Category Archives: Moral Theology

If the Anti-Pope is not named during a Mass in Suffrage of Pope Benedict….

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Since Saturday things have changed in the Catholic Church. Now priests can and should say the Mass in suffrage of the Roman Pontiff, during which, instead of naming the Pope, one names the deceased Roman Pontiff.

At such masses, regardless of which priests offer, if they do not name Pope Francis, Catholics can licitly receive the Sacrament, because the priest has withdrawn from public schism.

And according to the rubrics, they should not name Francis, at such masses.

The priest may personally still think Francis is the Pope, but by omitting his name in the Canon, he publicly asserts the contrary. And that is sufficient in the sight of God to exculpate any Catholic from attending his mass.

I say this regarding priests who are not heretics, idolators and in regard to those who have publicly criticized the Antipope for these things.

Those priests who wanted to stop naming Francis in the canon, but were afraid to do that, can now use this present circumstance to do that. In fact, they can continue to do so for the rest of the illegitimate pontificate of Bergoglio.

If however, there are priests in your region who named Pope Benedict XVI as pope in recent days, weeks, years, continue to attend their masses, because it would be a scandal to do otherwise, and because in the next 21 days, we should gather together even more in prayer for Pope Benedict XVI with the best of clergy and laity, since their prayers are more effective in the sight of God.

Necessary Precautions in the Ministry of the Sacraments after the Pandemic

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRENCH TRANSLATION

Since the Scamdemic, Catholics, clergy and laity, need to take heed to practice caution in the distribution of the Sacraments on account of the fact that those who have taken Covid-19 “Vaccines” have been injected with artificial and unnatural agents which are causing their bodies to grow unnatural and dangerous compounds which can injure others.

This is the very sad and apocalyptic reality which we must all confront.  For as Our Lord forewarned us, but the clergy failed to preach, a great deception would be sprung like a trap upon everyone in the whole world, and there would be demanded of all, as St. John, His beloved disciple forewarned us, that they receive the mark of the Beast, so as to be able to conduct their affairs in public.

And all those who listened to the false prophet, who calls himself by the name of one of Christ’s most beloved Saints, but who is himself a devil and globalist agent, who worships idols and engages in esoteric ritual pratices, all these who have listen to this preacher of abominations, have taken the mark.

And so it has happened that the tail of the Beast has swept nearly all the stars of heaven — the clergy — out of the sky. And the laity who followed them, along with them.

And now their bodies produce the spike protein, which was modeled on 50+ venoms, just like a snake produces venom in its own body. And thus is fulfilled the word of scripture.

But the Apostle warns us further, to flee the cities so as not to partake of the plagues which God will visit upon those who have taken the mark.

And scientists the world over are discovering, that those who took these DeathVaxxes, as I am wont to call them here at FromRome, are now growing things unnatural and abominable in their own bodies, from optical cables, microchips, tin-based white coagulations in their veins and arteries, etc.., not to mention suffering from all sorts of medical problems which result in permanent disability or sudden death syndrome.

But that which merits the attention of us all is that some of these dangers can result from proximity to those who have taken these jabs, whether through droplets spread in the air, or saliva which is unwittingly transferred though things touched.

For this reason, we need to recognize that now, certain sanitary precautions should be taken. And that to fail to take them would but some persons in risk of death or permanent bodily injury or at least grave medical situations.

Thus it is a moral imperative arising from true charity, that such precautions be taken.

Who needs to take precautions?

I invite medical professionals who read FromRome.Info to comment below, but it is clear even to the laymen, that both those who took one or more of these jabs as well as those who have not taken them, should take precaution.

Those who took these jabs have the formal duty to take precaution at all times, whether they are in the presence of someone jabbed or not.

While those who did not take any of these jabs, have the duty of prudence, to take precautions when they are in the presence of anyone jabbed.

There may be some medical research which can determine how dangerous it is to enter into contact or into the presence of someone who is jabbed. I ask those who know of this to report that below.

How this affects the sacramental ministry…

It is clear that in the distribution of the Sacraments, human touch and close proximity is required. Therefore, for the minister of the Sacrament who touches, extreme caution must be taken if he has been jabbed. In good conscience he should have his saliva and sweat and breath medically tested to see if he is shedding anything unnatural, such as spike proteins or nanotechnology.

If he is shedding, he should refrain from the Sacramental ministry, in my opinion. And I think a Bishop would have the right to suspend him a divinis from all public functions, on account of his danger to the public.

For those who are jabbed, they should be especially careful to avoid shedding upon other Catholics at Church or upon clergy while receiving the sacraments. Perhaps this risk is less if they are among only those who are jabbed.

For those who are not jabbed, it is obvious that one takes extreme risks if one is receiving the Sacraments in a church filled with jabbed Catholics or from a priest who has been jabbed.

And I believe the risk for the unjabbed is so great, that they have no canonical obligation to attend on Sunday, any mass said by a priest who is jabbed or celebrated in a Church with Catholics who are jabbed, as there are just too many objects in a church which might be contaminated with the sweat or saliva of others, not to mention the air itself, normally now well ventilated.

All of these risks must be weighed in conjunction with what is known about the jab-campaign in your country, whether it is still ongoing or not.  We need to have the humility, sincerity and honesty to admit this reality, about which no one is talking in the Church.

As for the clergy who obeyed their superiors and took the jab, they should not by that grow angry at us who are unjabbed, but realize  that their sin is so great that their false obedience was the punishment for their sin.

I do not know any priest in communion with Pope Benedict XVI who is jabbed, nor any of the faithful who are in communion with him who were jabbed.  Perhaps this has to do with the apocalyptic scenario which I described above. If so, then we are truly at a great parting, and Pope Benedict XVI may have been inspired by Christ to renounce the ministry, precisely to prepare for this greats division.

Practical solutions

Priests who are jabbed should wear something distinctive to show that they are. I would recommend white cloth gloves, which can be laundered in water, as all altar cloths are. All signs of peace which require touching should be abolished. The Eucharist should not be touched by the jabbed. Ministers who are jabbed should not distribute it to the unjabbed. And those who are jabbed, should receive from those who are jabbed. Best of all would be to assign churches and liturgies for the jabbed and others for the unjabbed.

Canonical effects

So far the nanotech in the jabbs does not seem to definitely impair reason or free will, but once such evidence is scientifically obtained, I would say that all Popes, Bishops and Clergy who hold offices who have this tech inside them, should be considered ipso facto deposed from office, on the grounds that they are no longer members of the body of Christ, but of the body of the Antichrist, and their loyalty to the Church is in doubt. Likewise, when this occurs, such persons could not be eligible to hold any office in the Church. As has been demonstrated already, the winter flu shots, and indeed all vaccines, are now possibly being loaded with nanotech. So one should be careful to inquire if your local clergy are taking these shots.

 

Mark Docherty responds to Cionci et alia on the Ratzinger Code & Plan B

With a cordial reply by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

(click the image above to read the original article by Mr. Docherty)

Mark Docherty is a close associate of Ann Barnhardt. So as he opens his article you will find no mention of the Franciscan Friar whom she hates with a diabolic passion.  Nevertheless, I include myself in that list, and perhaps have the best personal history to respond to Mark, since I wrote an entire Scholastic Question demonstration the substantial error, but also was first to propose the Plan B thesis, which asserts that Pope Benedict XVI did with full knowledge and consent, renounce the ministerium rather than the munus to save the Church from Ecclesiastical Freemasonry.

Necessary Preamble

First, I would ask Mark to have the integrity of a gentleman to stop ignoring my existence, simply because I do good works while remaining faithful to the vows I took in a canonically recognized novitiate while a member of a canonically recognized religious institute, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. This is especially true, when in the present Essay, you Mark declare: “I greatly respect everyone in this fight who come to it with integrity.” –To do otherwise, casts a dark shadow over all your writings, Mark, because it makes you appear to be someone who is opposed to keeping vows to God, observing the Evangelical Counsels of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or that you have some sort of personal relationship with Ann Barnhardt that would induce you to act inconsistent with such principals. To denigrate anyone or pretend they do not exist — which is the ultimate denigration — for doing good and remaining faithful to Jesus Christ is shameful. — When I think of all the nuns who were driven from their convents because they remained faithful, and who are abandoned by so many shameless pharasaical laity who wont help a consecrated virgin unless she has a stamp on a paper from her Bishop, I who actually do have a stamp on a paper from a Catholic Bishop approving and allowing me to live as I have done since my separation from my former institute, on August 6, 1996, I cannot help sharing the indignation which arises from a perverse laicism and legalism.

Seeing that among all the proponents of Pope Benedict XVI remaining the Vicar of Christ, I alone left my family, country, nation, and language, and traveled to Rome, and did in fact write to more than 2 dozen Cardinals by personal hand-delivered letters, and to every priest of the Diocese of Rome, Italy, I think I am not being unreasonable in saying that I am a leading proponent of this cause. Moreover, I am considered such by all except Ann Barnhardt and Mr. Docherty, who have no authority to determine the rules by which one is or is not a supporter of Pope Benedict XVI, that is, unless they are claiming some authority over the Papal Household, or membership in the Catholic Church, to determine who is or is not. Indeed, such behavior is clearly a form of diabolic narcissism, which vaults its will to define reality and demands others accept that gaslighted reality as the truth.

If anyone is allowed to comment on Mark’s blog, please attempt to open up a candid dialogue about these matters, and I have been banned from commenting on his blog for several years.

And now to Mark’s contra-thesis:

Mark begins by summarizing the position quite well in a form proposed by Andrea Cionci, who deserves the credit for the Ratzinger Code and Impeded See thesis. He presents 4 questions by which he believes those who hold that Pope Benedict XVI intentionally abdicated from nothing and renounced nothing, are in error. I will restate each question by quotation in bold face font, and reply to the objections or quaesita which are raised in them.

