Wednesday, December 20, 2017

De Mattei - Forty years against life: from abortion to euthanasia (1978-2017)



Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
December 20, 2017

The Renzi-Gentiloni governments will go down in history as those that imposed two of the most wicked laws in the Italian Republic: pseudo-homosexual-marriage, called “Civil Unions” (May 20th 2016) and euthanasia, under the name of the “living will" or DAT (Dichiarazione anticipata di trattamento [Declaration Advance of Treatment]), approved definitively by the Senate on December 14th 2017. This law will be registered in the Official Journal on the fortieth anniversary of the legalization of abortion, which  passed on May 221978 with Law 194.  Thus the circle closes.

Forty years of aggression against life and the family between abortion and euthanasia, with civil unions and quick divorce along the way. It should be remembered that the law which introduced abortion was signed by Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, and Giovanni Leone, the President of the Republic, both Christian Democrats. The euthanasia bill will be signed by a Catholic Prime Minister, Paolo Gentiloni, and by Sergio Mattarella, President of the Republic also a Catholic and former Christian-Democrat parliamentarian.

Neither of them will feel the need to appeal to conscientious objection which “La Piccola Casa Della Divina Provvidenza” better known as Cottolengo, had the courage to do: “We – Don Carmine Arice, the Superior General of the historical institute in Turin stated – cannot carry out practices that go against the Gospel, even if the possibility of conscientious objection is not provided by the law: Marco Cappato who accompanied  people seeking assisted suicide, was taken to court, so we too will go there, in the event of a possible conflict between the law and the Gospel; we must choose the Gospel.” Don Arice continued by explaining that “faced with a request to die, our structure cannot respond positively. At present, objection of conscience is not provided for private health institutions.  Nonetheless, I believe that in conscience we cannot respond positively to a request for [assisted]death: therefore, we will abstain with all the consequences that this implies” ( La Stampa, December 15th , 2017).

A second betrayal has been added to that of the Catholic politicians who approved the law.

In 1978, after the approval of abortion, the Movement for Life came into existence, promoted by the Italian Episcopal Conference. Officially its aim was that of giving a voice in defense of [pre-born] life in Italy.  In actual fact the real role the bishops gave to it was that of impeding the birth of an anti-abortion movement similar to the one formed in the United States and other countries. This has appeared clear since 1981, when the Movement for Life promoted an abrogative referendum to modify Law 194, wherein, however, the following was confirmed: the legalization of therapeutic abortion for the entire nine months of the pregnancy; public funding for the execution of abortions; the obligation of hospital entities to execute abortions in any case; the free distribution, on the part of consultants, of contraceptives including early abortions for minors. 

The referendum which took place on May 17th 1981 – and in which coherent Catholics could do nothing other than abstain – was a defeat for the Movement for Life. It was the beginning of the “lesser evil” strategy, which concession after concession, has brought us to the present disaster. “On the basis of this strategy – wrote Mario Palmaror in a unforgettable article for  La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, May 1st 2013 – the Catholics in politics – and the information and formation entities supporting them –can no longer “limit themselves” (sic) by  affirming the non-negotiable principles in opposition to the legislative initiatives which deny them, but must assume a legislative initiative by promoting laws that affirm those principles only in part, but which impede the approval of worse laws. […]  One might at least ask though –  will this “doctrine of the of the lesser evil” really obtain  results? Yes, it will:  disastrous ones.” 

Francesco Agnoli wasn’t wrong then when he brought the ambiguities and compromises of the Movement for Life to light (A History of the Movement for Life. From heroism to concessions, 2010) and especially [those of] Carlo Casini, who was its president for twenty-five years, until 2015, when Gian Luigi Gigli succeeded him. Casini was a Christian Democrat parliamentarian in Italy and Europe for thirty years; since 2009 Gigli has been in the people’s-Christian Democratic party which has sustained the Monti, Letta, Renzi and Gentiloni governments.

How can we imagine a free and independent action on the part of public figures subject simultaneously to two powers? That of the respective parties they belong to and that of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, thanks to whose significant funding the Movement for Life is prospering (and dying). Furthermore, if the Movement for Life, which should have stirred up the public square, posed no resistance whatsoever to the “living will”, how to ignore the responsibility of the Italian Episcopal Conference, and especially its secretary, Monsignor Nunzio Galantino, who see the main enemy not in euthanasia, but in “unnecessary life-sustaining medical treatment”, and hopes “that someone begins to realize the Church is less bigoted than what is thought”(Avvenire, November 18th 2017)?
Continued
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/12/de-mattei-forty-years-against-life-from.html

Bishop Robert McMahon Bishop of Worcester makes change in Decree on St. Benedict Center deletes original reference to Vatican Council II ?

