Monday, January 19, 2015

March for Life : double standard of participants

foto di Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Fort Worth.
The March for Life will be held in Rome in a few months in which like last year there will be participants from different religions and countries.There are no official sponsors and the Mayor supports abortion unlike the previous one, who also participated in the pro life walk.
 
This March for Life, John Henry Weston, the Catholic Editor of Life Sites.com, USA could be present as he was last year.
This seems like another case of Mark Shea being all for pro life issues and other Catholic teachings but changing the Nicene Creed, rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrationality.

John Henry Weston and Hilary White (Rome correspondent) of Life Sites.com use the same irrationality, approved by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing in 1949.

Weston will not say that all need to enter the Church for salvation in 2015 ,with no exceptions.Life sites' cofounder is Protestant Steve Jalsevac.
According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Jalsevec like the founder of Lifenews Steve Ertelt are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church formally.This is also the doctrine of the Church which they ignore when they cover other Catholic issues and even comments on the last Synod, doctrine-wise.Abortion-yes, extra ecclesiam nulla salus-no, is the policy of LifeSites.
 
Weston interprets Vatican Council II with the irrationality of Lumen Gentium 16  etc referring to known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
This is the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is the interpretation of Vatican Council II which the Vatican Curia wants the Catholic religious community the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept.Life sites has posted many reports on the Franciscans of the Immaculate issue.
Similarly for  John Smeaton, Director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children,SPUC, England abortion would be wrong and a sin for a Catholic  but he would not want to say in public the same for denying the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.He would not affirm the dogma or comment on this issue.
 
For these pro life Catholics participating in the March for Life annually in Rome, abortion would be a mortal sin but it would not be a mortal sin to change Church teachings on salvation and to deny it.It is politically correct.

Just as these Catholics  expect other Catholics to live the teachings of the Church on abortion, contraceptives etc they also should affirm the Church's teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church. Abortion is a mortal sin. So also is denying the Nicene Creed and the defined dogma with an irrational premise and conclusion.

May be John Henry Weston and Hilary White are not aware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without an irrational premise which makes the Council traditional. The Editor of LifeSites was not  aware that this was an option available for the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
For Hilary White this is all theology which she does not understand. Even Catholics who are not pro life and whom LifeSites criticizes could excuse themself. They are just ignorant .
-Lionel Andrades
https://www.facebook.com/events/271941539638440/?ref=5
 

They Don't Believe


Dagli eunuchi per il regno dei cieli agli autocastrati del pensiero unico

 


Statua distrutta

Perché di fronte all’iconoclastia che impera in Siria, in Iraq e in altre parti turbolente del mondo diciamo che è persecuzione contro i cristiani e i loro simboli e qui, invece, di fronte a fatti simili, diciamo che è “maleducazione”? Perché certi vescovi non chiamiamo più gli atti blasfemi con il loro nome? Attenzione: farsi “eunuchi per il Regno dei Cieli” non vuol dire perdere la virilità intesa come coraggio e fermezza.

.
.

lancillottidi Dorotea Lancellotti

Così viene presentata una delle ultime profanazioni ai danni della Fede cattolica:
  • Un gruppetto di immigrati ha distrutto una statua della Vergine e ci ha urinato sopra. Ma il vescovo ammonisce: “Non è un atto di odio religioso. Per l’Islam la figura di Maria è molto importante: è la Madre del profeta Gesù concepito nella verginità e la Beata Vergine è la donna più santa – ha commentato il vescovo ausiliare di Perugia-Città della Pieve, mons. Paolo Giulietti – Molti musulmani vengono in preghiera nei santuari mariani del Medio Oriente. Non si può attribuire questo gesto di vandalismo, che come ho detto va condannato in ogni senso, ad un episodio di odio religioso. E’ importante non alimentare la diffidenza reciproca soprattutto in questo momento..”.
La statua di Maria profanata.