Quaestio prima:

Mark writes: Question One: If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so? The three conditions have been met (grave matter, full knowledge, full assent of the will). A valid pontiff, crowned by Christ himself, executes one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church, and he is a brilliant strategist for doing so? How can that be? While God can and does allow good to come out of evil, God never condones the doing of evil in the hope of a good outcome. God doesn’t do “the ends justify the means,” ever. And while Pope Benedict could have theoretically gone to Confession the evening of 28 Feb 2013, he could not have received valid absolution, because valid absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, and in cases where the effect of certain sins can be rectified, then rectification is a necessary component of the penance. In which case he persists in mortal sin, NINE YEARS later. Which brings us to…

Respondeo ad primum:

Pope Benedict XVI cannot be guilty of a mortal sin for renouncing the ministerium not the munus, because there is no positive or divine obligation, in grave necessity, for not doing so.  In morals, a thing is only immoral if God has precepted that it not be done, either according to its genus, species, circumstances or intentions.  Therefore, there is no burden upon anyone to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did not sin, rather, the burden of proof is upon those who claim he did. This is standard Catholic morals, which even children understand. Charity presumeth no evil. Mark you should know that!

Pope Benedict XVI deceived no one. And there is no evidence that he did. That his enemies presented his act as having a significance which it does not have is entirely their moral fault. Cionci has amply demonstrated that for 9 years Pope Benedict XVI is declaring this very thing.

The renunciation of ministerium rather than munus is not an immoral act. Those who presume it is must demonstrate that they are not presuming.

This first Question by Mr. Docherty is simply reducible to an absurd ad hominem:  Pope Benedict XVI is a grave sinner, prove that he is not!

Questio secunda:

Mark writes: Question Two: If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful? Not a word from Benedict about the apostasy of his “successor” who all the world thinks is pope? This is the most grave mortal sin of SCANDAL. Benedict has willfully (according to their theory) lead a billion souls to believe a heretical, blaspheming, demon-worshiping apostate is the true pope of the One True Church. How many people have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition? I will tell you how many: 70 MILLION. That’s how many Catholics have died in the last nine years, two months. Pope Benedict is (according to their theory) intentionally sitting by, petting his cat, knowing he is still the only true pope, knowing that Bergoglio is an antipope, perfectly happy to have 70 million souls going to their Particular Judgment thinking Bergoglio was pope and his magisterium authentic. If so, this is an awful test of God’s bounteous mercy, and it makes Benedict a monster.

Respondeo ad secundum:

Pope Benedict XVI by consistently signifying that he is the one true pope to those who pay attention to him, has deceived no one and has led no one to believe that Bergoglio is the Pope.  Moreover, the Faithful, who have a living faith, are guided by the anointing of the Holy Spirit which they received in the Sacrament of Confirmation to discern truth from falsehood and true pastors from false pastors. To say therefore, that the Faithful are abandoned is to reduce the order of grace simply to the visible papacy, as if the Church has no supernatural principle of life or discernment.

All Catholics know the Faith cannot change and that no one not even the Pope can teach contrary to the Deposit of the Faith. So it is impossible for Catholics, who are materially deceived, to fall into formal apostasy from that faith, if out of their own negligence they adhere to the false narrative that Benedict abdicated.  Moreover, since that narrative is not the responsibility of Benedict, but is crafted by his captors, he cannot be held responsible for it.  Likewise, the Faithful have a duty to follow canon law and give intellectual attention to the principle canonical acts of the Magisterium, not the least of which is an alleged papal resignation. Failing to do this, if they are deceived, they are solely responsible for God.

Questio tertia:

Mark writes: Question Three: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio? It is clear from the text that he intended to resign something, leaving aside the question of whether or not it was effective. In the key phrase of the document, he is clearly resigning, or intending to resign SOMETHING. Look at the English, look at the original Latin, or watch the video. “I renounce the ministry” … while we can argue whether or not the words took effect, we cannot claim he did not say those words. Canon Law demands that we respect the meaning of words, the context, and the mind of the legislator:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Respondeo at tertium:

Pope Benedict XVI actually renounced nothing effectively, but he did declare that he was going to renounce the ministerium, which however, he never did do by a canonical act.  This has been explained at great length by nearly all those writing and speaking about this matter, and to ask it now is really a weak point in the argument.

But perhaps Mark, you misunderstand how a text is to be read. When one says in a letter, to another person, “In my will, I will leave you all my property”, and yet the Will when disclosed, has only these words, “I love you as a true son and heir”, but specifies nothing as bequeathed, then the alleged heir receives nothing, zippo as Ann Barnhardt might say, and the deceased has deceived no one. He has deceived no one, because we cannot know whether his failing ability prevented the bequest being written into the Will or if some other cause intervened by which the meaning of his words were not to be taken at face value. For example, if the recipient of the letter had said to the soon to be dead donor: “If you don’t make me your sole heir I will murder you sometime in the next year!”

As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict XVI was informed on Feb. 12, 2012, that he would be assassinated if he did not resign within a year. This is not a facetious claim. It was published in a leading Italian daily newspaper.

To claim a man under threat of death is morally culpable for deceiving anyone, is beyond the pale of right reason and any Catholic notion of the obligation to speak the truth without mental reservations.

Questio quarta:

Mark writes: Question Four: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner? The evidence for the Substantial Error theory is all out in full view for anyone to see, not just for those with eyes to see, if you know what I mean. We all agree on the visual evidence; a five year old could see it. We all know how Benedict’s further writings, and his words in the Seewald interviews, point to something other than what is commonly accepted, but that much is evident from the actual meaning of his words, not code words. Saying that the common lay faithful need access to a secret code to discern who is true pope seems… rather problematic. Implying that knowledge of this secret code is necessary to find and follow the true Church and achieve one’s salvation is… you see what I mean. So how to approach this in an orthodox manner?

Respondeo ad quartum:

Gnosticism is a heresy, but the Church has never condemned as Gnostic the decision by anyone under duress to speak in code so as to communicate to friends and allies and not enrage further his enemies or captors.

That the matter is called the Ratzinger Code by Cionci is his journalistic flair. It is not a code, it is merely a refined and erudite manner of speaking of a man who is very meek and has reasonable grounds to fear for his person otherwise.

The more substantial question, which needs to be asked, instead, Mark, is: Whether Catholics are obliged to listen attentively to the voice of the Vicar of Christ upon Earth in a matter which touches upon their eternal salvation?

And the answer to that question is clear: yes they are. Because it is one of the laws of the Church that we obey the laws of the Church. And to obey them, we must know them, and act in accord with them. So, now after 9 years, when anyone hears that the renunciation may be invalid, they need only read canon 332 § 2, to find that it is not.  That is not difficult.

However, if they care for the sake of keeping some material or temporal favors to ignore that investigation or deny the facts which they find, they have judged themselves and brought judgement upon themselves.

CONCLUSION:

I have amply demonstrated that Mark Docherty’s 4 Questions are easily dispatched with Catholic answers and are reducible to doubts arising from someone who presumes Pope Benedict XVI is at moral fault, without any attention whatsoever to the known facts of the case which are excusing causes of the charges leveled against his person.

Are you about to be consecrated to Satan?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

No one should participate in a religious act by a public idolator (satanist), because by consenting to such an act of being consecrated, one can in fact consent to being consecrated to Satan or a Demon.

Thus, all those pushing to participate in and consent to the act of consecration by Bergoglio better wake up fast!

This is no alarmist exaggeration, because:

  1. Bergoglio has TWICE publicly adored the demon, Pachamama
  2. Bergoglio has TWICE publicly desecrated religious sites by such adoration (Garden of St Peter’s where the dust of St. Peter and co-Martyrs was buried, and Basilica of St. Peter)
  3. Bergoglio is a known Freemason, all of whom are sons of Satan.
  4. Bergoglio is a known wearer of masonic & satanic art

Hence, if you consent to participate in the act of consecration of humanity by Bergoglio on March 25, what is to prevent him during his act, of making a mental intention of consecrating humanity to Satan, or even say it quietly during the act?

Such an act would be an act of global desecration and would be perfectly consonant with the religious motivationns and goals of every Satanist.

Is this the real trap which explains why he first announced the consecration of Russia but then extended it to all humanity?

Do you really have any rational basis to trust this man for a religious act after 8 years of heresy and apostasy?

If not, then, just as you would not enter the car of someone who deliberately got into accidents and never repented of killing others or his passengers, so you should not participate in any way, not even by passive consent, to this act.

Nor can I see how morally participation in this act is not an act of being in communion with this anti-pope and public heretic. This act is formal communicatio in sacris, which is never permitted unless the ritual is Catholic and the person is publicly known to be in the state of grace, that, is not a schismatic nor has the public reputation of being an impenitent sinner.

The latter is certainly true: he is not penitent.  The former is highly probably. Therefore, prudence requires that we conclude that participation in this act is morally a grave deviation from the good.

Therefore, everyone should explicitly refuse to participate and consent to this consecration on March 25, so long as it is in communion with this public sinner, as they are putting them selves, otherwise, in grave danger, the gravest of dangers.

UPDATE: My instincts were 100% correct:

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is the duty of the Cleric to encourage men to fight in just wars

Summa Theologica, II II, Q. 40, A. 2, ad 3:

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, omnis potentia vel ars vel virtus ad quam pertinet finis habet disponere de his quae sunt ad finem. Bella autem carnalia in populo fideli sunt referenda, sicut ad finem, ad bonum spirituale divinum, cui clerici deputantur. Et ideo ad clericos pertinet disponere et inducere alios ad bellandum bella iusta. Non enim interdicitur eis bellare quia peccatum sit, sed quia tale exercitium eorum personae non congruit.

