14 Ottobre 2021 Pubblicato da Marco Tosatti

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, Big Shot offers his comments on the acrobatics, contortions, and flips made by the ecclesiastical friends of Biden, Pelosi, and the self-styled “Catholic” Democrats who support the killing in the womb of the mother up to shortly before birth (Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world, is among their donors). We are talking about Americans, but such politicians are not lacking here among us [in Italy]…all Catholics and all adults. They made it, all the way to becoming adults, because at the time they were born there were no pro-choice Catholics. Enjoy your reading.

§§§

Dear Tosatti, I received a copy of this letter (attached below) that Jeff Mirus, President of Trinity Communications, the non-profit organization that oversees Catholic Culture, a pillar for the defense of the Catholic faith, has addressed to you, an article written by Phil Lawler.

Jeff titles the letter “Servant or Sycophant?” in reference to Bergoglio’s latest feat: with great courage and contempt for any Pharisaical criticism from the sinister traditionalists, he gave an audience to Nancy Pelosi.

And he did so just as Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco not only publicly reproved Pelosi (a self-styled practicing Catholic) for her support of abortion, but also called for prayer and fasting for her conversion.

“Servant or Sycophant?” The term “Servant” is understood easily enough. “Sycophant,” from the Greek, in this case could be understood as a “hired man who distorts the truth” out of opportunism.

The matter deserves a proportionate comment, both regarding the news as well as doctrine.

First, the news. Nancy Pelosi is a sprightly 81-year-old Italian-American, the spokeswoman for the Democrats in Congress; she is the one who succeeded in having the impeachment of Donald Trump approved. She is the US leader of the “pro-choice” movement and of state funding of pro-abortion organizations.

She is obviously a radical environmentalist, pro-immigration, pro-embryonic stem cell research, against private schools, etc. She has the perfect resume to be appreciated by Bergoglio.

Sabino Paciolla reminds us in an article that in a few weeks the American bishops will meet to discuss “Eucharistic Coherence,” that is, the decision on whether to give Communion to self-styled “pro-abortion Catholics (Pelosi, Biden, etc.)

The true reason for Nancy’s visit to Bergoglio is precisely this: to convince Bergoglio to convince himself that abortion is not a sin – on the contrary! – and that it is possible to be a pro-abortion Catholic and receive Communion. Just as Chelsea Clinton declared when she came to Rome at the invitation of Cardinal Ravasi (for the “Mind, Soul, Body” conference earlier this year).

Next, the theological principles. Nancy recently declared that “God gave us free will to decide whether to have an abortion.”

Let’s ignore for a moment the discounted value of the life of the aborted creature, and let’s give a recap of what free will is for the “Jesuits” and former Jesuit alumni, who even for the Lutherans were Machiavelli’s stepchildren!

In his Provincial Letters, Pascal denounces the Jesuits precisely for their position on free will and their duplicity on the “doctrine of intention.”

In fact, according to Jesuit moral theology, behavioral ethics depends on intentions, not on actions and consequences. The most concrete example on which the readers of Stilum Curiae may reflect refers to the sexual disorder of priests.

According to this principle of moral theology, if a priest is homosexual and he does not sublimate his tendency but fornicates, so long as he does not do it with the intention of offending God, he does not sin. Is that clear? Is everything clear to you with this consideration? Now do you understand why Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is wrong and Cardinal McCarrick should be acquitted? At least in the present situation this is how it is…

Returning to the papal audience given to Nancy Pelosi. It is therefore evident that if you have an abortion in order to avoid psycho-social suffering, but not with the intention of offending God, it is not a sin, by Jove!

Not only is McCarrick right, but also Pelosi and Clinton. Whenever there is a need due to a scruple of conscience, one can always find a Jesuit in this category (not all Jesuits, let’s be clear!) who will certainly absolve from the scruple, invoking free will according to the doctrine of right intention.

Conclusion. In this pontificate it has become impossible to distinguish between what is good and what is evil. At the most, you can guess the difference between different evils and choose the lesser evil (which is still evil).

This is due to an inability to understand the consequences of evil and to understand that an apparently good end can never justify the use of an evil means. We “sinister Thomist and Aristotelian traditionalists” still affirm the ethic of personal responsibility, rather than the ethics of “good intentions.” But I don’t think that I have to convince the readers of SC on this point (apart from some certainly)…

§§§

Condividi i miei articoli:

Tag: big shot, pelosi, pezzo grosso

Categoria: Pezzo Grosso