Skip to main content

Were Chesterton & Jefferson Modernists & okay with French Revolution genocide "in the name of the rights of man" & did ambiguous "rights language" bring us the Francis/McCarrick Crisis?

Exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger at 36:27 explains the problem with the ambiguous "'no one ever defines... fluid' term 'rights'":

36:27 The problem with the term "rights"
 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPy8GzTs87I]

Be the revolutionary Robespierre, Chesterton says, not the conservative Burke...

Jul 14, 2021 — Chesterton praised the leading revolutionary Robespierre, despite his being responsible for so much bloodshed. [https://catholicherald.co.uk/ch/happy-bastille-day-chesterton-says-be-robespierre/]

"Jacobin Terror... led to the deaths of thousands in the name of  the rights of man. Jefferson cooly argues that it is worth the price even if most were innocent victims. ... noncombatants... Jefferson says...  'Rather than [the French Revolution] should have failed I would have seen half the earth desolated. were there but an Adam & Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is.'" - Robert Kraynak (Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, page 24)

He alludes to the idea that rights are Godgiven; elsewhere, he would say that he did not believe so much in natural rights as he did “in supernatural rights (and Jefferson certainly states them as supernatural)"...

Chesterton... seems to use the word “nature” differently than would have the Scholastics: In that tradition, what was “natural” pertained to our status as rational creatures, while “supernatural” described that which came from grace. Yet Chesterton is using these in a more distinctly modern way, using “supernatural” to denote divine origins in contrast to “natural”. Chesterton is talking like a modern, not a medieval...

But before doing this, we ought to consider exactly what the Catholic teaching on the natural law and our natural rights truly is, so that we may speak precisely and fittingly about it. In Prima Secondae Partis of the Summa, q. 94, a. 2, St. Thomas identifies the “ends” of human nature based on our three natural inclinations: Self-preservation, propagation and reproduction, and—the one that he explicitly says comes from man’s nature as rational—the “natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society”. Society being therefore identified as proper to human nature, Aquinas elsewhere discusses the virtues which enable full human flourishing. The chief, or charioteer, of the natural or cardinal virtues is prudence: While speculative reason or wisdom has to do with understanding moral principles (Secunda Secundae Partis, q. 45, a. 1 and 3), prudence, or practical reason, applies right reason to action; like conscientia applying synderesis, though there is one eternal law which holds true in all situations, the specific application can vary from one circumstance to another. This is not relativism...

...When Burke expresses his skepticism of the idea of rights coming from nature as opposed to society and history, it is this Roussean [Chesterton] concept of nature, not the Catholic medieval one, that he is combatting. - St. Austin Review [https://staustinreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/StAR-July-August-2019_Fawcett.pdf]

Thomist scholar Taylor Marshall, in the best paragraph of his book "Infiltration," summarized what Vatican II semi-Modernist nouvelle theologians like 
Henri de Lubac did:
"They [nouvelle theologians] sought to make everything grace, and by doing so, they, in fact, reduced everything to the natural, so that the natural longings [human experiences] of every human became the means of salvation. Hence, all human nature itself is 'open' to attaining salvation. This means that liturgy should be less supernatural and that other religions are 'open' as means of salvation. This theology necessitates a new liturgy, a new ecumenism, and a new form of Catholicism. It is Freemasonic naturalism cloaked with quotations of the Church Fathers. The nouvelle theologie was a frontal attack on Thomas Aquinas." ("Infiltration," Page 135)

Most well informed Catholics don't realize that the semi-Modernist French "theologians" such as De Lubac and his French collaborators are linked to the French Revolution Jansenist heretics who engineered the Modernist tactic of pretending to be Catholic with ambitious Catholic sounding language which was ultimately semi-Calvinist and almost always in their countries gets transformed into secular Calvinistic Socialism/Marxism which eventually seems to lead to paganistic idolatry.

(Moreover, from France came Jean-Jacques Rousseau which is the basis for Immanuel Kant's philosophical complex anti-Thomist nonsense which brought us Hegel and others who begot Marxism and Nietzschean reaction that fathered the present day postmodernism with its LBGT offspring who hate to be reminded that German Nationalist Socialism called Nazism which brought us "deep ecology" is basically today's leftist globalist's Socialist climate change ideology of Francis.)