Which in English is:

To the third (objection) it must be said, that, just has has been had above, every power and/or art and/or virtue to which an end pertains, has (an ability) to dispose concerning those which are toward that end.  Moreover, carnal wars among believers are to be referred to an end as to the spiritual good of the Divine, to which the cleric is deputed.  And for that reason it pertains to clerics to dispose and induce other (men) to fight just wars.  For it is not interdicted to them to fight because  it be a sin, but because such an exercise does not befit their persons.

Does one cease to be a Christian because one has been DeathVaxxed?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In every grave controversy, there are always legitimate questions about the consequences of moral actions.  This is especially true in the Church, since we are a divine-human society in which we recognize the existence of sin, fault, punishment and moral responsibility.

Many are asking serious and valid questions, and few are giving the answers. We have been much preoccupied with understanding what is going on, what is the truth, and what are the lies, and what is really in the Covid “vaccines”, that few have had time to think about the other questions.

So let’s confront them head on.

If you were deathvaxxed, does that mean you are no longer a Christian?

It is obvious that nearly no one, who received the jabb, had due informed consent, when they received the DeathVaxx. BigPharma did not even tell us what was in it. This had to be discovered by open minded true scientists working seperately, as soon as they could obtain samples of the serums.

And no one in the world, clearly, has been told at the time of the jab, what was in it: that it contains 40 factors which will lead to immediate or premature death, that it turns you into a transhuman, that in installs a 5G compatible routing network in you, to monitor your vital signs etc..

So, since no one is guilty in the sight of God for a sin, when they were unaware of the moral quality of the choice they were making, the mere fact that you have received the jab, does not mean you have ceased to be a Christian, since that would require rejection of Christ or of God.

However, it is one thing to answer the question as to whether you have received it, it is another to answer the question as to whether you willingly took it.

Because many elderly, infirm, or incapacitated persons were given the jab without being asked if they wanted it,  or with the counsel of someone whom they trusted but who was totally uninformed, and took it nevertheless.  So these truly consented to receive the jab, but they never truly consented to receive what is in the jab.  So if they sinned, it was by undue credulity in the person they trusted. Others had many opportunities to be informed and refused to listen or chose to be deceived. But if the person they trusted was a parent or child or close friend, they probably have no moral fault for the decision.  The fault for their being jabbed then, would be nearly or totally that of the person who counseled them to take it.

And here we come face to face with the case of Pope Benedict XVI, whom Archbishop Ganswein — a known public liar — says received not only the DeathVaxx, but even the 3rd booster, “out of conviction”.  The problem with that affirmation, in addition to its untrustworthy source, is that as Tosatti recently revealed, Pope Benedict XVI has been denied all outside sources of information for 8 years, except those Ganswein allows him to have. So if there is any sin or fault here, its totally that of Ganswein.  Pope Benedict XVI must be presumed innocent, just like any elderly person in a retirement home, and probably more so, because he cannot even watch TV or use the internet.

However, if you know the DeathSerum makes you trans-human, and you take the jab anyhow, then clearly you have committed apostasy and are no longer a Christian, since a Christian is bound by the covenant God made with us in making us.  He alone is our God, Creator and Lord, and it is not permitted to a Christian to break that covenant.  Indeed, all who have, cannot be Christians or become Christians, unless they repent of that sin.

Are all Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, still such, if they received the jabb?

Once again, it depends on informed consent. If they did it to become a transhuman, then, they are clearly apostates and hold no longer any office or dignity or munus in the Church. A pope would no longer be pope, a Cardinal would no longer be a Cardinal, and Bishop would no longer be a Bishop of the Catholic Church.

However, if they were deceived into thinking it was a mere vaccine, then their level of moral responsibility depends on what they were capable of knowing and what due diligence they took before taking it.

Because, just  as in the case of every medicine and medical procedure, that might kill you, if you take it, without doing anything to investigate the risk, you are morally responsible for your own death, to some degree. But such carelessness or imprudence does not make you an apostate or cause you to be put out of the Church in virtue of canon 1364 (for heresy, apostasy or schism).

Will all who took the jab, be damned?

Once again, it depends on the decision they made. If after being jabbed, they find out what is in the jab and still consent to having been jabbed, they they will be damned for the sin of suicide and rebellion against their Creator.  But if they were totally unaware of that and died by a sudden death, then they are victims.  Fools maybe, but innocent victims in proportion to the greatest of their ignorance and incapacity to understand they were being lied to.

Is the jabb the Mark of the Beast?

From all the information, which is available to me, and from my studies in theology and sacred scripture, I would say most certainly that the Covid “vaccines” must be regarded as the mark of the beast and most likely are the mark of the beast, and that all who have taken them, knowingly or not, are now in a spiritual manner in the power of Satan and his minions in a manner much more real and actual than any sinner has ever been in history.

But I do not think that it is the mark, in the sense that one cannot repent of it.  However, if you got a true DeathSerum injected into you, you need to prepare your soul, for you will be dead sooner than you think.

We know from Scripture, itself, in the Apocalypse, that God will send horrible punishments upon mankind for the sin of taking the Mark, but that God by these punishments wants that men repent. Therefore, it is a truth of Scripture that He will give the grace of repentance and accept repentance even for that sin.

 

How to respond to Questions in a Genocidal Dictatorship

On the Biblical Teaching about when it is a sin and when it is a virtue
to tell the false

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We are all living under a Dictatorship, a genocidal dictatorship which has the aim of exterminating humanity. They are using the claim of a pandemic to establish the laws and medical procedures to justify killing us all. And in this process they are asking us questions to prepare us for death and kill us.

We do not have to cooperate. We can resist. And we do not have to answer their questions as they would like us to.

But how to do this as Christians is something unknown to most since except in times of gravest persecution, this Biblical teaching is rarely explained.

In my recent discussion with Rabbi Weissman I mentioned that when we are asked if we are Vaxxed, we do not have to tell the truth. We can lie.  As my response has incited trolls, I will explain what it means to lie, and when this is a sin and when it is not a sin, or even a virtue.

First, in English the word, “lie” and the verb “to lie” are ambiguous. The former can mean a false statement, or falsehood, or it can mean an intentionally deceptive statement.  The same for the verb.  For this reason the English words cross the boundaries of morality. Since something said is right or wrong, not according only to its content but also according to its intention.

So, to distinguish the moral cases we have

  • To speak the false
  • To be deceptive, mendacious, or to prevaricate

Sometimes when we say, “lie” in English we mean the first, sometimes the second. Many do not understand this or even pay attention to it.

As a translator, I am very sensitive to this problem, which does not exist in Latin, for example.

So in the above mentioned video, when I say, if you are asked whether you are vaxxed or not, to lie, I mean it in the sense of, to speak the false, and I say this for biblical reasons: because no one has the right to ask such a question and thus you have no duty before God to answer it without a mental reservation. Now if it is a friend, or friendly doctor, you can answer truthfully. But if it is a Globalist happy nutcase, policeman or other possible threatening person, you can say you are vaxxed, even if you are not. I did not explain how to say it, so here I will explain this.

If they ask if you were Vaxxed, say yes, and intend that you were vaccinated years ago for some other disease. Or say you were vaxxed, presuming you were during your last PCR swab test, on account of widely reported hidden tech in these swabs.  If they ask by which brand of Vaxx, say you cannot remember, because if you were not or were in your youth, then certainly you cannot remember.  The human imagination and creativity can always invent ways of responding to such questions. Such responses are based on what is called a mental reservation, where you intend to signify something they do not intend to understand and so are mislead or misdirected.

However, when asked before a court or civil authority, whether we believe in God or are Christians, we must answer directly, because in this case we are commanded by Our Lord, who said, “If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father who is in Heaven”.  Our Enemies today want us to regard the NWO as a religion which we can never deny, and so they are trying to invert the categories of sin on the matter of telling the false, which is commonly called “lying” in English.

The case of the Vaxx is the same as the case of a mugging. If a mugger asks if you have money on you, you can say no, when you do, because you can intend that you have no money for him, or that you cannot afford to give him any. Likewise, if you son asks you in which shops they sell pornography, you have not only the duty not to respond truthfully, but you have the duty to divert his question or say the false, such as: None of them (meaning, none that I know of, or none where you can do so without grave sin). Again, in a mental asylum, there are certain persons, to whom, if you said the truth, they would become violent and harm themslves and others, so you must respond withing the reality in which they live, to keep them calm so that they eat their food, wash themselves and not harm others. If your spouse goes into wild rages of jealousy and they ask you with whom you were speaking or what you did, you can use a mental reservation, however, to keep them from sinning. None of this is being deceptive.

None of this regards how we should speak in normal discourse, that is, when we are not asked a threatening question by an untrustworthy person. In all other cases we are gravely obliged to tell the truth and never to use a mental reservation, unless of course those to whom we are talking are not capable yet of accepting the whole truth, because they labor under some grave vice. We must love the truth, because each truth has God as its Exemplar and Author. We should never be mendacious or prevaricate and we should not deceive others. And thus, you cannot morally use mental reservations, for example in matters of religion, commerce, contracts, promises, testimonies etc.. However in a dictatorship you can use it with the police, law courts, etc., if it regards something other than professing Jesus the Lord and His teachings.

So to sum up: Yes, it is a mortal sin to intentionally give an answer which is contrary to what you know to be the truth, WHEN you are obliged to tell the truth to a person who has the right to know the truth. This is strictly speaking the only proper sense of the word, “lie”, when it is say that “lying is a sin”. However, the common use of “to lie” in English does not have all these qualities.  And that is why I said “to lie” in response to such questions as the NWO Gestapo might propose to you.