La statua di Maria profanata.
Ma c’è dell’altro. Un anziano stava pregando davanti alla Madonnina di via Tilli, inginocchiato con la fotografia della moglie morta in mano, quando è stato aggredito e riempito di botte dal gruppo di “stranieri”, lo hanno insultato e gli hanno strappato pure la foto dalle mani, e se la sono portata via. Quindi si sono accaniti contro la statua della Vergine, scaraventandola giù dall’edicola e spezzandola in due. Poi, racconta la Nazione, hanno aggravato l’oltraggio spingendosi fino ad orinarci sopra. (1)
Senza dubbio il vescovo non ha tutti i torti nello spegnere l’incendio ed evitare che il fuoco propaghi soprattutto a fronte di quanto accaduto di recente in Francia (2), e senza dubbio è vandalismo sacrilego quando ci si accanisce contro una statua sacra e benedetta ed è “profanazione” sacrilega quando invece si agisce contro l’Eucaristia, ma quello che ci domandiamo è fino a che punto certi vescovi esprimono il Vangelo della tolleranza e dove inizia invece la paura di dire le cose come stanno, tacendo per timore della propria vita.

Maleducazione?

Madonna distrutta in Siria. Lì, però, non diciamo certo che si tratta di maleducazione...

Madonna distrutta in Siria. Lì, però, non diciamo certo che si tratta di maleducazione…
Ciò che risulta indigesto è che il vescovo abbia parlato di “maleducazione”, come se per una persona analfabeta o cresciuta in ambienti difficili fosse normale accanirsi contro una persona inerme che sta pregando per la strada davanti ad una icona della Vergine Maria, e frantumandone l’immagine ci urinasse sopra.
No, questa non è semplice maleducazione, non è un caso di mala-educazione, è piuttosto una vera profanazione, un vero atto di accanimento anti-religioso che il vescovo si guarda bene dal dichiarare tale, trasformandolo in un atto quasi del tutto naturale…- se uno non è ben” educato”!
Ma “male-educato”, lo dice il termine stesso, significa che qualcuno non è stato bene-educato a vivere con gli altri. Di conseguenza, l’atto compiuto da questi profanatori avrebbe all’origine il coinvolgimento di altre persone che a loro volta avrebbero educato male questo gruppetto di “stranieri”. L’atto vandalo, ma maggiormente l’atto blasfemo, perciò, non verrebbe da un essere semplicemente ignaro di che cosa sia essere bene-educato, quanto piuttosto dall’aver appreso che scagliarsi contro la fede cattolica è un bene, o del tutto normale, al limite è solo “maleducazione”.

Quando l’atto non è vandalico ma blasfemo…

Un atto o è vandalico o è blasfemo. Noi propendiamo sempre per il secondo caso, ovunque si trovino icone cristiane distrutte.
Un atto o è vandalico o è blasfemo. Noi propendiamo sempre per il secondo caso, ovunque si trovino icone cristiane distrutte.
L’atto vandalico è ben diverso dall’oltraggio religioso, dalla profanazione, dalla blasfemia.
L’atto vandalico è associato infatti all’adolescenza, ad atti burleschi, a gesti irrazionali scaturiti da una ribellione sociale e culturale e da un eccesso di ormoni che ancora prevalgono, a quell’età, sui neuroni. Qui, però, siamo davanti a qualcosa di molto ben più grave e il vescovo in fondo lo dice: la statua è stata ricollocata nella sua postazione originaria e sul luogo della profanazione è stato recitato un Santo Rosario di riparazione. Dalla Diocesi è arrivata una ferma condanna dell’atto sacrilego…
Quindi o è un atto sacrilego o è un atto vandalico. La responsabilità e la gravità cambiano a seconda dell’atto e dell’intenzione.

I don't expect Muslims to say that Catholicism is a true religion. And I hardly think they would be shocked or insulted to hear that I think that Islam is a false religion

I don't expect Muslims to say that Catholicism is a true religion. And I hardly think they would be shocked or insulted to hear that I think that Islam is a false religion. The falsity has consequences, and we must take those consequences as seriously as the Muslims, from their own perspective, take them.-Joseph Shaw
 
 
There are Catholics who don't want society to be reformed in accordance with God's will, but the teaching of the Church is clear. Christ must be the king of society, His reign must be over states as well as individuals. If there are laws which don't accord with God's will, they are unjust and Catholics must struggle to change them. It is an obligation particularly laid upon the laity - or so says Vatican II...
 
What I want to say again and again is that the demands of Islam must be considered and rejected - if we are going to reject them - on their merits as substantive demands. Since in many cases they are based on theological claims, that means assessing the validity of those claims. The secularists are desperate not to cede the validity of theological arguments, but their position is incoherent. If theological arguments are sound, they should be listened to. If they are unsound, we need to hear why.