Featured Image

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas [https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/bishop-strickland-pope-francis-comments-on-all-religions-being-paths-to-god-are-heresy/]

Pope Leo's embryonic formulations of the dignity [and 'rights'] of the person were then developed in the twentieth century by many great theologians and church leaders-above all by jacques Maritain.. general project of building on Thomistic natural law, by adding features of modern philosophy derived from Kantianism, phenomenology...

... it took at least twelve centuries of canon law (according to Brian Tierney) or even eighteen centuries of natural law (according to Maritain) to see the Gospel inspiration for human rights...

... Tierney, in particular, notes this stubborn fact in his book, The Idea of Natural Rights, where he argues against a Thomistic scholar of the old school, Michael· Villey. According to Villey, Catholic natural law supports "objective right," but not "subjective rights" -the former being a standard of natural justice that inheres in the moral order of the universe (such as, the justice of the wise ruling over the unwise) and the latter being a power in the soul to choose freely or to claim dominion over property and immunity from the state. Tierney disputes villey by arguing that "subjective right" or "rights" (jus or jura) began to emerge in twelfth century canon law before Aquinas and Ockham, eventually leading to the natural rights of modern liberalism. But Tierney honestly admits that no one in the tradition quite saw his point...

... The difficulty that Tierney acknowledges is the stubborn resistance of Christian ethical concepts (such as charity, universal love, the inherent dignity of the individual in the eyes of God, or the Christian preference for the poor) to being reformulated as natural or human rights. It requires Tierney to "smoke it out," as it were, but his scholarly writings leave many readers (including me) with the impression of finding all smoke and no fire in the Catholic canon law and natural law traditions. Many of Tierney's citations from medieval canon law refer to powers in the human soul to do what is right according to natural law, which is more like a virtuous power than a natural right-a power to act properly rather than a subjective right to act freely. Other citations by Tierney refer to jus or jura as grants from higher authorities to act in accordance with divine law. 

Apparently, the Christian idea that everyone is worthy of love is not the same as the claim that everyone is worthy of rights. But where precisely is the sticking point that prevents Christian charity from leading to natural rights without the creative effort of scholars like Tierney to discover them in hindsight? In my judgment, the problem lies in the six weighty objections discussed above that indicate why the underlying beliefs of Christianity and Catholicism prevent one from arguing from charity to human dignity to human rights. Those six objections were: the priority of duties to God and neighbor over individual rights; the doctrine of original sin; the priority of the common good and man's social nature over the individual; the priority of perfecting the rational soul over letting people be free to express themselves; the selfishness implied in many rights claims; and the rejection of personal autonomy or natural freedom implicit in most notions of rights. To this list, I would add the observation that the Christian concept of human dignity applies primarily to man's relation to God-to the capacity for responding to God's law and God's love that animals and other creatures are not able to do and to the ability to become holy like the Holy God of the Bible. These attributes of human dignity are spiritual rather than political and do not automatically imply the freedom from external control, as well as the protections and entitlements, that we today call human rights. - ROBERT P. KRAYNAK [https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/ama/America/America101.pdf]

Italian prelate who played a notable role in the liberalization of the Vatican under Leo XIII. 

"Cardinal Rampolla was the origin even earlier (the Secretary of State of Leo XIII), as he was accused of occult membership when he was elected pope in 1903 and then vetoed. Rampolla was alleged to be a member of the occult sect, Ordo Templi Orientis, although the evidence is not conclusive.[10] Whatever the case, he had guided the moderate (and some might argue, Liberal and Masonic) policies of Pope Leo XIII." [https://onepeterfive.com/the-third-pornocracy-the-current-crisis-in-the-church/]

"Cardinal Rampolla assembled the ideas for the ['rights'] encyclical Rerum Novarum (“New Things”), issued by Leo in 1891" Britannica [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mariano-Rampolla]

"The Human rights ideology is at once universalist and relativist." Ralph C. Hancock (PhD Harvard) is a Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young (Natural Law and Human Rights, page XIX-XX)

Edward Feser
Really, this isn’t hard. When, on a matter of faith or morals, popes speak ex cathedra, or when they simply reiterate what has always been taught by the Church for millennia, they are infallible. When they make novel utterances in a non-ex cathedra context, they can err.
Quote

Views

Philosopher John Rist wrote that the apparently liberal Pope Leo XIII in a "major break...with earlier Church practice" of "virtues and vices" traditional language seemed to "almost single-handedly... [have] 'invented'... defence of rights" which was "hitherto largely secularist territory" (Infallibility, pages 50-51). 

