Rise Up, Faithful Catholics: Bishop Gracida Calls for Open Resistance

The following short video, published yesterday by Church Militant, contains part of an interview with the Most Reverend René Henry Bishop Emeritus Gracida of Corpus Christi wherein all faithful Catholics are encouraged to stand up - quite literally, and even in the middle of a homily, if necessary - and call out the various errors and heresies being promoted in our churches on a regular basis. The time of "suffering in silence," the Bishop says, is over; the time for open confrontation has come. When heresy is preached from the pulpit, it deserves conspicuous and immediate contradiction.

Please share this video far and wide, especially with those who have yet to realize that we are in the middle of a crisis of truly epic proportions. As the Bishop remarks:

Today we need people to stand up in their churches and say to the priest, to the homilist or to the bishop: "No! You're wrong! You cannot give Holy Communion to abortionists or to abortion-promoting legislators or to the divorced and remarried! You cannot do it! It's like Paul says: You do not feed the Eucharist to dogs!"

Self-Defense

Thirty-Eighth in a Series on Catholic Morality

by
Fr. John H. Stapleton

The thought is a terrible one - and the act is desperate in itself - of a man, however justified his conduct may be, slaying with his own hand a fellow being and sending his soul, unprepared perhaps, before its Maker. But it is a still more desperate thing, because it strikes us nearer home, to yield up one's life into the hands of an agent of injustice. There is here an alternative of two very great evils; it is a question of two lives, his and mine; I must slay or I must die without having done anything to forfeit my life.

But the law of charity, founded in nature, makes my life more precious to me than his, for charity begins at home. Then, to save his life, I must give mine; and he risks his to take mine! I do not desire to kill my unjust aggressor, but I do intend, as I have a perfect right, to protect my own life. If he, without cause, places his existence as an obstacle to my enjoyment of life, then I shall remove that obstacle, and to do it, I shall kill. Again, a desperate remedy, but the situation is most terribly desperate. Being given law of my being, I can not help the inevitable result of conditions of which I am nowise responsible. The man who attacks my life places his own beyond the possibility of my saving it.

This, of course, supposes a man using the full measure of his rights. But is he bound to do this, morally? Not if his charity for another be greater than that which he bears towards himself, if he go beyond the divine injunction to love his neighbor as himself and love him better than himself; if he feel that he is better prepared to meet his God than the other, if he have no one dependent on him for maintenance and support. Even did he happen to be in the state of mortal sin, there is every reason to believe that such charity as will sacrifice life for another, greater than which no man has, would wash away that sin and open the way of mercy; while great indeed must be the necessity of the dependent ones to require absolutely the death of another.

The aggression that justifies killing must be unjust. This would not be the case of a criminal being brought to justice or resisting arrest. Justice cannot conflict with itself and can do nothing unjust in carrying out its own mandates. The culprit therefore has no grounds to stand upon for his defense.

Neither is killing justifiable, if wounding or mutilation would effect the purpose. But here the code of morals allows much latitude on account of the difficulty of judging to a nicety the intentions of the aggressor - that is, whether he means to kill or not - and of so directing the protecting blow as to inflict just enough, and no more disability than the occasion requires.

Virtue in woman is rightly considered a boon greater than life; and for that matter, so is the state of God's friendship in the soul of any creature. Then, here, too, applies the principle of self-defense. If I may kill to save my life, I may, for a better reason, kill to save my soul and to avoid mortal offense. True, the loss of bodily integrity does not necessarily imply a staining of the soul; but human nature is such as to make the one an almost fatal consequence of the other. The person, therefore, who kills to escape unjust contamination acts within his or her rights and before God is justified in the doing.

We would venture to say the same thing of a man who resorts to this extreme in order to protect his rightly gotten goods, on these two conditions, however: that there be some kind of proportion between the loss and the remedy he employs to protect himself against it; and that he have well-grounded hope that the remedy will be effective, that it will prevent said loss, and not transform itself into revenge.

And here a last remark is in order. The killing that is permitted to save is not permitted to avenge loss sustained; the law sanctions self-defense, but not vengeance. If a man, on the principle of self-defense, has the right to kill to save his brother, and fails to do so, his further right to kill ceases; the object is past saving and vengeance is criminal. If a woman has been wronged, once the wrong effected, there can be no lawful recourse to slaying, for what is lost is beyond redemption, and no reason for such action exists except revenge. In these cases killing is murder, pure and simple, and there is nothing under Heaven to justify it.