There is a good reason not to impose Sharia Law on England. It is not because it is 'religious', nor because it is 'against human rights'. If it really came from God these arguments would have zero weight. The argument against Sharia Law is that it is not from God: that it is a false revelation. This can be shown by arguments based on Natural Law as well as by arguments for the truth of the Christian revelation. These are arguments we need to make, and to hear.

http://www.lmschairman.org/2015/01/political-islam-political-christianity.html

National Catholic Register does not comment as Jimmy Akins, Mark Shea,Edward Pentin and Pat Archbold assume the baptism of desire ( a zero case for John Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma

The National Catholic Register does not comment or discuss how John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most).He also contradicts  the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin,  placed on the Vatican website.
John Martignoni says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .So how can there be anything in Vatican Council II which could be considered an exception to the traditional  interpretation of the dogma according to the popes, saints and Vatican Council II itself (AG 7).
 
NCR blogger Pat Archbold does not comment on this issue. Jimmy Akins and Mark Shea also assume that the baptism of desire ( a zero case for Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma. In other words it is a known, objective, seen in the flesh case, to be an exception.So for the NCR bloggers Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) would not be a zero case but someone personally known in 2015. So LG 16 contradicts the dogma for them.
I have  heard Patrick Madrid on EWTN Radio a  few years back also assume there are defacto, known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
In other words they have all changed the traditional interpretation of the dogma,accepted the irrational inference of the Marchetti 1949 letter,changed the Nicene Creed and now interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion.This makes the Council a break with the past.
 
How can the National Catholic Register call itself Catholic?
Canonically the Staff Writers of the NCR cannot affirm the Nicene Creed and really mean something else.They cannot affirm a rational Vatican Council II and interpret it as a break with the past.
Legally, how can they say they are 'Catholic' and infer that Catholics must reject fundamental teachings of the Church. This is all reflected in the editorial policy of the NCR.
How can Dan Burke write about Spiritual Direction, the mystics, support pro-life issues and also interpret magisterial documents (including Vatican Council II) with an irrational proposition and conclusion.?
There has been no acknowledgment to the reports on this blog. It is as if they did not exist for them.
Fundamental questions are not being answered. Edward Pentin,Mark Shea, Jimmy Akins and others   could at least  acknowledge :-
1. We do not know of any exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015 so there are no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church this year.They cannot bump into a person in Alabama who is an exception, who will be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
2.Before 1949 there are no references in magisterial documents to the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance, as being known and visible to us, or as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no magisteral precedent for accepting the Marchetti letter.It has also made a factual error. It assumes that the dead who are now in Heaven are living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
John Martignoni contradicts the Marchetti letter.
-Lionel Andrades




Mark Shea ,EWTN,NCR are formally rejecting a defined dogma, the Nicene Creed and a rational Vatican Council II with their irrationality
 

Every Catholic should know

Caption: Pope Francis arrives to celebrate Mass in Rizal Park in Manila, Philippines, Jan. 18. It was the final public liturgical celebration of the pope's Jan 13-19 trip to Sri Lanka and the Philippines. (CNS/Paul Haring)Every Catholic should know that there is no one in the present times (2015) who is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) .Vatican Council II supports the traditional, centuries old interpretation.
Also there is no Church document before 1949 which says there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council of Trent ,Mystici Corporis etc do not claim  that the baptism of desire etc refer to cases  known to us in the present times and so are an exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, to avoid Hell( for salvation).
So Vatican Council II (AG 7;LG 14) supports 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.
LG 16,LG 8,NA 2, UR 3 refer to hypothetical cases, possibilities, which must include being saved with the baptism of water, according to the dogma and Vatican Council II itself (AG 7,LG 14).
So any one criticizes the theology of Feeneyism ( there are no exceptions) and supports Cushingism ( there are known exceptions), is making a factual mistake.There are no known exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Hypothetical cases cannot be objective exceptions to the dogma. We cannot see possibilities, we cannot meet them and shake their hands. Those who are in Heaven are not physically visible on earth.So they cannot be relevant or an exception to all needing the baptism of water in 2015 to avoid Hell.
Remember - that in 2015 all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.Don't let people fool you with words like 'theology', 'Fr.Feeney', 'Vatican Council II'.'Nostra Aetate', 'ecumenism'.
This is not said in a critical way of these persons but mater of factly.We love all non Catholics.All of them. Jesus asks us to love all.
He died for all of them,to save them form Hell.This is why we call him the Saviour.Non Catholics can convert onto the Catholic Church before death and so go to Heaven.
In Heaven there are only Catholics.They are there with Catholic faith and the baptism of water and without mortal sin on their soul.-Lionel Andrades