The problem for non-Catholics who claim to be Christian is that they tend to believe that the Bible was written in a Western Language, and in the English speaking world, that it was written in English. So when they see the word “lie” in Scripture, they distort the teaching of scripture according to their distorted or wrong understanding of the word, “to lie”, since in English we use this word to mean “to speak the false” or “to deceive”.  Whereas the Commandment of God, “Though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is linguistically structured by the Holy Spirit to avoid this kind of manipulation.

This is why, what I have just expounded is the correct understanding of the following passages, which in English are often mistranslated with the ambiguous word, “lie”:

Proverbs 12:22: The actual reading here is not “lying”, but mendacious, which means deceptive, not telling the false.

Hebrews 6:18: The actual reading is not “to lie”, but “to speak falsely, to deceive, to be mendacious, to praevaricate” .

Proverbs 19:9: Here again, the word is not “lies”, but “deceptions” or “mendacities”

Ephesians 4:25: This is said in reference to other Christians who are worthy of trust and merit a true response.

Colossians 3:9: This is said also in regard to Christians. And the word is not “to lie”, but “to deceive or be mendacious”.

Because of this teaching the Fathers of the Church debated whether Abraham told Sarah to “lie” when he instructed Sarah to say that she was his sister (the Hebrew word here means, “sister”, by one or the same parents) not his wife (Genesis 12:11-13).  The case is exactly that which I have discussed above. Those asking him intended to murder him if he was the husband, but on account of this way of responding to his question they might only fornicate with his wife, and not murder him, which would have been a letter sin. Abraham told her to say the false, but he did not lie, that, is, he was not deceptive or mendacious. He said the truth in regard to a question which was not asked (Is this woman your relative?), but those asking their question would have convicted him of lying or being deceptive. In truth they deceived themselves by assuming he meant what they wanted him to say and mean. And he did not. What he said did not harm them, rather it prevented them from committing the greater sin, and thus was moved by charity. It is with the same motive we should tell the false to the Gestapo of the NWO when they ask if we are Vaxxed.

FOOTNOTE: Some Protestants, who call Jesus a liar by refusing to believe Him, when He declared to Simon Peter, “You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against Her”, have a psychological need to fault us Catholics as liars — it’s call projection — to justify their separation from the Church Christ founded upon Peter (of whom the Roman Pontiff Benedict is the unique successor) and their opposition to the will of Jesus Christ as regards one Church which has existed from the beginning and ever been called the Catholic Church. And so, it is not infrequent that they attack us Catholics on the point of lying or the use of mental reservations, since as in most things, they deny the meaning of Scripture while exalting themselves as its perfect practitioners and thus fall condemned under the commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.

Did Saint Thomas Aquinas approve of receiving communion from heretics, schismatics or sinners?

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Now that it is becoming more and more clear that a great majority of the clergy have lost the Catholic Faith or are at least acting in such a way as to make themselves appear to have done so, many Catholics are wondering whether they can or cannot continue to attend Mass or receive the sacraments at their local parishes or from priests of whom they formerly had no doubts, but by whom they now have been gravely scandalized.

And in this matter, I have already discussed here, at FromRome.Info, the teaching of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, who is the Doctor of the Church on moral questions, that is to say, in regard to specific questions, is the prime authority on such matters.

But as Saint Thomas Aquinas was named along with St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, as one of the two primary Doctors of the Church, his mere mentioning of this matter carries no small weight in the Church.  And as he did speak of it briefly in the Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9, it merits a discussion.

First of all we need to understand that Saint Thomas wrote the Summa Theologica for what we would call highschool students of his day. That is for those who could not or had not yet qualified to attend the Unviersity. In the Middle Ages such students were seminarians who were preparing to be ordained simple priests, with faculties only to say Mass, not preach or hear confessions.  And for this reason, we must recognize that the Summa Theologica speaks always in a brief manner about everything, and is not a technical handbook on theology.  Indeed, most who misuse it, fall into this misuse for using it in such a manner.

So let us consider what Saint Thomas does say, and to do this, have recourse to the Latin text of Pars III, q. 82, article 9, which I take form the Corpus Thomisticum website. You can compare it in English here. After the Latin text, I will publish my own translation, which I did this morning.

First, as regard the format of an Article in Saint Thomas. He begins first by citing arguments for and against his position, and then he explains his own position, and then he replies to the arguments he moved against it.  So nothing of what he says in the first list of arguments, does he say in his own name. He is merely quoting others or paraphrasing them. Only what he says in his Reply and refutation of the objections is the words of the Angelic Doctor.

Now, to the text.

Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9

Articulus 9

[51087] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis licite possit communionem recipere a sacerdotibus haereticis vel excommunicatis, vel etiam peccatoribus, et ab eis Missam audire. Sicut enim Augustinus, contra Petilianum, dicit, neque in homine bono neque in homine malo aliquis Dei fugiat sacramenta. Sed sacerdotes, quamvis sint peccatores et haeretici vel excommunicati, verum conficiunt sacramentum. Ergo videtur quod non sit vitandum ab eis communionem accipere vel eorum Missam audire.

[51088] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpus Christi verum figurativum est corporis mystici, sicut supra dictum est. Sed a praedictis sacerdotibus verum corpus Christi consecratur. Ergo videtur quod illi qui sunt de corpore mystico, possint eorum sacrificiis communicare.

[51089] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, multa peccata sunt graviora quam fornicatio. Sed non est prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum aliter peccantium. Ergo etiam non debet esse prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum fornicariorum.

[51090] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod canon dicit, XXXII dist., nullus audiat Missam sacerdotis quem indubitanter concubinam novit habere. Et Gregorius dicit, in III Dialog., quod pater perfidus Arianum episcopum misit ad filium, ut ex eius manu sacrilegae consecrationis communionem acciperet, sed vir Deo devotus Ariano episcopo venienti exprobravit ut debuit.

[51091] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacerdotes, si sint haeretici vel schismatici vel excommunicati, vel etiam peccatores, quamvis habeant potestatem consecrandi Eucharistiam, non tamen ea recte utuntur, sed peccant utentes. Quicumque autem communicat alicui in peccato, ipse particeps peccati efficitur, unde et in secunda canonica Ioannis legitur quod qui dixerit ei, ave, scilicet haeretico, communicat operibus illius malignis. Et ideo non licet a praedictis communionem accipere aut eorum Missam audire. Differt tamen inter praedictas sectas. Nam haeretici et schismatici et excommunicati sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione consecrandi privati. Et ideo peccat quicumque eorum Missam audit vel ab eis accipit sacramenta. Sed non omnes peccatores sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione huius potestatis privati. Et sic, quamvis sint suspensi quantum est ex sententia divina, non tamen quantum ad alios ex sententia Ecclesiae. Et ideo, usque ad sententiam Ecclesiae, licet ab eis communionem accipere et eorum Missam audire. Unde super illud I Cor. V, cum huiusmodi nec cibum sumere, dicit Glossa Augustini, hoc dicendo, noluit hominem ab homine iudicari ex arbitrio suspicionis, vel etiam extraordinario usurpato iudicio, sed potius ex lege Dei, secundum ordinem Ecclesiae, sive ultro confessum, vel accusatum et convictum.

[51092] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in hoc quod refugimus audire talium sacerdotum Missam aut ab eis communionem recipere, non refugimus Dei sacramenta, sed potius ea veneramur, unde hostia a talibus sacerdotibus consecrata est adoranda, et, si reservetur, licite potest sumi a sacerdote legitimo. Sed refugimus culpam indigne ministrantium.

[51093] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod unitas corporis mystici est fructus corporis veri percepti. Illi autem qui indigne percipiunt vel ministrant, privantur fructu, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non est sumendum ex eorum dispensatione sacramentum ab eis qui sunt in unitate Ecclesiae.

[51094] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet fornicatio non sit gravior ceteris peccatis, tamen ad eam sunt homines proniores, propter carnis concupiscentiam. Et ideo specialiter hoc peccatum a sacerdotibus prohibitum est ab Ecclesia, ne aliquis audiat Missam concubinarii sacerdotis. Sed hoc intelligendum est de notorio, vel per sententiam quae fertur in convictum, vel confessionem in iure factam, vel quando non potest peccatum aliqua tergiversatione celari.

My Translation of Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9

ARTICLE 9

  1. To the ninth (article) one proceeds in this manner.  It seems that somone may licitly receive communion from heretical and/or excommunicated priests, and/or even from sinners, and to hear a Mass (said) by them. For (St.) Augustine (of Hippo) says “Against Petilianus”, Let no one flee the Sacraments of God neither for the good in a man nor for the evil in a man. But priests, though they be sinners and heretics and/or excommunicate, truly confect the Sacrament.  Therefore, it seems that one must not avoid accepting communion from them and/or hearing their Mass.
  2.  Moreover, the Body of Christ is truly figurative of the Mystical Body, just as has been said above.  But the true Body of Christ is consecrated by the aforesaid priests.  Therefore, it seems, that those who are of the Mystical Body, may communicate in their sacrifices.
  3. Moreover, there are many sins more grave than fornication. But the hearing of the Masses of priests sinning in another manner is not prohibited.  Therefore, also, the hearing of the Masses of priest fornicators ought also not be prohibited.

But on the contrary there is that which Canon XXXII, says in the distinction, “Let no one hear the Mass of the priest who undoubtedly is known to have a concubine”.  And (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) says in the Third (Book) of (his) Dialogues, that A treacherous father sent an Arian bishop to (his) son, so that he might accept from his hand the communion of a sacrilegious consecration, but the man, devoted to God reproached the Arian bishop at his arrival, as he should have.