Remembering the injunction to love our neighbor as ourself, we add that we have the same right to defend our neighbor's life as we have to defend our own, even to protect his or her innocence and virtue and possessions. A husband may defend the honor of his wife, which is his own, even though the wife be a party to the crime and consent to the defilement; but the right is only to prevent, and ceases on the event of accomplishment, even at the incipient stage.

On the Mortal Sin of Suidice

In the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, we read:

In the Fifth Commandment God forbids suicide, because man is not the master of his own life no more than of the life of another. Hence the Church punishes suicide by deprivation of Christian burial.

In the Baltimore Catechism, we read:

It is a mortal sin to destroy one's own life or commit suicide, as this act is called, and persons who willfully and knowingly commit such an act die in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of Christian burial.

In the Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, we read:

To kill both body and soul [...] is possible in two ways: first, by the murder of one with child, whereby the child is killed both in body and soul; and, secondly, by committing suicide.

To any Catholic alive before 1965, this teaching was a clear as it was final: suicide is a mortal sin which prevents the reception of a Christian burial.

Apparently, however, all that has changed. As St. Mary's University Assistant Professor of Theology Andrew Getzt opined yesterday:

Suicide is no longer a mortal sin.

He was responding to inquiries as to why Fr. Virgil Elizondo, who recently committed suicide after being accused of sexual abuse, will nonetheless be receiving a Catholic burial.

Let's overlook the fact that, if suicide is no longer a mortal sin, then it was never a mortal sin to begin with, and every time the Church refused Christian burial, which it did with regularity, it committed a grave error. That would be be Fundamentalist nitpicking of the worst sort.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

And whatever you do, don't you dare say that the Church of the New Pentecost is not in perfect continuity with all that which came before it. Such talk foments a schismatic mentality, and schism is a mortal sin.

Winston being shown where the Continuity is stored.

On the Evolution of Dogma and the Hermeneutic of Continuity

From the period of 1910 to 1967, Catholic seminarians were required to swear a solemn oath which contained the following clause:

I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. - Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism, 1910.

In an interview published recently, Benedict XVI made the following observation in regards to the perennial teaching extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, "Outside of the Church there is no Salvation":

There is no doubt that on this point we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma. - Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, 2016.

In other words, what was once formally condemned as heretical is now to be accepted as undoubtedly true.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

I used to think that Hermeneutic of Continuity meant reading the documents of Vatican II in light of Tradition. Perhaps it once did, at least in theory. Only recently, however, has the truth of the matter become clear to me:

Hermeneutic of Continuity - in practice - means reading Tradition in light of Vatican II.

Imagine there's no Rupture, Winston. It's easy if you try.

UPDATE: Christopher Ferrara has written a good analysis of the interview at The Remnant.

It's a Boy!

At 4:00 P.M. local time yesterday, your humble writer's indefatigably lovely wife gave birth to our fourth child, a healthy 7.5 pound boy. We would like to express our most heartfelt thanks to everyone who offered up prayers on our behalf.

With a helping of God's good grace, this blog will resume its regular course as soon as the situation on the homefront normalizes.

P.S. Women are amazing.

On Spiritual Retreat

For the next few weeks, I will be on spiritual retreat.

The recent events in Paris have reminded me of the brevity of life and the importance of taking time to reflect upon the four last things. Paris is literally a few hours from my front door, and the next attack could be much closer to home.

Besides that, witnessing the near-perfect ineptitude of our appointed leaders - both religious and secular - in effectively dealing with the crises of modernity is exhausting. While it is always a challenge, I'm finding it exceptionally hard to remain charitable these days. My patience is waning and bitterness is beginning to creep in - sure signs that it's time to take a break.

I apologize to my three regular readers - you know who you are - for the interruption in the continuation of the current series. Barring any unforeseen events, they will resume upon my return.

The Proper Response to Paris Attacks

Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy Most Sacred Heart.

Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart. Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to Thy Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.

Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.

Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: "Praise be to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to it be glory and honor for ever." Amen.