Image result for Bishop Robert McManus Worcester Photo
'On 27 October, the Most Rev. Robert J. McManus granted them canonical status as a Public Association of the Faithful. Check out the decree below', Fr.Jay Finelli says on his blog.

I thought I had read in the Decree that they had accepted Vatican Council II. But may be that line has been removed.Since there were many posts on this blog asking them for a clarification. 
Since the St.Benedict Center has accepted Vatican Council II, Cushingite, as it is interpreted in the diocese of Worcester, they have rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) according to the founders of their community.
It is now clear that they have compromised. They are teaching Cushingite Vatican Council II, which the decree confirms by saying that the this community teaches 'doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church as authentically taught and defined by the Church's' (liberal) 'teaching magisterium'. 
At the IHM Schools of the St. Benedict Centers in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester,USA, they affirm Cushingite Vatican Council II which is considered the authentic magisterium of the Church by the two liberal bishops.
The Worcester diocese which has Theology and Tap and Bishop Robert Barron as a speaker could have made the change in the  Decree  in response to the following blog posts.


NOVEMBER 4, 2017

Breakthrough - Slaves recognised by Bishop Robert J.McManus : all Catholic religious communities can now affirm EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I not being exceptions
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/breakthrough-slaves-recognised-by.html

 NOVEMBER 5, 2017

Worcester traditionalists have compromised on theology and doctrine for canonical recognition?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/worcester-traditionalists-have.html

DECEMBER 6, 2017

Charles Coulombe, Brother Andre Marie MICM and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM have been discussing the baptism of desire with reference to justification and salvation when there are no physically visible cases.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/charles-coulumbe-brother-andre-marie.html

 DECEMBER 6, 2017

Charles Coulombe discusses the baptism of desire as if there are known cases in our reality

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/charles-coulombe-discusses-baptism-of.html


DECEMBER 6, 2017

Charles Coulombe could have said that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/charles-coulombe-could-have-said-that.html

NOVEMBER 7, 2017
Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilities are exceptions' error since this was the mistake in Vatican Council II itself(LG 14 etc) http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/bishop-robert-jmcmanus-and-brother_7.html

NOVEMBER 10, 2017
No clarification or response from Bishop Robert J.McManus or Brother Thomas Augustine MICM on Catholic doctrine : how did they interpret Vatican Council II and EENS? 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/no-clarification-or-response-from.html

NOVEMBER 18, 2017
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/theologically-thestbenedict-centers-are.html

DECEMBER 18, 2017
Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, Still River,MA, USA,a traditionalist, has compromised
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/brother-thomas-augustine-micm-prior-at.html

 DECEMBER 19, 2017
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/priors-at-stbenedict-centers-will-not.html

-Lionel Andrades

Scary Visions of Hell - Top 10 (Youtube)

Scary Visions of Hell - Top 10

https://youtu.be/WMrl0IenCq8



NDE: Hell is for Real
https://youtu.be/WRSIK1pYUqQ



NDE : Released from Hell - Bishop Robert Judah Paul
https://youtu.be/LGIsm5EUH4k

THE VISION OF MARTIN LUTHER IN HELL -Blessed Sister Maria Serafina Micheli (Youtube)

https://youtu.be/f_VvaSezDpY


JANUARY 28, 2013

PADRE PIO SAID THAT MARTIN LUTHER IS IN HELL AND CHRISTIANS WHO FOLLOW HIM WILL MEET THE SAME END- Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I, founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/padre-pio-said-that-martin-luther-is-in.html

Dominus Iesus is not Feeneyite but uses the irrational Cushingite theology.Cardinal Kasper is correct.