I RESPOND, that it must be said, that just as was said above, priests, if they be heretics and/or schismatics and/or excommunicated, and/or even sinners, though they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not use that uprightly, but sin using (it).  Moreover, whosoever communicates in the sin of another, is himself made a participant in the sin, wherefore, there is also read in the Second Canonical (Letter) of (St.) John (the Apostle), that he who will have said to him, namely the heretic, “Greetings”, communicates in his malign worksAnd for that reason it is not licit to accept communion from the aforesaid or to hear their Masses.  However, there is a difference between the aforesaid groups.  For heretics and schismatics and the excommunicate are deprived from executing a consecration through a (canonical) sentence of the Church.  And for that reason, whomsoever hears their Mass and/or receives the Sacraments from them, sins.  But not all sinners have been deprived of the execution of this power through the sentence of the Church. And in this manner, though they have been suspended as much as is on account of the Divine Sentence, yet not as much as regards the others on account of the sentence of the Church. And for that reason, up until (there is) a sentence of the Church, it will be licit to accept communion from them and to hear their Masses.  Wherefore, on that (verse) of First Corinthians, Chapter V, with these of this kind do not even take food, the Gloss of (St.) Augustine says, “by saying this, he did not want that a man be judged by a man on account of an arbitrary suspicion, and/or even by an extra-ordinary usurped judgement, but rather on account of the law of God, according to the order of the Church, or without having confessed, and/or having been accused and convicted.

Ad arg. 1.  To the first, therefore, it must be said, that in this, that we flee the hearing of the Mass of such priests or the receiving of communion from them, we do not flee the Sacraments of God, but rather we venerate Them, on which account the Hosts consecrated by such priests are to be adored, and, if they be reserved, they can be licitly taken in hand by a legitimate priest.  But we do flee from the fault of the ones ministering (them) unworthily.

Ad arg. 2.  To the second, it must be said, that the unity of the Mystical Body is the fruit of the True Body received.  Moreover, those who receive and/or minister unworthily, are deprived of the fruit, as has been said above.  And for that reason, there is not to be a taking up of the Sacraments from their distribution by those who are in the unity of the Church.

Ad arg. 3.  To the third, it must be said, that though fornication is not more grave than all other sins, yet men are more prone to it, on account of the concupiscence of the flesh.  And for that reason, this sin is to be especially prohibited to priests by the Church, so that no one hear the Mass of a fornicating priest.  But this is to be understood concerning the notorious (sinner), and/or through the sentence which was borne against the convict, and/or through a confession made formally [in iure], and/or when the sin cannot be hidden by any subterfuge.

Discussion of the Text

It is clear that Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches the perennial doctrine, handed down from the Apostles, that one must not partake of the Sacraments from one who is a heretic, schismatic or public sinner. And he specifies in every case that he is speaking of those who are not merely suspected by private judgement — as Sedevacantists do in our own day — but by those who are know as such by an official judgment, such as excommunication or such like, published by the Church or by facts which are manifest and public and cannot be factually denied.

So here Saint Thomas founds his doctrine upon the knowledge of the truth, whether that knowledge come to us through public means: the sentence of the Church; or by non pubic means: by facts which cannot be denied by any sort of explanation.  When the believer is cogniscent of such truth, he must refrain from receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist from such sinners.*

So, to all those who would say that we can receive the Sacrament from such men, we can say that St. Thomas stands against them.  But to those who entertain unreasonable or irrational suspicions against a priest, we can say that St. Thomas teaches that on that account they should not refuse the Sacraments of a priest.  — I add, so long a the one suspecting has not fallen into mortal sin of rash judgment, defamation or calumny against such a priest, because then he should not receive until he first confesses and repents of his sin.

And thus is clear the true teaching of the Angelic Doctor and under what conditions he speaks.

Applying this teaching to current events

Clearly then we must avoid the Sacraments from priests who have abandoned the Catholic Faith, such as those who give them to public sinners of any kind, on account of the error taught in Amoris Laetitia. We must also refuse the Sacraments of priests who push the vaccine or commit the daily sacrilege of celebrating with the Mask or sanitizing gel, and would fear less to offend God than to drop Him like a cookie in the hand.  Also we must refuse the sacraments from priests who are in communion with the Antipope, however so friendly and orthodox they be, because otherwise we are partaking in their sin.

Our Lady at Akita told us that there would come a time when the Church would be full of those who make compromises, and that the true faithful would only have the consolation of the Rosary and the crucifix.  Those days have come, for those who still have the eyes of faith to see and the will to see.

SPECIAL CASES:

In the case of the priest who rejects the heresies of Bergoglio and all other heresies, and names Benedict in the canon of the Mass while also naming Bergoglio, because he does not know who is the pope, one can receive the Sacraments from him. But if he names Bergoglio sometimes and Benedict other times, when we come to know of this, we cannot attend his masses, since what he is doing is gravely dishonest. But if we did not know of this, and only attended masses where he named Benedict, then so long as we did not come to know of it, we could attend them and receive the Sacraments from him.

As Saint Thomas teaches, if a Deacon or priest in communion with Pope Benedict, finds the Sacrament confected by heretics or schismatics or the excommunicated or even a Bergoglian, he can take the sacrament and consume it so as to remove it from existence (such as would be necessary if he were to celebrate at the same altar or take possession of a Church where such be found). But he should not distribute it, so as to avoid scandal, except in the case of a Deacon who being in a place without priests in communion with the true Pope, transports such hosts to another place and distributes them to the faithful who are in communion with Him for the sustenance of their souls, since in such a rare case, scandal is avoided and a good work is done, since it is holy and righteous thing to take back the property stolen form the Church.

_________________

* Contrary to the opinion of many ill instructed Catholics, it is not necessary for salvation to receive the Eucharist worthily, if you have done so already at least one time in your life.  For that reason, Saint Thomas admits of no exceptions to the rule he cites here.  However, Saint Thomas does not discuss the Sacrament of Confession, in the case of extraordinary, that is singular, events or occasions, in which not in public but in secret a Catholic who is in the state of mortal sin, can confess his sin and be validly absolved by priests who are sinners or schismatics.  In such cases St. Alphonsus says it can be permitted, that is, the mortal sinner can ask the Sacrament of Confession, are receive it without sin, even though the priest giving it might by his fault alone sin in giving it. That is not the fault of the penitent. But the case must be only under the most urgent circumstance and rarely done and then not in public, to avoid scandal. This sole exception is allowed, because the Sacrament of Confession for one in mortal sin is necessary for salvation or must be presumed as such, since God’s granting of the grace of perfect contrition, outside of confession, is extremely rare, and as the Council of Trent teaches, never to be presumed.

Are you willing to lose your soul, for the sake of one word?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Our Lord Jesus Christ asked us, “What doth it profit a man that he gain the whole world and lose his soul thereby?”

This question has troubled the hearts of the Saints for two thousand years. It is the very question which, when asked, had led countless men and women to abandon the world and follow the Lord Jesus Christ as religious, monks, sisters, hermits. It is a most important question for every man considering to enter into Sacred Orders, if he wish to have the right intention.

But above all it is a question posed to all of Christ’s disciples, when they are confronted with a choice which regards our Holy Religion, their souls, and eternal salvation, all three of which cannot be extricated from one another in this life, or the world to come.

For the entire Catholic world, for eight years we have had a simple choice to make. We have been confronted with a challenge, which is easy for those who are like little children, but impossible for those who have embraced the world as their friend.

The challenge is to answer a simple question: Did Pope Benedict XVI resign, when in renouncing the ministry, when Canon Law requires that he renounce the munus or office, he did not do what the Canon said must be done?

But another way: Who decides who is the pope: Jesus Christ, who said, “Whatsoever you bind on earth”, i. e., for example in Canon Law regarding Papal renunciations, “shall be bound in Heaven”, or the Cardinals who say, it does not matter what Benedict renounced, nor even the worlds he used, he is definitely not the pope anymore.

Pope Benedict XVI said that he was inspired to do what he did. He even said in his biography in 2016, that the more he sees of Bergoglio, the more he is convinced he was inspired.

Our Lord is King and Master. He has the right to instruct His Vicar on earth to do as He pleases. He does put us to the test, and thus it is perfectly acceptable in Catholic theology to suppose that He could ask His Vicar on Earth to put the Catholic world to a test: to see if they worship Him, in communion with those priests in communion with Him, or whether they worship men, in communion with the priests in communion with men.

This renunciation of ministry is such a test.

Woe to those who do not take it seriously!

CREDITS: The Featured image shows Judas Iscariot kissing Our Lord, in the Garden of Gethsemane. The fresco is by Bl. Fra Angelico, O. P.. Judas, who wanted the external observances of religious and communion, while rejecting the internal obligations of faith and repentance, was rebuked by Our Lord for his sacrilegious kiss, saying, “Do you betray me with a kiss?” — To signify to the rest of us, that there is no more repulsive sin to God, than to sin right in His face, by feigning communion with Him, while really following the doctrines of men about who is and who is not the true High Priest.

____________________

NOTE: As the hosting company for FromRome.Info has decided to harass the editorial staff by taking away our editing tools and forcing us never to use justification for our electronic journal, and to use instead an editor, which writes slower than the normal person types, FromRome.Info will be changing hosting providers this week, which might cause some articles and or comments, published this week, to disappear or be lost. We ask your patience.

Friedlicher Protest in einer Diktatur – Eine Anleitung

THIS IS A GERMAN TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH

Ziele

Jeder Protest benötigt ein direktes und ehrenvolles Ziel, das ein möglichst kleiner gemeinsamer Nenner für die Unzufriedenen sein sollte, damit unter diesem Motto möglichst viele Menschen auf der Straße mobilisiert werden können. Eine möglichst hohe Anzahl an Demonstranten zu bewegen, ist wesentlich, denn die Regierung reagiert nur auf unzufriedene Menschenmassen. Zudem reißen hohe Zahlen an Demonstranten auch noch die mit, die sich aus Angst noch nicht auf die Straße trauten. Die Masse bietet dem einzelnen ein Sicherheitsgefühl.