Moreover, in Confusion in the West, Rist speaking of a founder of "rights" language in the Church, Bartholome de Las Casas, who went against tradition: "dating back to Augustine identified all virtues as modes of love [Charity], Las Casas ... made rights a matter of justice." (page 81) 

Might Pope Leo's "novel utterances in a non-ex cathedra context" on "rights" possibly be in "err" because he placed "rights" not in the domain of loving God first and then secondarily your neighbor as yourself apparently Leo may have placed "rights" outside of the "mode... of love" and virtue of "responsibility" to God and His created ordered universe as well as to His creation of humanity that is placed in His universe of order

Kirkus Reviews explains the problem with modern "rights language" which seems to have brought us wokeness in the world and the Church:

Harvard Law School professor Glendon argues eloquently and persuasively that modern American political discourse, by emphasizing an ever-expanding catalogue of rights to the exclusion of duties and responsibilities, has lost the central role in civic life envisioned for it by the Founding Fathers. Glendon shows that, in American society, both sides in political debates frame issues in terms of individual rights—flag- burning, domestic relations, and human reproduction, for example- -and that this tendency impedes understanding and compromise. Such stark formulations, she says, ultimately lead to coerced, and often unsatisfying, social arrangements. Glendon makes a compelling case that the American political lexicon lacks a vocabulary for expressing normative and moral concepts that individual Americans understand and value highly, and that the legal culture, with its single-minded emphasis on obtaining civil rights (as opposed to cultivating moral norms), has actually contributed, albeit unwittingly, to the debasement of American political and legal discourse. Glendon calls for the inclusion of the ``missing language of responsibility'' and the ``missing language of sociality'' in American political dialogue, and for an increasing emphasis on individuals' responsibilities to [God and] their communities. [https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/mary-ann-glendon/rights-talk/]

Also, scholars Michael D. Greaney and Dawn K. Brohawn say:

"Some even asserted that Leo XIII changed fundamental Catholic teaching due to their confusing the recommended social program with the mandatory social doctrine." [https://www.cesj.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/C-EconPersonalism_Web-NOblanks.pdf]

Might Pope Leo have started a problematic seemingly poorly defined "rights" language that may have helped bring about the ambiguous Vatican II that in part has lead to the current Francis crisis with his "rights" language instead of the traditional virtue language?

Pope Francis calls for end to anti-gay laws and LGBTQ+ ...

Jan 25, 2023 — Francis's comments, which were hailed by gay rights advocates as a milestone, are the first uttered by a pope about such laws.. 


Next, let's look at conservative pundit Tim Gordon explain the “weaponized ambiguity” of Vatican II:


This divergence between the two competing forms of Originalism proves especially relevant in the curious case of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), whose sacred constitutions threaten, in many progressive-sounding clauses, to contradict previous Catholic Tradition—which would rupture the Faith. Catholics who believe the Church was not vituperated by the revolutionary intent of Vatican Two’s leading periti became practical textualists in 1965 when the Council’s last constitution was ratified.

After all, the strong majority intent at the Council was, undeniably, radically progressive.  The story is well-known even to most non-Catholics. Many revolutionary Council fathers authored the VC2 constitutions with what Monsignor Charles Pope calls “weaponized ambiguity,” constitutional text designed to be radicalized retroactively, as theory turned to practice in the immediate post-conciliar period.

We’ve all watched this catastrophe play out over fifty years. As Edward Schillebeeckx said of his contingent’s tactic: “we knew at the time how we would later interpret the [vaguely written] documents.”

In other words, the sacred constitutions of VC2 prescribed a poison pill of technically sound doctrine to be subsequently fashioned into unsound, unCatholic praxis. The question for Catholics like Vermeule, Arkes, and myself is: does the “real” meaning of Vatican Two reduce to its documents’ intent, or to their ambiguously revolutionary yet (mostly) innocuous original public meaning? Only textualism can capably explain how regardless of the abiding intent of the Council, the result of the actual constitutional documents need not be harmful.

Sacred VC2 constitutions make us think about what a constitution is: a multi-author document expressing the sovereign will of multiple ratifiers at a convention—in this case covenantal agents of the people of God. But a constitution’s meaning is not the vector sum of its authors and ratifiers: its meaning is the binding public signification of its words, as originally ratified. If a constitutional term’s meaning popularly changes a decade after ratification, the ten-year-old meaning of the term remains what was ratified (until formally amended). Ratified meaning is time-stamped and time-sealed.