French PM: “The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people”

Valls also says, ““It is very important to make clear to people that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS.” How exactly he proposes to do that is unclear, at least if he intends to be honest, since what the Islamic State does all has foundation in the Qur’an and Sunnah. But he is absolutely right about this: “There is a prejudice in society about this, but on the other hand, I refuse to use this term ‘Islamophobia,’ because those who use this word are trying to invalidate any criticism at all of Islamist ideology. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people. ”
“French Prime Minister: ‘I Refuse to Use This Term Islamophobia,’ by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, January 16, 2015:
The prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, has emerged over the past tumultuous week as one of the West’s most vocal foes of Islamism, though he’s actually been talking about the threat it poses for a long while. During the course of an interview conducted before the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he told me—he went out of his way to tell me, in fact—that he refuses to use the term ‘Islamophobia’ to describe the phenomenon of anti-Muslim prejudice, because, he says, the accusation of Islamophobia is often used as a weapon by Islamism’s apologists to silence their critics.
Most of my conversation with Valls was focused on the fragile state of French Jewry—here is my post on his comments, which included the now-widely circulated statement that, “if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France”—and I didn’t realize the importance of his comment about Islamophobia until I re-read the transcript of our interview.
“It is very important to make clear to people that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS,” Valls told me. “There is a prejudice in society about this, but on the other hand, I refuse to use this term ‘Islamophobia,’ because those who use this word are trying to invalidate any criticism at all of Islamist ideology. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people. ”
Valls was not denying the existence of anti-Muslim sentiment, which is strong across much of France. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, miscreants have shot at Muslim community buildings, and various repulsive threats against individual Muslims have been cataloged. President Francois Hollande, who said Thursday that Muslims are the “first victims of fanaticism, fundamentalism, intolerance,” might be overstating the primacy of anti-Muslim prejudice in the current hierarchy of French bigotries—after all, Hollande just found it necessary to deploy his army to defend Jewish schools from Muslim terrorists, not Muslim schools from Jewish terrorists—but anti-Muslim bigotry is a salient and seemingly permanent feature of life in France. Or to contextualize it differently: Anti-Muslim feeling appears to be more widespread than anti-Jewish feeling across much of France, but anti-Jewish feeling has been expressed recently (and not-so-recently) with far more lethality, and mainly by Muslims.
It appears as if Valls came to his view on the illegitimacy of ‘Islamophobia’ after being influenced by a number of people, including and especially the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner and the writer (and fatwa target) Salman Rushdie. Rushdie, along with a group of mainly Muslim writers, attacked the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ several years ago in an open letter: “We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia’, a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it.”
Bruckner argued that use of the word ‘Islamophobia’ was designed to deflect attention away from the goals of Islamists: “[I]t denies the reality of an Islamic offensive in Europe all the better to justify it; it attacks secularism by equating it with fundamentalism. Above all, however, it wants to silence all those Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and doctrinaire.”…

 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/french-pm-the-charge-of-islamophobia-is-used-to-silence-people