Organisation

Auch Ideale brauchen eine Organisation, damit ihnen zum Sieg verholfen werden kann. Ein Protest muß organisiert sein. Sonst besteht eher die Gefahr, daß er Projektionsfläche für die Propaganda des Regimes bietet. Zudem fällt es den Exekutivkräften des Regimes umso leichter, den Protest zu stören, je weniger der geplant und gegen fremde Einwirkungen organisiert ist. Das Regime hat logischerweise ein großes Interesse, einen Protest zu zerstreuen und unwirksam zu machen oder ihn gar zu bezichtigen, er sei gewalttätig.

Die Vorbereitung des Protests sollte allemal eine Spezialisierung der Kräfte beinhalten, die somit bestmöglich bestimmte Aufgabe erfüllen können.

Beispielsweise sollten Dokumentationsbeauftragte den Protest filmen bzw. photographieren und darin geschult sein, die Bewegung medienwirksam in Szene zu setzen. Rechtsanwälte bzw. Rechtssachverständige sollten auch vor Ort sein, um gegebenenfalls mit Regierungskräften zu verhandeln bzw. um Protestteilnehmer in ihren Rechten zu verteidigen.

Menschen mit Status und Reputation in der Bewegung sollten eine professionell gestaltete Bühne erhalten, so daß sie sich gut präsentieren können. Veteranen des Militärs oder der Polizei sollten ihre Uniformen tragen und vorbereitet sein, mit den Exekutivkräften im Dienste der Regierung zu sprechen und sie auch davon zu überzeugen, sich dem Protest anzuschließen bzw. notfalls sogar auch zu meutern. Religiöse oder spirituelle Führer sind für Ermunterung der Protestler zu Friedlichkeit und Bestimmtheit im Willen unverzichtbar.

Nicht zu vergessen ist ein Beauftragter für die interne Kommunikation und Sicherheit. So kann im Falle, daß die Regierung Störer („Agent Provocateurs“) einschleust, zielgerichtet gegengewirkt werden durch Isolation und Ausschluß dieser Leute aus der Protestbewegung.

Die gerechte Sache durch Friedfertigkeit repräsentieren

Die Menschen zeigen, daß Recht und die Gerechtigkeit auf ihrer Seite sind, wenn sie sich friedfertig verhalten. Hiermit zieht man auch andere mit, die auch auf die Seite des Rechts und der Gerechtigkeit stehen wollen. Im Gegensatz dazu werden gewaltsame Aktionen im allgemeinen mit negativen Absichten assoziiert. Außer zur Selbstverteidigung ist Gewalt niemals legitim. Bei der Auch bei der Selbstverteidigung darf Gewalt nur das letzte Mittel sein, und es muß unbedingt das Verhältnis zur drohenden Gewalt gewahrt sein.

Durch eine gezielte Vorbereitung des Protestes mit organisierten Kräften wie oben erwähnt, sind Konflikte und Mißverständnisse zwischen Protestlern und Regierungskräften deutlich leichter zu vermeiden. Und genau dieser reibungslose Ablauf ist das höchste Ziel einer inneren, gut überlegten Proteststruktur, deren friedfertige Ausstrahlung positiv auf Außenstehende einwirkt.

Gerechtigkeit heißt nicht Naivität

Daß man es selbst gut meint, heißt aber eben nicht, daß man davon ausgehen darf, daß es die Gegenseite, also auch die Regierungskräfte, es ehrlich und gut meinen und einen Konflikt vermeiden wollen. Diktaturen sind nur zu bekannt dafür, daß sie Provokateure in Protesten einschleusen, so daß es für Außenstehende scheint, der Protest sei illegitim, weil er für Gewalt stehe. Dabei ist es gerade die tyrannische Regierung, die für Unrecht und damit für Gewalt steht.

Die Notwendigkeit von Sicherheit

Insofern ist die Sicherheit eine zentrale Aufgabe, um Gewalt und Konflikte durch Infiltration und feindliche Instrumentalisierung des Protests zu vermeiden. Auch der Ehrlichste und eben auch der Protest durch die Ehrlichsten hat alles Recht bei der Organisation, interne und externe Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zur Abwehr von Böswilligkeiten der Regierungsseite zu treffen.

Die Vorbereitungstreffen sollten privat an geheimen Orten stattfinden. Kein Teilnehmer sollte elektronische Geräte mitführen, da sie durch Regierungskräfte detektiert werden könnten. In diesem Sinne sollten alle Teilnehmer auch auf Spionagegeräte durchsucht werden, beispielsweise auf Verkabelungen am Körper und andere Spuren, die darauf hinweisen, es könnte sich um einen Regierungsagenten handeln.

Das bedeutet ebenfalls, daß bei Beginn des Protests Regierungsagenten in der Menge durch die internen Sicherheitskräfte aufgespürt werden müssen, um auf sie zuzugehen, sie zu befragen und gegebenenfalls Hinweise auf Regierungsaktivität zu finden.

Meistens sind Agenten der Regierung einzeln unterwegs, ob ein Mann oder auch eine Frau. Jeder Verdächtige sollte durch die Sicherheitskräfte befragt werden, um seine Identität zu überprüfen und ihn bei Hinweisen auf eine Agententätigkeit (z.B. Verkabelungen) vom Protestzug auszuschließen. Diese Person muß allen Sicherheitsbediensteten mitgeteilt werden idealerweise mit einem Photo und der Nennung seines Aufenthaltsortes, um ihn ausschließen zu können. Die einfachste Art einen Regierungsagenten zu entlarven ist es, ihn nach seiner Arbeit zu fragen und seinen Arbeitsgeber anzurufen. Irgendein lokales Unternehmen anzurufen, um die Identität des Arbeitsgebers zu bestätigen, ist eine weitere Methode. Man kann auch das Wissen zur Arbeitsumgebung beim angeblichen Arbeiter testen, usw..

Es sollte darauf geachtet werden, daß die wichtigsten Protestanführer durch Freiwillige mit Kenntnissen in Selbstverteidigung oder auch in Militär- bzw. Polizeitaktik flankiert sind. So können die Protestführer gegen Angriffe abgeschirmt werden, bzw. sie können bei Übergriffversuchen aus der Gefahrenzone gebracht werden. Fluchtrouten und sichere Häuser in Städten der benachbarten Regionen und Nationen sollten im Vorfeld bereits ausgearbeitet sein.

Den Protest führen

Denkt daran, eine Diktatur ist darauf bedacht, jeden Protest bereits im Keim zu ersticken. Daher sollte der Protest so aufgebaut sein, daß die Ziele der Tyrannenregierung vorausgesehen und unterminiert werden können.

Zu diesem Zweck ist es besser, wenn die meisten Protestler keine Geräte mit sich tragen, die detektiert werden können. Somit wird verhindert, daß Gruppierungen online detektiert und ausgewertet werden können, was eine gezielte Polizeistrategie gegen den Protest zu vereiteln hilft.

Die Protestierenden sollten sich normal kleiden. Denn jeder normale Mensch darf sich in der Stadt bewegen und die alltäglichen Geschäfte erledigen. Da die Regierung nicht das Leben in der Stadt anhalten kann, wird es ihr so unmöglich gemacht, Ansammlungen der Protestbewegung zu verhindern.

Dabei sollte die Protestbewegung darauf bedacht sein, sich nicht in Straßen zu treffen, die leicht blockiert werden können. Der Ort sollte so gewählt sein, daß es der Regierung nicht möglich ist, alle Zugänge dorthin abzuriegeln, zudem sollte die Ankunft der Protestler örtlich und zeitlich aufeinander abgestimmt werden mit möglichst viel Variabilität. Für den Fall der Fälle einer Blockade des Versammlungsortes durch Regierungskräfte, sollte ein gut erreichbarer Ausweichplatz für den Protest bereits geplant sein.

Der Protest sollte von mehreren Kontrollpunkten in der Art einer „Steuerungscloud“ aus gleichwertig geführt werden können. Falls ein Kontrollzentrum ausfällt übernimmt das andere oder auch ein drittes, usw. Hierbei ist auch darauf zu achten, daß verschiedene Arten der Kommunikation (bspw. verschiedene Onlineplattformen, CB-Funk, etc.) eingerichtet sind, so daß die Kommunikation nicht zusammenbricht, falls es der Regierung gelingen sollte, einen Kommunikationsweg zu übernehmen.

Vermittlung der Protestbotschaft

Die Botschaft bzw. das Motto des Protests nach außen zu bringen ist so wichtig wie die Protestbewegung selbst. Es müssen geübte Sprecher auftreten, die die Botschaft auf den Punkt bringen. Charismatische Menschen, die die Massen animieren, müssen sich mit mehr strukturierten und professionell geschulten Präsentatoren abwechseln, ggf. auch im Interviewstil kommunizieren, um die Botschaft so transparent wie möglich zu machen. Die Regierung wird psychologische Methoden anwenden, um möglichst effektiv zu stören. Professionelle Redner bzw. souveräne Moderatoren behalten auch im Falle von Unruhen und Chaos die Übersicht und wirken ggf. auch beruhigend und deeskalierend auf die Massen ein.