It is conceivable—as happened at the Second Vatican Council—that a faction of revolutionary authors and ratifiers could embed their revolution within the vaguest clauses of the constitutions as a killswitch to be flipped at a later date. Since the goal of these revolutionaries was heteropraxy and not heterodoxy, little did they care that the (original, public) meaning of their suggestive byplay remained to posterity orthodox, as long as it was received and practiced as the opposite of orthopraxy.

Their benighted progeny two generations later wish that they had articulated the revolution clearly rather than reifying a protection for traditionalists: live by innuendo, die by innuendo. Even an author does not govern the public meaning of his immortalized and ratified constitutional text if it militates against his intent.

Since the close of the Council in 1965, excluding those who welcomed the progressive interpretation, Catholics have divided into two interpretive groups.

The first group, the rupturists, conclude that no continuity exists between the periods before and after VC2. They unknowingly employ the intentionalist jurisprudence, based on the radically progressive intent of the Council’s authorial leftists. Even as they bemoan it, this group runs afoul of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church by announcing the end of a bimillennial doctrinal era and the beginning of a new one. They toil on in dimness and in doubt, believing more or less that the Council constitutions ruptured the One True Faith.

The second group of Catholics (to which I belong) interpreting VC2 concludes that, notwithstanding ostensible tension presented by the Council constitutions, a textualist “hermeneutic of continuity” can counter-weaponize the original, public meaning of even the most troubling, vaguely-penned clauses of the constitutions. “Look at the original, public meaning of the constitutions’ words,” we say, “not the (bad) intents of many of the authors and ratifiers.”

Non-textualists look at VC2 constitutions like Dignitatem HumanaeLumen Gentium, and Gaudium et Spes, and dejectedly conclude that Roman Catholic indefectibility has been forever broken.

A textualist view of the hermeneutic of continuity duly recognizes ostensible tensions between pre- and post-conciliar Church teaching, then dissolves or collapses that dichotomy by insisting that change cannot be made by mere innuendo: the original, public meaning of the sacred constitutions prevail.

The ruling on the football field (i.e., pre-conciliar tradition) stands unless sufficient evidence to overrule the call (i.e., explicit Conciliar text) has been clearly presented. Cases of opacity and uncertainty—such as unclear VC2 “updates”—must be “lined out” like an arguable challenge to a play-call that fails to meet sufficient evidence to overturn the standing call (i.e. tradition). [https://americanmind.org/salvo/catholicism-textualism-and-republicanism/]

Finally, former Pope Benedict XVI Vatican insider Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano who is living "in hiding due to his revelations concerning the McCarrick case gave a commentary on a  analysis written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider."

In this commentary, he explains that Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae brought into the Church the heresy of "pachamama could be adored in a church." He wrote:

"If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to [Vatican II's] Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms."
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/abp-vigano-on-the-roots-of-deviation-of-vatican-ii-and-how-francis-was-chosen-to-revolutionize-the-church]

Moreover, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae apparently brought into the Church sex abusing predators such as liberal ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and liberal as well as "conservative" bishops and possibly even popes who covered up for the predators:

It appears that Francis is the media's new Harvey Weinstein whom the media protected for years.

Francis's media enablers unveiled their red herring to distract from the fact that Francis, the new Weinstein, covered-up for sex abuse predator Theodore McCarrick.

 On December 06, 2019, the Associated Press headline showed who they expect to be the red herring to distract from the fact that Francis covered-up for McCarrick:

"Lawsuit: McCarrick victim told pope [John Paul II] of sex abuse in 1988"

Why is the media covering-up for Francis as they did for Weinstein and how is the conservative Catholic "post-Vatican II settlement" involved in the Francis and other cover-ups?

October 6, 2017, The New York Times article "Harvey Weinstein's Media Enablers" explains why the media protected and covered-up for predator Weinstein and attacked abused women who were whistleblowers.

But, more importantly, it explains why they, The New York Times, Reuter, Associated Press and others attacked whistleblower Archbishop Vigano as well as are protecting Francis who covered-up for a series of sex abusers and those who covered-up for them, the most famous examples being the Chile predator cover-up fiasco and now according to Vigano the ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick case.

The Times piece explains exactly why the media enables predators and those who cover-up for them as well as why it is now protecting Francis and attacking Vigano who blew the whistle on Francis's predator cover-up:

"Harvey Weinstein... was 'the worst-kept secret' in Hollywood and New York."