Stray Cat Saves Abandoned Infant From Freezing to Death

by Sarah Zagorski | Moscow, Russia | LifeNews.com | 

 
In Russia, an abandoned infant was saved from freezing to death after a stray cat climbed into the box he was dumped in. The baby was left in below zero temperatures and would have died if it weren’t for a cat named Marsha.
Neighbors found Marsha curled around the freezing boy and licking his face after being alerted by his crying. A hospital spokesman told the Central European News, “The baby had only been outside for a few hours and thanks to Masha he was not damaged by the experience.”
One of the neighbors who found the baby, Nadezhda Makhovikova, said she went into the stairwell after hearing what sounded like a cat meowing in distress. She said, “When I went down, I saw it was the baby crying.”
straycat2
The New York Post shares more about the heroic cat:
She is very placid and friendly, so when I heard her meowing, I thought that perhaps she had injured herself,” said Obninsk city resident Irina Lavrova. “Normally she would have come and said hello to me. You can imagine my shock when I saw her lying in a box next to a baby.”
Masha is a communal cat who is looked after by local residents. When she found the baby — who appeared to be in great shape — she immediately took to him as if he were her own, according to CEN.
“Clearly her mothering instincts had taken over and she wanted to protect the child,” Lavrova explained. “He was well-dressed with a little hat, and whoever left him here had even left a few nappies and some baby food.”
The baby was immediately rushed to a local hospital, where he was given a checkup and declared fit and healthy, officials said. Since the child was found, Masha has been hailed as a hero by local residents — and she’s been reaping the benefits.
“Everyone in the block is very proud of her,” Lavrova said. “We have all spoiled her rotten by giving her her favorite food.”
straycat
Currently, Russia has over 650,000 children who are registered orphans; and of these, 370,000 are in state-run care facilities while the others are either in foster care or have been adopted. Some of these orphans are considered “social orphans” because one or more of biological parents are still alive. Additionally, hundreds of infants are found abandoned the way this baby was, which is why pro-life rights activists are working to promote baby boxes across Europe.
As LifeNews previously reported, there are nearly 100 baby boxes in Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic while Italy, Lithuania, Russia and Slovakia have about 10 each. These boxes, also known as baby “hatches,” are known as a safe place a mother can place her baby if she feels she is unable to care for her child. Although abandoning a child is against the law across Europe, some countries have introduced amendments to protect mothers who use a baby hatch.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/16/stray-cat-saves-abandoned-infant-from-freezing-to-death/

Pro-Abortion Web Site Attacks Men Who Regret Urging Their Partner to Have Abortion

by Sarah Zagorski | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/16/15 12:38 PM

 
In the world of “choice,” women and men who choose abortion experience zero regret or pain; and then when they share their stories we’re expected to agree with their decision and honor them for their bravery. However, when someone shares that they regret their abortion and that it was damaging to their mental health, they’re immediately blacklisted.
For example, a recent article on Jezebel.com ridicules and dismisses a video that shares the stories of three men who regret participating and conceding to their partner’s abortion. The video titled, “The Apology,” was created by Heroic Media and highlights the need for male responsibility when it comes to abortion.
In the article, the author Anna Merlan laments, “There is a strong undertone here that abortion causes wracking guilt and depression: while these three men might have difficulty reconciling their religious beliefs with their partners’ decision to choose abortion, the best research gathered by the Guttmacher Institute shows clearly that abortion doesn’t cause mental health issues.”
postabortion9First, the Guttmacher Institute was founded as a division of Planned Parenthood and is named after Alan Guttmacher, a past Planned Parenthood president. So, in other words, we can’t trust them to give an unbiased report on the issue.
The truth is there is substantial evidence that indicates that post-abortive men suffer silently after abortion. Additionally, according to the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, men who are opposed to abortion but supported their partners’ decision may have an immediate reaction to the death of their child. They may feel sadness, grief, anger and a sense of not being able to protect their offspring
Brian Fisher, the President of Online for Life commented on the consequences of abortion for men. He said, “We are just now considering, though, that we victimize ourselves. Depression, guilt, shame, a loss of self, a loss of honor, and destroyed relationships are common male consequences of abortion. In our heart of hearts, we are coming to grips with what we’re doing. We are willfully taking the lives of those we are wired to protect.”
 
One of the men in the video, Shane Idleman, was featured on LifeNews last week for sharing his story. He said, “Approximately 23 years ago, as a prodigal, I conceded to my girlfriends request to abort our child around the 5th week of conception. The pain of that decision still haunts me today. What would they look like? Was it a boy or a girl? I can picture walking and talking with my child…watching his or her first steps…holding them when they cry and rejoicing with them when they succeed. But these are just dreams in my mind; dreams often leave me heartbroken. Regret is one of the hardest pains to deal with because it is a constant reminder that we failed…failed God, others, and the aborted child.
He concludes, “Groups such as Planned Parenthood say that there are little, if any emotional scars for the women involved…the baby is just tissue. This is very deceptive—the emotional scars can last a lifetime. And it’s not just women who feel the pain, the men often carry tremendous guilt as well.”
Now churches are being encouraged to share the video with their congregations during Sanctity of Life Sunday, which is coming up on January 18th. Although there are some people who don’t want post-abortive men and women sharing their negative experiences, it’s critical that the pro-life movement continues revealing the consequences associated with abortion.
One post-abortive woman expressed her appreciation for the video on YouTube. She said, “As a woman who aborted her child, mainly because the father of the baby didn’t want the responsibility of the baby, your apology will help many women hurting from aborting their babies. My baby’s father refuses to acknowledge his part of the pain I have endured from aborting our baby. There will be women who will claim you have no right to say what you are saying, but I want you to know they don’t speak for those of us who get it. Again thank you so much!!!”
Watch the video below and please share with your friends and family!