Klarerweise sind Zeichen und Symbole im Sinne eines „Branding“ wichtig, so auch im Sinne einer Corporate Identity bzw. Marke bei Protesten. Doch inwieweit Zeichen zur Schau gestellt werden sollten bzw. überhaupt legal zulässig sind, ist vom Ausmaß der freiheitlichen oder eben suppressiven Atmosphäre in einem Land abhängig. Je unterdrückender eine Regierung ist desto weniger sollte man Zeichen und Symbole verwenden. In dem Zusammenhang muß auch festgestellt werden, daß Masken legitim sein können, um ggf. zu verhindern, das Protestler durch die Polizei während oder nach der Veranstaltung identifiziert und dadurch Opfer von Repressalien werden.

Diplomatie

Unbedingt sollte von der Möglichkeit Gebrauch gemacht werden, Menschen an strategischen Orten wie Polizeistationen oder Kasernen zu positionieren, um die Mobilisierung von Kräften gegen den Protest zumindest zu behindern. Am besten gelingt dies, wenn man Verwandte von Polizeikräften oder Soldaten zu ihnen schickt, um auf diese Exekutivkräfte einzuwirken.

Menschen mit hohem Bildungsgrad, die von der friedlichen und gerechten Protestidee durchdrungen sind, sind die idealen Gallionsfiguren einer Protestbewegung, um diese bei Botschaften oder fremden Mächten vor Ort zu repräsentieren.

Sie können ausländischen Vertretungen dazu anhalten, sich aus Überzeugung von den friedlichen Zielen für das Stattfinden der Protestversammlung bei der Regierung stark zu machen. Diese Initiative ist auch deswegen von Vorteil, um dem vorzubeugen, daß die Tyrannenregierung ihrerseits die ausländischen Vertretungen gegen den Protest einstellen könnte.

Insbesondere diejenigen Mächte mit militärischen Stützpunkten in der Nähe sollten vor der Protestveranstaltung kontaktiert werden, daß sie sich nicht gegen den Protest instrumentalisieren lassen, sondern sich sogar ggf. auf Seiten der Protestbewegung stellen. Falls irgendeine fremde Macht die Regierung zwingen sollte, den Protest zu unterdrücken oder aber ihn im Gegenteil befürwortet, so muß das dem Protestführer sowie den Protestlern insgesamt unmittelbar mitgeteilt werden, so daß jeder weiß, wie die politischen Zeichen stehen, wer einem freundlich und wer einem feindlich gesinnt ist.

 

It is a mortal sin to allow the innocent to be victimized

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As Christians we are obliged to love God and to love our neighbor. This is the teaching of God:  Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God …. and thy neighbor as thyself.

God is infinitely Good, so He is perfectly loveable in Himself. And He has done everything for us, from creating us to saving us and sanctifying us and caring for us. So we really do not need a commandment to love Him, though in the Old Testament these truths were no so clear to the Jewish people, and for that reason, they were given a commandment.

But we all need the commandment to love our neighbor, because we are inclined to love ourselves alone. Indeed, much of the proper instruction that parents should give to children is to teach them to love others, their brothers and sisters, parents, friends etc..

But as adults, we are more obliged to love and justice, because we have a better grasp of the truth of things and are more capable of taking action.

Indeed, the nobility of a person’s soul is revealed precisely in this, that they have the compassion for others in difficulties and the promptness and zeal to take action to help them.

And this nobility is not lessened by the willingness to suffer wrong or to suffer for our own sins.

Yet, our willingness to personally suffer should never be an excuse to allow others to suffer.

And in this Scamdemic most of all, we are put to this test.  We are all being lied to, manipulated, oppressed, persecuted, and enslaved.

And all of this is personally intolerable. But it is even more precisely intolerable that we allow others to be so oppressed.

For 12 months now we have all sinned a great sin, because we have stood and watched everyone be oppressed and victimized and only a few of us have personally resisted to have our own personal freedom.

But very few have actually done anything to stop the oppression and victimization of others.

And this zeal and compassion for the suffering of the innocent, alas, has often been dulled or extinguished by the consideration that they are willing accepting to be manipulated.

But if we allow such considerations to dent our zeal, then we must ask ourselves if we are any better than the Germans who saw Jews being hauled off into trucks and did nothing other than complain?

And now that tens of millions are being manipulated into being vaccinated with a product which neutralizes their Type 2 White blood cells (Source: here), causing their deaths in the next year or so, can we stand and merely watch genocide in progress?

In this year of Our Lord 2021, we Christians must distinguish ourselves by fighting back against the Great Reset with all of our talents, abilities, time, wealth and action.

We must realize we are in war, and that we have not declared this war. But our war is just and therefore, we must crusade for the liberation of all who are being victimized.

I believe, thus, that it is not for nothing, that St. John the Evangelist in the Book of the Apocalypse spoke of the final battle.  The end of the world will not come in peace or come about in peace.

We must stop ignoring the reality in which we are living.

For war is upon us and we must now give battle!

———

For a guide to how to fight against the Great Reset, the solution is simple, and it is explained in this article.

 

The Rights and Duty of Catholics to bear arms

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches explicitly that Christians have the right to bear arms. Nay, He not only teaches we have a right, He instructs us that it is our duty. He does this on the very night He was betrayed by Judas Iscariot, so as to teach us not to misinterpret His willingness to be Crucified, as an unreasonable renunciation of natural right to self defense or unreasonable submission to unjust authority.

The words of Our Most High and Divine Lord are these, and you find them in the Gospel of Saint Luke, chapter 22, verse 36: I quote from the Douay Rheims translation of the Clementine Vulgate:

But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.

These words, Our Lord said to the Apostles. Thus they are understood immediately in reference to the Sacred Hierarchy, that they have the right to defend themselves and thus to bear arms. But by extension, since Christ’s sacred representatives should be men of peace and reconciliation, if they have the right and duty to bear arms, then all the more so, all other members of the Church.

This is not why the Church is called the Church Militant. That title refers to our spiritual struggle against the forces of darkness, which as Saint Paul reminds us, are spirits not men.

But this is why, we need to understand rightly how much true Catholic doctrine differs from what the Marxists and Secularists want us to understand it to be. Indeed, the fear non-Christians have of these words of Jesus is evident over at Wikipedia, which has an entire article on Luke 22:36 to attempt to convince you to be a pacifist and interpret the words of Jesus as not having to do with physical armaments. And they laughably try to convince you that Pope Boniface VIII would support such an idea.

The Natural Right to bear arms

Every living thing has the right to defend it’s life. This is a law of nature. It is said to be a law because it is in the very order of the created world, that we can see that living organisms defend themselves. Since non-rational beings cannot sin, their self defense cannot be a sin. And since God endowed them with a means of and or instinct for self-defense, their doing so must be part of the law which He wrote in the natural order of things.

Consequently, since man is a rational being capable of artifice, he can make tools and instruments for self-defense and use them for that purpose. Thus every man, as an individual, has the right to make and bear arms.

I will speak, below, about bearing arms, for brevity sake, but please understand me in regard to the manufacture, bearing and use of arms, since the right or duty to each implies the duty or right to each.

The Natural Duty to bear arms

Every individual human being lives by the gift of God, the Author of all life. This gift of life is a gift, and thus must be protected. We cannot licitly ignore this duty. Thus every individual human being, has not only the right to self defense but the duty to defend himself. And when this requires the use of arms, he does well to use them and is obliged to use them, except in those cases where to testify to the faith, he submits to those who hate Christ so as to win the crown of Martyrdom. Yet this is by special inspiration, not something to be sought out. Because to be a Martyr you have to be willing to forgive your enemies who put you to death. And that is a very rare grace among those who are unjustly put to death.

This duty becomes even more obligatory when a human being has the duty to protect others, such as children, parents, the weak or the innocent who are defenseless. It is also a graver duty when the society to which one belongs is threatened as a community. Because according to the natural law we owe collaboration in self defense of our own, by ties of affinity, blood, society, and alliances.

The Divine Right and Duty of Christians to Bear arms

A Christian, therefore, on account of his membership in the Mystical Body of Christ, by Baptism, is bound to defend not only his own life, but the lives and faith of all Christians, when they are threatened unjustly or out of hatred to the Faith or out of hatred of Christ. This is a fundamental duty of the Communion of Saints here on Earth.

While many Catholics have strong habits of prayer for fellow Catholics and Christians who are persecuted, few of us realize that our duty goes much beyond prayer.

For this reason, the right and duty to bear arms for Catholics regards himself, his family, his relatives, his parishioners, all Catholics everywhere, the Church, the clergy, and all who are persecuted out of hatred of Jesus Christ.

For this reason, it is more accurate to speak of the Rights and Duty, than of the right and duty, because by Faith and the teaching of Our Lord, this Duty encompases many persons and therefore the right to act in each case has its own species of justification.

Those who deny that Catholics have the right and duty to bear and use and manufacture arms are simply heretics, and should be regarded as such, because they deny the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They should also be regarded as cowards and mad, since they are attempting to counter common sense and subject the Church to the wicked of this world.

When to exercise your Rights and fulfill your Duty

The right and duty to self defense obviously exist at all times, but the actions which flow to fulfill or execute this right and duty arises only when a threat is perceived.

It is important to note that I say, when a threat is perceived, not when a threat arises. This is because when a threat arises, there may not be time sufficient to procure the instruments of your self defense. Of course one must use this principle sanely. A paranoid can certainly fear many things to excess and build himself a military bunker and arm himself to the teeth and think he is justified in that. But his excessive fear causes him to go to an excess, which may actually be dangerous to himself or others, financially as well as physically, even if it must be conceded that he is not acting without or in violation of his rights or in neglect of his duty.

The use of arms, however, can only be in accord with one’s rights and duty when the threat exists and when the use is capable to thwarting the threat and when it is required to do so.

