Monday of the Octave of Pentecost
In our post “Our Lady and the Diabolical Campaign,” we pointed out that it were the Vatican II Roman Pontiffs (Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II) themselves who articulated the calamity of madness and worldliness that has struck and almost corrupted the whole of Catholic world – with its institutions diabolically infested and ‘possessed’ as it were – since the close of the Second Vatican Council. Pope John XXIII, in a symbolic gesture of his brightest forecast of what his Second Vatican Council would entail for the Church, ordered all the windows of the Vatican to be thrown open to let the “fresh air” to come in. “Fresh air”? as if the Church had been long choking until the Second Vatican Council; we wonder what happened to the Spirit of Truth Our Lord promised to abide in His Church for all ages. Then Pope Paul VI – the Roman Pontiff who closed the Council, promulgated its documents, and promoted its novelties – admitted to the effect that his predecessor was deceived for what actually happened after the Council was not a “second Pentecost” but “…a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking” (L’Osservatore Romano, November 23, 1973) [earlier, on June 30, 1972 at the Lombard College in Rome, he confessed in his most famous speech: “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God” – alluding to the fulfillment of Apoc. 9.2]. “It was believed,” Pope Paul VI further confessed in his famous speech of June 30, 1972, “that after the [Vatican II] Council a sunny day in the Church’s history would dawn, but instead there came a day of… darkness.” And Pope John Paul II did not dispel this diabolical darkness that has been hovering over the Church since Vatican II but only lamented at: “We must admit realistically… that… ideas opposed to the truth… are being scattered abroad in abundance…” (L’Osservatore Romano, February 7, 1981).
“… Ideas opposed to the truth… are being scattered…” And this the New ‘Catechism’ (the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” or the CCC) serves as an instrument. Being deceived with error thou adore strange gods and serve them (Deut. 30.17). Religious error leads one to a diabolical [dis-]order of things – to a diabolical life. And just as there are degrees of sanctity and of perfection, so there are also degrees of diabolical perversion the basest of which, according to St. John Chrysostom, is the curse and mad[ness ] (Is. 24.6) of homosexuality. The “spirit” of Vatican II expressing itself through the New ‘Catechism’ – the synthesis of what Vatican II declares in its documents – on the subject of homosexuality:
“2357: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition” (Catechism of the [‘]Catholic Church[‘]).
Now, how the Spirit of Truth taught the Catholic Church as has been the traditional doctrine unanimously maintained by the Fathers, Doctors, and the successors of St. Peter until Vatican II: homosexuality is the intrinsically disordered attraction (though not categorically internally sinful in themselves yet can be internally sinful even when just consented to, cf., Mt. 5.28) toward another of the same sex. And when consented to, its sinfulness is not only limited also to willing the unnatural (contrary to nature) vice of perverted “genital acts” but extends even to behavior (effeminacy* or boyishness, cf. 1 Cor. 6.10; Is. 3.4,9, resorting even to transsexual or transvestite aberration, cf. Deut. 22.5).
* St. Basil, a Father and Doctor of the Church, prescribes severe punishment for those who behave in a homosexual fashion even though they do not practice the act.
The New ‘Catechism’ reduced homosexuality to a relation and reduced also moral culpability only to willing the “genital acts” (contrary to what Our Lord amplified in the Gospel reference indicated above). It even falsified the Traditional stand (and its underlying Scriptural bases) in stating that only the homosexual genital acts have always been considered to be intrinsically disordered. And though it states that the homosexual “inclination [the bend of the will]” is “objectively disordered,” the ‘Catechism’ of Vatican II does not ground the objectivity of the disorder on what is intrinsic to the disorder – that is, “contrary to natural law” which it affirms only of the acts! In what consists the objectivity is a very interesting, or rather amusing, guess. As to the “deep-seated homosexual tendency [the bend of the mind]”, the Neo-Catechism only makes of it as that element which describes [not defines – characteristic of a non-dogmatic Vatican II] a homosexual! This only clearly points to the classic case of a ridiculous ‘religion’ (being the mock-Catholicism of the infiltrated revolutionary dummies, cf., our post “The Year 1929“) breeding a ridiculous ‘morality’.
Objection: The magisterium [the teaching office] of the Church is correct in its teachings on faith and morals. Always. The minute you start saying that one thing is wrong, what is to stop you from saying everything is wrong? The Holy Spirit is not wrong, and will not guide the Church down the wrong path.
The Church is both human and divine. Whatever could go wrong in its human element will go wrong and there you have Roman Pontiffs ratifying and even promoting, since Vatican II, novelties that materially contradict what Tradition has always and everywhere held – over which we need not turn a blind eye. But since the Church is also divine, the Spirit of Truth did not permit the same Roman Pontiffs to speak of and promote (cf., the Roman Pontiff according to the Alta Vendita or the Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church in “A Perilous ‘Catholic’ Voyage“) these novelties in such a way as to formally contradict what the Chair had consistently maintained, taught, defended, and anathematized – that is, in their capacity as the infallible doctor of the truth or the sovereign legislator and judge, speaking “ex cathedra”, whose pronouncements and decrees, solemnly issued in the name of God, can never be revoked. Hence, when Pope John Paul II issued the New ‘Catechism’ with his ‘Apostolic Constitution’ Fidei Depositum, the contradiction – as between the Traditional Catholic teaching on homosexuality and the New notion as “present[ed]” in the New ‘Catechism’ – is MATERIAL and, given the terms used by the Roman Pontiff in promulgating the ‘Catechism’ of Vatican II (“I… order by virtue of MY Apostolic authority…. this document PRESENTING the ‘Catechism’…” in comparison with the usual terms the SOVEREIGN PONTIFF would employ “ex cathedra” – “We decree, in virtue of our Apostolic authority”, cf., our post “In virtue of OUR Apostolic authority“), NOT FORMAL – that is, Pope John Paul II did not bind the Universal Church under pain of eternal damnation to this Vatican II madness.), NOT FORMAL. These distinctions should help us restrain our feet from running either side of the two contrary forms of false Catholicism – Neo-Catholicism (denial of material facts) and Sedevacantism (exaggeration of material facts), cf., “On the Sedevacantist Position: A Reply.”