Skip to main content

Vatican II, "Conservatives" like Chaput, McCarrick & Sodomy

The most unexpected statement in the pro-gay bishops network scandal has been when the ultimate middle-of-the-road conservative Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, in the Catholic Herald said:

"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a cuture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish... we must sweep it away."

Where did this post-Vatican II settlement of the culture of lies come from?

It appears to have come from the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state which was a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia in ambiguity.

Liberals and Sedevacantists said it was infallible and explicitly taught that error had rights.

Sedevacantists thought the gates of hell had prevailed and became a type of Catholic Protestant.

Liberals thought this "right" of error allowed them to dissent against infallible Catholic truths.

Traditionalists said it was a facade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually be corrected.

Francis's Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for the Pope agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.

Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae "is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but... pastoral practice." (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)

But, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought it was defined teaching.

Apparently, Chaput taught that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error has rights if "persons... choose falsehood over truth." The Archbishop wrote:

"Error has no rights, but persons do have rights - even when they choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience, is - along with the right to life - the most important important right any human being has." (First Things, "Of Human Dignity," March 18, 2015)

So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if "persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]... choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience"?

In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his "'longtime friend' Cardinal McCarrick" who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: "McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver." ("The Neo-Catholics," pages 154, 159)

What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?

Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?

Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]... choose falsehood over truth... freedom of conscience"?

On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in "Numerous 'gay' affirming parishes unopposed by bishops" reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he "expressed concern about the use of 'intrinsically disordered'" which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, "Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, "September 20, 2017)

The "conservative" Chaput is building a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if "persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood over truth."

As Schmitz said:

"Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish... we must sweep it away."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.





Comments

Tancred said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Harish Kumar said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk