Category Archives: Moral Theology

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″]