Question for Matthew Bellisario:
So you agree that Dominus Iesus is not Feeneyite.It does not state that every one needs to be a Catholic. So Cardinal Kasper was correct for you? There is a theological basis in magisterial text for what he was saying ? 1
Lionel:
Yes! Dominus Iesus is not Feeneyite. Cardinal Kasper is correct. He knows that ecclesiology has been changed.
Boston's Richard Cardinal Cushing.
Dominus Iesus is Cushingite.It is based on unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance being visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is an irrational philosophy used to create a new theology and it is magisterial. It was approved by the liberal theologian Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Redemptoris Missio and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Image result for Photo of Cardinal Walter KasperSo when Pope Benedict and Cardinal Kasper state that Jews do not need to convert in the present times they are saying this based on magisterial documents approved by Cardinal Ratzinger.
If this fact was brought to Pope Benedict's attention he would agree.He would say that he was following the theological pattern of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then Vatican Council II.
The first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 affirms Feeneyite EENS as it was traditionally known over the centuries. So Dominus Iesus 20 supports this orthodox teaching.
The second part of the 1949 Letter assumes invisible for us cases of the baptism of desire,blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are examples of salvation outside the Church. They are examples of known people saved outside the Church.So they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter and to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. So there are so many passages which suggest that there is salvation outside the Church.For example the Church is 'the sacrament of salvation' is another vague reference to also being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.Yet we not know any such case, we do not know any person saved as such in the present times.
There is a reference to  'the universality of salvation' as if it is in opposition to exclusive salvation.
The Church rejects nothing which good and holy in other religions(NA 2) is mentioned at the onset, as if there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church. There are none.
It refers to 'the recent Magisterium of the Church' and the seeds of truth found outside the Church.This is the new theology from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.2
So probably Cardinal Walter Kasper vetted Dominus Iesus before it was issued by Cardinal Ratzinger, fellow liberal theologian.
This is heretical theology creating new doctrines approved by ecclesiastical Masonry. They have rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS from Feeneyite EENS to Cushingite EENS, interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of rational and traditional Feeneyism and produced Dominus Iesus which does not clearly say that all need to enter the Catholic Church with no exceptions but instead is written in the familiar Vaticanese style to accomodate the heresy in the 1949 Holy Office mistake.
-Lionel Andrades


2
Thus, the recent Magisterium of the Church has firmly and clearly recalled the truth of a single divine economy: “The Spirit's presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions... The Risen Christ ‘is now at work in human hearts through the strength of his Spirit'... Again, it is the Spirit who sows the ‘seeds of the word' present in various customs and cultures, preparing them for full maturity in Christ”.38 While recognizing the historical-salvific function of the Spirit in the whole universe and in the entire history of humanity,39 the Magisterium states: “This is the same Spirit who was at work in the incarnation and in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and who is at work in the Church. He is therefore not an alternative to Christ nor does he fill a sort of void which is sometimes suggested as existing between Christ and the Logos. Whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel and can only be understood in reference to Christ, the Word who took flesh by the power of the Spirit ‘so that as perfectly human he would save all human beings and sum up all things'”.40

I do not reject the baptism of desire like the traditionalists (Peter and Michael Dimond at MHFM) and neither do I accept the baptism of desire like the liberals(Cardinal Ladaria and Pope Benedict).Both groups use an irrational premise

Image result for Photo of Peter and Michael Dimond
I do not reject the baptism of desire like the traditionalists (Peter and Michael Dimond at MHFM) and neither do I accept the baptism of desire like the liberals(Cardinal Ladaria and Pope Benedict).Both groups assume there are known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality .Peter and Michael Dimond reject it theologically since it would be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and  cardinals Kasper  and ecclesiastical Masonry would accept it theologically since they want to reject EENS and they want Vatican Council II to be a rupture with EENS.
Since for me there are no baptism of desire cases in our reality, past or present, the baptism of desire can only be considered a possibility, a theoretical possibility known only to God in actual cases.
So I do not have to reject the baptism of desire like  the sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond and neither do I have to affirm it as an exceptions to EENS like the liberal cardinals. Similarly I do not have to reject Feeneyite EENS, as do Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada, since the baptism of desire is an invisible case for me and so is not an exception to EENS.
Image result for Photo of Nicene Creed
So for me there are not three baptisms as it for some SSPX priests, but only one baptism. I only know of the baptism of water.It is physically visible and repeatable. The baptism of desire cannot be given to anyone or seen physically.So the Nicene Creed for me refers to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.For other Catholics in general it would refer to three known baptisms.
Image result for Photos Bishop MArk Pivarunas CMRII do not have to go into  sedevacantism like Bishop Mark Pivaruns and the CMRI community since Vatican Council II for me is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
All this is possible for me since I avoid the false premise i.e invisible cases of the baptism of desire are visibe, unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignrance are known, hypothetical cases of being saved with seeds of the Word(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) and elements of sanctification and truth outside the Church(LG 8) are non hypothetical and concrete.-Lionel Andrades