"The real story didn't surface until now because too many people in the intertwined news and entertainment industries had too much to gain from Mr. Weinstein. Across a run of more than 30 years."

"... But... trouble finally found Mr. Weinstein because he was no longer the rainmaker and hitmaker he had once been."

"... 'The industry is passionate about [liberal] causes, 'but when it comes down to doing business, they're definitely capable of holding their noses.'"

Francis will stop having his media enablers protect him when they realize that like Weinstein that he can no longer be the "hitmaker" for their liberal "causes" such as immigration and global warming.

The only difference between the media's cover-up of liberal Weinstein and their cover-up of liberal Francis and liberal McCarrick is that the ex-Cardinal and Francis pose to be holy men of the Church.

Unfortunately, it wasn't just the liberals such as Francis that enabled "men like McCarrick," but Vatican II conservatives who enabled "men like McCarrick." The ultimate "new springtime" of Vatican II conservative Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, 2018 in the Catholic Herald explained:

"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... 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."

The Amoris Laetitia-like liberal Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state is what brought about the "[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."

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

Francis's Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for Francis 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)

Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:

"That depends.  In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate.  Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics.  Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc.  Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith.  It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order.  The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society.  And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state could in principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good)."

"This was the teaching which Vatican II seemed to reverse, though the relevant document, Dignitatis Humanae, explicitly taught that it was “leav[ing] untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”  Yet whether the principles set out in Dignitatis Humanae really can be reconciled with the principles set out by the pre-Vatican II popes, how exactly they are to be reconciled if they can be, and which principles are more authoritative and ought to be retained if they cannot be reconciled -- these have all been matters of controversy.  They are controversies most Catholics, including conservative Catholics, have avoided.  The reason, it seems to me, is that the older teaching is extremely unpopular in modern times, and thus whatever its current doctrinal status, most Catholics are happy to let it remain a dead letter and leave its precise relationship to Dignitatis Humanae unsettled.  Yet a question unanswered and ignored is still a real question, and there are scholars who have in different ways attempted to apply to this one a “hermeneutic of continuity,” including Thomas StorckFr. Brian Harrison, and Thomas Pink."
(edwardfeser.blogspot, "Liberalism and Islam, January 7, 2016)

One knows a Vatican II document is a disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:

"The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church's worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself." [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]

Christopher Ferrara stated why Dignitatis Humanae brought about "[u]pholding 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":

"There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of "religious liberty"-----i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a "right" attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any "right" as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce[, homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them." [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]

Unfortunately, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching and not a disaster.

Apparently, Chaput teaches that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error or a culture of lies 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 [a culture of lies] over truth... freedom of conscience, is - along with the right to life - the most 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 [a culture of lies] 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 [a culture of lies] 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)

It appears that the "conservative" Chaput is using Dignitatis Humanae to build 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 [a culture of lies] over truth."Unfortunately, one of the main writers of Dignitatis Humanae was Pope John Paul II before he became pope. It appears that John Paul II when it came to the documented evidence of the sex abuse of a bishop taught that "error has no rights" in paper, but in reality error has rights if "persons... choose falsehood [culture of lies] over truth":

"In 1996, Kunz became a canon law adviser to the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), an Illinois-based group investigating the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests and bishops. Kunz was recommended to RCF by the Rev. John A. Hardon, SJ, a widely respected theologian and author who worked for several popes and had deep connections at the Vatican. The group was gathering information on Bishop Daniel L. Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill. Ryan was accused of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled man, soliciting sex from a 15-year-old boy, trolling area parks for teenage male prostitutes, and having sex with priests in his diocese. In sworn testimony to RCF investigators, one of the teen prostitutes said Ryan once heard his confession and blessed him, then told him, “go and sin no more.” Then the bishop winked at the teen and said, 'See you later.'”

"With help from Kunz and Father Fiore, RCF developed a dossier on the situation in the Springfield diocese. Father Hardon carried the report to Rome and presented it to Pope St. John Paul II, vouching for RCF and the accuracy of the document. Nothing was done with the explosive information. Hardon told RCF officials that at least a dozen American bishops supported Ryan in his quest to hold onto his bishopric in Springfield, according to RCF president and founder Stephen G. Brady. One of them was the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, then archbishop of Chicago, Brady said. When the group approached Bernardin for help in removing Ryan, he refused, Brady said. Ryan abruptly retired in October 1999, shortly before a lawsuit was filed accusing him of covering up the sexual abuse of a child by another Illinois priest. Sheriff Mahoney said Dane County investigators interviewed Ryan, but have no indication he is linked to the Kunz homicide. Ryan died in December 2015."