http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/16/pro-abortion-web-site-attacks-men-who-regret-urging-their-partner-to-have-abortion/

This Mother of Four Was Fired From a Catholic Hospital Because of Her Pro-Life Views

by Sarah Zagorski | Madrid, Spain | LifeNews.com

 
In July 2013, Montserrat Balselles was dismissed from her job at a Catholic hospital because she didn’t want to participate in abortions and openly expressed her pro-life views. The medical facility she worked at, Hospital de la Santa Creu, is located in Spain and hired Balselles as an X-ray technician.
At the time of her dismissal, Ballsells had worked at the hospital for five years and had good relationships with her coworkers. However, when she started shared her pro-life views they began making fun of her faith and convictions.
Ballsells said,” They always joked and taunted me. They laughed at the church and said really offensive things to annoy me.”
Balselles, who describes herself as a Catholic activist, said she couldn’t believe that after five years at the hospital she was facing discrimination because of her views on abortion. She also explained that before the incident she hadn’t received any complaints about her work because of her willingness to do everything. Unfortunately, because of the loss of employment, Balselles and her four children were forced to move out of their home and onto the streets.
MontserratBalselles
Now Baiselles has filed a complaint to the Archbishop of Barcelona and spoken to the Labor Department about the discrimination. The hospital responded by saying that there isn’t any proof that she was dismissed because of her beliefs; instead, they claim that she fired because of a completely unrelated matter.
As LifeNews previously reported, in 2014 the British Supreme Court ruled that a pair of midwives who didn’t want to be involved in assisting abortions must do so. The senior midwives, Connie Wood and Mary Doogan, had more than 20 years of experience as Labor Ward Coordinators; but after the hospital reorganized their abortion “services,” transferring late abortion patients to the labor ward rather than the gynaecology ward, they were asked to participate in abortions.
The midwives and their attorney’s argued that the Abortion Act of 1967 states that no one with a conscientious objection can be obliged to participate in abortion procedures. Nevertheless, the hospital management insisted that a conscientious objection clause in the 1967 Abortion Act applied only to active participation in a termination and did not cover the women’s duties to delegate, supervise and support staff.
After the decision, the midwives expressed their disappointment. They said, “We are both saddened and extremely disappointed with today’s verdict from the Supreme Court and can only imagine the subsequent detrimental consequences that will result from today’s decision on staff of conscience throughout the UK. Despite it having been recognized that the number of abortions on the labour ward at our hospital is in fact a tiny percentage of the workload, which in turn could allow the accommodation of conscientious objection with minimal effort, this judgment, with its constraints and narrow interpretation, has resulted in the provision of a conscience clause which now in practice is meaningless for senior midwives on a labour ward.”
 

MANELLI FAMILIES STOP THE COERCION : ITS ILLEGAL

The Manelli families must confirm that Fr.Fidenzio Volpe OFM Cap, uses a false reasoning which he imposes on the religious of the Franciscans of the Immaculate (F.I) founded by Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I.This falsehood is the basis of coercion and persecution.It is illegal.
1.Fr.Volpi the Commissioner of the F.I, assumes there are known exceptions in 2015 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.For him there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He rejects this infallible teaching with his 'known cases'.(If there were no known cases there would be no exceptions for him).
2.He assumes there are magisterial documents before 1949 which identify these known exceptions to the dogma.
3. For him Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc) oppose extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council becomes a break with the past when he uses this fantasy-reasoning.
 It is an irrational premise, a small theological point which he uses to change the interpretation of Vatican Council II.For the F.I his message is - accept it or be persecuted !.
I asked him on my blog if the F.I can accept Vatican Council II without the false premise and conclusion.Neither will he or the Secretary General Fr.Alfonso Bruno or Fr.Angelo Geiger  answer.
Like them  traditionalists, unfortunately, also use the same error, unknowingly. Among them are Mons. Bruno Gherardini, Roberto De Mattei, Fr.Serafina Lanzetta F.I and Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, the District Superior of the SSPX at Albano.They have accepted this irrationality ( visible-dead theory) which originated in the Marchetti letter of 1949.Since 1949 the magisterium has approved it.
 
