitely the commitment of marriage, while yet others break a commitment already made and immediately assume a new one. “As members of the Church, they too need pastoral care that is merciful and helpful”. For the Church’s pastors are not only responsible for promoting Christian marriage, but also the “pastoral discernment of the situations of a great many who no longer live this reality. Entering into pastoral dialogue with these persons is needed to distinguish elements in their lives that can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of marriage in its fullness”. In this pastoral discernment, there is a need “to identify elements that can foster evangelization and human and spiritual growth”.

294. “The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations”. In such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love. We know that there is “a continual increase in the number of those who, after having lived together for a long period, request the celebration of marriage in Church. Simply to live together is often a choice based on a general attitude opposed to anything institutional or definitive; it can also be done while awaiting more security in life (a steady job and steady income). In some countries, de facto unions are very numerous, not only because of a rejection of values concerning the family and matrimony, but primarily because celebrating a marriage is considered too expensive in the social circumstances. As a result, material poverty drives people into de facto unions”. Whatever the case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly”.

What is happening here is the promotion of Situation Ethics.  Although Pope Francis might have insisted to some, e.g., the SSPX, that he does not intend to change doctrine, it would seem that the doctrine could be “flexible” in “pastoral” application.

John Vennari on the definition of Situation Ethics:

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/88cd932e0fb30da936d547131dbddacf-571.html

“What is situation ethics?

Situation Ethics is the rejection of the universal, binding, immutable norms of morality. There is no such thing as a moral act that is intrinsically evil, there is no rule that admits no exceptions. According to this false approach, the morality of an act ultimately depends not on objective truth, but on the individual’s given situation.

The early advocates of situation ethics (as well as contemporary advocates) rebelled against what they call “legalism,” “rigidity” and certain “fixed rules of morality that can never be violated.” Such an approach, as the 1960s advocates of situation ethics complained, “puts rules over people.”

Dr. Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991), the Anglican clergyman and principal proponent of modern situation ethics (who published the landmark 1966 book Situation Ethics and ended his days as an atheist), insisted that in a given situation, we need not always act according to objective morality, but rather, we “do the loving thing” based on the our given circumstances. The new pastoral approach coming from Francis’ Vatican delivers a new twist to the same error, claiming what is most important is to do the “merciful” thing, in light of the various “concrete circumstances” of the individual.”

Bp. Bernard Fellay on the application of Situation Ethics after the Synod on the Family:  http://www.sspx.org/en/declaration-concerning-synod-family     

“…In keeping with the natural law, man has a right to exercise his sexuality only within lawful marriage, while respecting the limits set by morality. This is why homosexuality contradicts natural and divine law. Unions entered into apart from marriage (cohabitation, adulterous, or even homosexual unions) are a disorder contrary to the requirements of the natural divine law and are therefore a sin; it is impossible to acknowledge therein any moral good whatsoever, even diminished.

Given current errors and civil legislation against the sanctity of marriage and the purity of morals, the natural law allows no exceptions, because God in His infinite wisdom, when He gave His law, foresaw all cases and all circumstances, unlike human legislators. Therefore so-called situation ethics, whereby some propose to adapt the rules of conduct dictated by the natural law to the variable circumstances of different cultures, is inadmissible. The solution to problems of a moral order must not be decided solely by the consciences of the spouses of or their pastors, and the natural law is imposed on conscience as a rule of action.”

As the Catholic liturgy and doctrine were significantly ignored or even rejected to a point by Fathers of the “pastoral” Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis, as a Son of the Council, is taking the next step in putting even basic morality under this “pastoral” treatment.  Let us pray to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts for the eventual triumph that is promised by Our Blessed Mother at Fatima!

~Steven C, “Knight of Tradition”

How much has changed in 200 years!

To hear these words spoken again by a holy Pope, with much more zeal and concern for the salvation of souls in this 21st century, a century full of heresy, apostasy and Modernism that has overrun the Catholic Church, is the hope of every Catholic that truly loves the Church.

“If ever those in charge of the Lord’s vineyard should be concerned about the salvation of souls, they must be so in this age especially. For many ideas aimed at weakening religion arise almost daily. When men are enticed by novelty and led on by an eagerness for alien knowledge, they come together more eagerly for this very purpose and more willingly embrace it. Wherefore, We lament that the destruction of souls is propagated more widely each day.

Accordingly you must work all the harder and exercise diligence and authority to repel this audacity and insanity which stalks even divine and most holy matters. Be confident that you will accomplish this by simplicity of sound doctrine and by the word of God which penetrates more than any two-edged sword. You will easily be able to contain the attack of enemies and blunt their weapons when in all your sermons you preach and present Jesus Christ crucified. By His own laws and institutions He founded and reenforced this holy city which is His Church. To it he entrusted, as it were, the deposit of faith in Him to be preserved piously and without contamination. He wished it to be the bulwark of His teaching and truth against which the gates of hell would never prevail.

We, therefore, the overseers and guardians of this holy city, must preserve the magnificent heritage of Our laws and faith which has been passed down intact to Us; We must transmit it pure and sound to our successors. If We direct all our actions to this norm found in sacred scripture and moreover cling to the footsteps of our ancestors, We will be best equipped to avoid whatever could weaken and destroy the faith of the Christian people and loosen in any way the unity of the Church.”

~Pope Clement XIV, Cum Summi (Proclaiming a Universal Jubilee, Encyclical, 1769

 

~Damsel of the Faith