“Father Hardon told me to go to Kunz if I needed any contacts anywhere or needed direction in my investigations,” Brady told Catholic World Report. 'Father Kunz never discussed any other investigations with me except my own. He was tight lipped and you could trust him 100 percent. He had my files and answered any questions I had. He did work behind the scenes for me but kept it private.'”


"Brady said during the 14 years that RCF conducted its investigations, he received three death threats. One was serious enough to involve the FBI. An email circulated claiming a contract was out for Brady’s assassination. After Kunz was murdered, Brady bought a bulletproof vest." [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/08/the-unsolved-murder-of-fr-alfred-kunz/]

This is the end result of the "post-Vatican II settlement."

Sadly, almost all conservatives such as Chaput appeared to think that Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching that was a central document governing the Church after Vatican II which brought about the "post-Vatican II settlement."

As Schmitz  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 culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick [and those whom Fr. Kunz attempted to expose] to flourish... we must sweep it away."

The media enablers of Weinstein and Francis as well as the "post-Vatican II settlement" Catholic conservative enablers of the homosexual bishops network in the Church appear to still be ensnared in this culture of lies.

Please pray that the Church no longer allow popes, bishops or the Catholic media to enable the culture of lies.

Pray an Our Father now in reparation for the sins of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

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)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
 
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.
 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"I love Cardinal Burke, but I've run out of patience": A Vatican expert who has met Francis & wishes to remain anonymous gave The Catholic Monitor an impassioned statement for Cardinal Burke & the faithful bishops: End the Bergoglio Borgata

Catholic Conclave @cathconclave @Pontifex thanks journalists for practicing omertà. The mind boggles at the scale of the possible coverups that this has enabled. How does he think a use victims feel when hearing this statement Quote Damian Thompson @holysmoke · Jan 22 Incredible! Pope Francis lets the cat out of the bag, thanking Vatican correspondents for their "silence" and therefore helping him conceal the scandals of his pontificate. Take a bow, guys! 8:23 AM · Jan 22, 2024 · 345 Views The moral crisis and "doctrinal anarchy" as Vatican expert Edward Pentin and others have written about in the Church caused by Francis has reached the breaking point where all faithful Catholics must pray for and demand that Cardinal Raymond Burke and the faithful bishops issue the correction and investigate if Francis is a n invalidly elected anti-pope . That is the purpose of this post. A Vatican expert who has met Francis and wishes to remain anonymous gave The Catholic Monit

Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden"

  William Binney Binney at the Congress on Privacy & Surveillance (2013) of the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Born William Edward Binney September 1943 (age 77) Pennsylvania , U.S. Education Pennsylvania State University (B.S., 1970) Occupation Cryptanalyst-mathematician Employer National Security Agency (NSA) Known for Cryptography , SIGINT analysis, whistleblowing Awards Meritorious Civilian Service Award Joe A. Callaway Award for Civic Courage (2012) [1] Sam Adams Award (2015) [2] Signature [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_official) ] Former intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA) and whistleblower , William Edward Binney, whose occupation is cryptanalyst-mathematician explained that Joe Biden's "win" was impossible because "Biden Claims 13 MILLION More Votes Than There Were Eligible Voters Who Voted in 2020 Election" according to Gateway Pundit. Binney revealed "With 212Mil

Fr. Chad Ripperger's Breastplate of St. Patrick (Modified) & Binding Prayer ("In the Name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, and by the power of the Most Holy Catholic Church of Jesus, I render all spirits impotent...")

    Deliverance Prayers II  The Minor Exorcisms and Deliverance Prayers compiled by Fr Chad Ripperger: Breastplate of St. Patrick (Modified) I bind (myself, or N.) today to a strong virtue, an invocation of the Trinity. I believe in a Threeness, with a confession of an Oneness in the Creator of the Universe. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of Christ’s birth with his baptism, to the virtue of his crucifixion with his burial, to the virtue of his resurrection with his ascension, to the virtue of his coming to the Judgment of Doom. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of ranks of Cherubim, in obedience of Angels, in service of Archangels, in hope of resurrection for reward, in prayers of Patriarchs, in preaching of Apostles, in faiths of confessors, in innocence of Holy Virgins, in deeds of righteous men. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of Heaven, in light of Sun, in brightness of Snow, in splendor of Fire, in speed of lightning, in