Thus, in times in which the civil authorities or the State are sufficiently controlling the threat against oneself or ones family or the innocent, a private individual has no necessity to resort to the use of arms. But when the government fails in this, or when the civil authorities themselves threaten the lives or liberty of the individual or public or the Church, then an individual and indeed the whole society has the right to use and organize for the use of such rights.

Indeed, it becomes the grave duty of everyone to resist their own enslavement or their persecution for being Catholic or acting or worshiping as a Catholic. For this reason, the mere fact that the leaders of your nation are your legitimate rulers, by law, does not give them the right to enslave you. And any attempt to do so is a grave and imminent threat.

Just War Theory

Under the name, “Just War theory”, Catholics for centuries have discussed the moral question of when it is licit for a sovereign power to begin hostilities. There has to exist a just motive: that is a grave threat of hostilities or the grave violation of the order of justice, already perpetrated. There has to be a good probability of victory. There has to be due use of force, not excessive nor insufficient, directed against combatants, not the civilian population. The Moral Law must be observed in all matters during the conduct of hostilities.

Unlike secular concepts of just war, the Catholic concept allows for pre-emptory actions, because the purpose of a just war, in Catholic teaching, is to restore the order of justice, and as soon as unjust men begin to prepare for war, a Catholic power can intervene to reduce them to submission, because it is never just that unjust men bear arms capable of harming others. Obviously, in such cases, prior unjust actions must have been perpetrated.

But just war theory in Catholic teaching requires a complete understanding of that in which justice consists, for it is easy to justify an action on the basis of a partial review of information, facts, motives or goals. For this reason, while non-Catholic nations are capable of engaging in just wars, they often fail to do so justly, because they ignore the teachings of Jesus Christ in principle and a priori, that is, before all other considerations are made.

For this reason, Catholic teaching would disagree fundamentally with many of the so-called Rules of Engagement used against terrorists. We can see this in the decision by Pope Sixtus V to put to death 5,000 individuals as brigands, who were found in the possession of arms, on Papal roads, after, inan extraordinary decree to suppress brigandage, he forbade under pain of death the bearing of arms on the road. His ban was only for a time, but during that time all who violated were arrested and executed as brigands. Thus, we can see from this example, that sufficient advance notice to all is sufficient grounds to regard those bearing arms in a war zone or terrorist zone, as combatants. An actual, live use of force is not the only rational basis to determine a threat.

Moreover, there can be just wars even by Catholic powers against Catholic powers, not because our Faith has nothing to do with war, but because being Catholic does not guarantee that you are just in all things. Likewise, there can be just wars by a Catholic power to a rebellious province or region, when that rebellion threatens the Catholic Faith or the stability of the state, and is not based on just cause but on brigandage and treachery.

Finally, I have written this essay for the edification of the faithful, not because I am either in favor or opposed to the use of arms, but simply because it is a topic upon which nearly no clergy speak, and in which so many clergy speak contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, or against the natural law.

____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a statue of Saint Louis IX, King of France and leader of the Seventh and Eighth Crusades, for the defense of Christendom against Muslims powers in Egypt and Tunisia which threatened Christians in the Holy Land and Christian maritime commerce and traffic in the Mediterranean.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

There is no moral obligation to observe Corona Control per se

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori is one of the Doctors of the Church. He was named such by Pope Pius IX on account of the excellence of his teaching on morality. In his writings nearly every possible situation in which one has to make a moral judgement is explained by the principles he so clearly taught from Scripture, Tradition, the teaching of the Saints and great theologians.

One question he dealt with is the case of whether one is obliged to observe a merely positive law.  A law is a norm which regulates behavior and which is promulgated by a legitimate authority. A positive law, is a law which emanates from a human authority and is in written form. A merely positive law is a positive law which has no fundament or basis in the Divine, moral, natural or evangelical law. Having no basis, here, means that it is not based on, nor incorporates, nor is derived from, nor applies any pre-existing law from God, from the Gospels, from the laws of nature or from the laws of morality, understood in the Catholic sense of the term, “morality”.

Take for example, the laws which regard the speed at which you can travel on the road with your automobile. These are merely positive laws. Likewise, consider the rule in a Public Library about returning a book within so many days. These are merely positivie laws.

Saint Alphonsus says that the observance of a merely positive law is based on our moral obligations to God and to our superiors and to others with whom we have bonds of fidelity or justice.

For example, in borrowing a book from a Library, while it is not a sin to keep it longer than the time permitted, it does breach fidelity with the authorities of the library, to whom we pledged to return the book. Likewise, the book is the property of the Library, and so we have a moral obligation to return it, not to keep it, because that would be theft, which is contrary to the Divine, moral, natural and evangelical law. So to neglect to return in on time is not a mortal sin, per se. But to neglect to return it for several years and then return it, would be a mortal sin against fidelity. It might also be a mortal sin of scandal, if one were a father of a family and by such gave  bad example to one’s children. But to return it late by a day may be no sin at all, if we simply forgot and were not otherwise negligent. And so, since the rules about returning books are merely positive law, whether it be sinful or not to return a book late is determined not by the rules themselves but by reference to these higher laws of God, the Gospels, morals and nature. — In this case, I assume you have not signed a contract with the library to observe its rules, because if you have, then it might be a mortal sin of injustice by breach of faith, to not observe them. It depends on the terms of the contract.

The laws regarding the speed at which it is permissible to travel on a highway are similar. It is not a sin per se to go 1, 5, 10, or even 100 miles per hour faster than the the speed limit, however, you have to understand what “per se” means, to understand rightly this principle.  “Per se” means considered by itself or through itself. In the present context, since the speed at which your automobile moves is not a moral act, whether it moves at 1 mph or 10,000 mph has nothing to do with sin, when we consider the velocity by itself or according to itself.

However, if we consider the speed of an automobile in respect of its physical proximity to other things, and the capacity of a driver to control the automobile at the given speed at which it is traveling, then we consider the speed no longer per se but inasmuch as it is the occasion or circumstance of a moral decision, which must always take into account the Divine, Evagelical, moral and natural laws.

In fact, laws about speeding are imposed for public safety, because when everyone knows what to expect from everyone else, then all can travel on the road in safe expectation of how the other automobiles will move on that road. This is a artificial harmony by consensus of free agents, where the legitimate authority establishes a velocity as a maximum or minimum for the utility and safety of all. And since automobile accidents can be and are frequently dangerous at high speeds, it is very reasonable and a proper exercise of jurisdiction that a legitimate authority exercise foresight and establish such rules.

So if the highway is deserted with no other cars at all on it, it is not a mortal sin to drive too slow or too fast, unless your ability to control your vehicle at that velocity on that road, in those weather conditions is impaired. And if it is impaired you should adjust your speed to reach a velocity where you can control your vehicle. Otherwise you are putting yourself, and any passengers, in mortal danger, and that is a mortal sin of imprudence and as regards passengers, of breach of faith.

But in the case of the Corona Control decrees in many nations, there are many difficulties. In many nations, these decrees are unlawful, since they are emanating from legitimate authorities which do not have constitutional or legal authority to issue such decrees or to issue such decrees which so contravene the natural rights of citizens to free movement and action and work.

If the decree is unlawful, there is no question of obligation in observing it. It must be considered by all, citizen and policeman, simply not to exist.

However, if the decree in some things is lawful and in other things is not lawful, then a citizen must consider whether it be based on truth. Because even a legitimate authority, which has the legal right to issue a decree, cannot morally obliged the citizen to its observance in those things which are not lawful.

Moreover, if the decree is not founded on truth, then it is not obliging in anything even if it is otherwise lawful.

And this appears to be the case with the Corona Control. Because, though many are SAID to be dying with Coronavirus, how many are actually dying FROM COVID-19 is not being accurately reported. And the authorities issuing unprecedented decrees to control the lives of citizens are showing NO concern that the numbers of those who die FROM Coronavirus be accurately reported. And that is sufficient grounds for the citizen to doubt the legitimacy of even lawful orders.

Furthermore, the statistics which have been published both in China and in Italy and all over the world, are in agreement, that COVID-19 is not as lethal as the winter flu is for the general population, even if it is more lethal than the winder flu for a very small segment of the population (compromised immune systems with existing pathologies).

The arguments that the CORONA CONTROL decrees must be or should be observed because a very small fraction of the whole population is put at risk by being infected by the whole population is simply irrational and cannot be sustained by any notion of justice. Because the risk to a very small part of the population cannot outweigh all the rights of the rest of the population to live. It is the question of the lives of a very few compared to the lives of everyone else, their livelihood, work, education, etc..

For this reason, since the CORONA CONTROL decrees are merely positive laws and lack a foundation in truth, justice, and common sense, there is no moral obligation whatsoever, from Christians or non-Christians that they be observed.

However, Saint Alphonsus does say, that inasmuch as merely positive laws may be enforced with heavy fines or severe penalties, then inasmuch as the person who is contemplating not observing them has some duty to care for others, he should restrain himself for their sake so that he can continue to care for them. This applies to parents and those who care for the sick, aged, infirm or needy. And this is why many priests are not risking their violation, because they want to provide the Sacraments after the Corona Control ends. — If it ever does.

This does not mean, however, that anyone should be careless about hygiene, especially in the presence of anyone who is at high risk from this infection. That is why, I say, there is no moral obligation to observe these CORONA CONTROL decrees per se, but there in specific cases may be an obligation to observe some aspects of them.

And this is why good mothers teach their children to blow their nose in a handkerchief or with a facial tissue, to wash their hands frequently, and to use bathrooms in a sanitary way, as well as, to stay home when sick. These instructions of our mothers or fathers, are sane rational practices to observe our duties of fidelity and charity to all around us.

Above, I have expounded the Catholic position. Compare it with the New World Order position, expounded here, without reference to God.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]