The Vatican Press Office has not denied that the F.I, among them relatives of Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I,  have to endorse Vatican Council II, in which references to salvation (NA 2, UR 3 etc) must be considered to be visible and known in reality in 2014-2105, for them to be exceptions to traditional outside the Church there is no salvation.
 
These persons, though dead, are living exceptions, the F.I must accept, to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church and the Syllabus of Errors.So they have to allege that all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics do not have to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.This was the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II taught also to lay members of the Third Order of the F.I.
 
When this error of the dead being exceptions to Tradition, was pointed out to Fr.Frederico Lombardi , I received the general letter sent to many. He said this is a 'sensitive subject'. He did not address any specific point on my blog.
He did not deny that the F.I are being forced to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise.This makes the Council a break with the doctrines associated with the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM).
This error was part of the religious formation of the F.I during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI but the community affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus in their publications Il Settimanale di Padre Pio and Christ to the World.




Their magazine on mission, Christ to the World, published from the Propaganda Fide office in Rome, was suppressed by the Vicariate for over a year since it said the Church has not retracted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The real objection it seems is not to the TLM, but  extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum knowing that Vatican Council II would be interpreted with the result, of the irrational premise and conclusion.This is acceptable to the political Left.This is the norm for Fr.Fidenzio Volpi, Cardinal Braz de Avez, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and Archbishop Augustine de Noia.They impose a lie upon all Catholics.This can be verified on line in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission(ITC).
Why must Catholics accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality ? Fr.Lombardi will not answer.
Catholics are being forced to proclaim a lie and are persecuted if they do not conform.This is coercion. It is illegal.


 
There has been a factual error in the Marchetti letter which the F.I are not obliged to follow.No Catholic should be obliged to follow it.
The Manelli families must reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 , which made the original mistake, now being imposed on the whole Church.
As proof, they can ask their lawyer to see an interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register placed on the Vatican website. There are other documents too.
 
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) interprets Vatican Council II with the same irrationality.So this would be a false norm, set for the F.I. It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith before 1949.Yes, Our Lady said at Fatima that the dogma of the faith would be lost.
The Manelli families, brothers and sisters of Fr.Stefano Manelli, must  stop the coercion.They could ask their lawyer, not to begin litigation, but to get a response from Fr.Volpi.
Do members of the Manelli family in the F.I have to use a false premise and conclusion in the interpretation of magisterial documents including Vatican Council II ? She could ask him.
The proof is there on the Vatican website if their lawyer would check these documents.
1. The interview of Fr.Gerhard Muller by Edward  Pentin, which is also available on Edward Pentin's website.1
2.The International Theological Commission's papers Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised which can be read on the ITC-Vatican website.
3.The Balamand Declaration says there is no more an ecumenism of return.(N.30). etc.
 
This is a major oversight in the Catholic Church since 1949 and is related to Catholic mission , liturgy, the TLM, ecumenism,the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257,845,846), mortal sin... and the Manelli families simply being Catholic.
For me there are no known exceptions to  the dogma mentioned in Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II is traditional.The interpretation of Fr.Fidenzio Volpi, Cardinal Braz de Avez and Cardinal Muller are heretical, irrational and non traditional.This is the interpretation rejected by the F.I.

If I am needed I would be available as a resource person, free of charge, to explain what I have written here. There are priests in Rome who agree with me.
-Lionel Andrades

 
1.
 
That has been discussed, but here too there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the 3rd century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the 3rd century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church, a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly and, not only in his conscience, in his heart, to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him. But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorantof this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today: “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church, that person is in danger of losing salvation. Therefore we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts – and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.
2.
'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions
 
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission
 
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. - The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007
 
3.
30. To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots.