Bad Laws in the 1917 Code

Transcription

1 Bad Laws in the 1917 Code R. J. M. I. By The Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, The Grace of the God of the Holy Catholic Church, The Mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Good Counsel and Crusher of Heretics, The Protection of Saint Joseph, Patriarch of the Holy Family, The Intercession of Saint Michael the Archangel and the cooperation of Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi To Jesus through Mary Júdica me, Deus, et discérne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab hómine iníquo, et dolóso érue me Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

2 2

3 Woe to them that make wicked laws: and when they write, write injustice: (Isaias 10:1) Original version: 4/2002; Current version: 10/2008 Mary s Little Remnant 302 East Joffre St. TorC, NM Website: (Send for a free catalog) 3

4 4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS POPE BENEDICT XV PROMULGATED THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW... 7 THE CODE OF CANON LAW IS NOT INFALLIBLE... 7 CANON LAWS THAT DO NOT DEAL WITH FAITH OR MORALS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE... 7 CANON LAWS THAT DO DEAL WITH FAITH OR MORALS CAN BE ERRONEOUS... 9 EITHER THE PREVIOUS OR THE CURRENT CANON LAW IS A BAD LAW THE CASE OF THE CATECHUMEN AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE (C. 737, C. 1239) THE CASE OF BAPTIZING INFANTS IN THE WOMB (C. 746) LAWS THAT BLASPHEME GOD, CREATE SCANDAL, AND CAUSE SIN ATTENDING NON-CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS SERVICES (C. 1258) Canon 1258 blasphemes God and creates scandal Canon 1258 causes the blood of the martyrs to cry out against it Canon 1258 causes mortal sins of omission The great danger of denying the Salvation Dogma Canon 1228 endangers souls by active participation Canon 1258 is condemned by the ordinary magisterium Canon 1258 is unlawful and evil but not heretical Canon 1258 led to Vatican II s heretical ecumenical movement Canon 1258 incurs the wrath of God CATHOLIC CHILDREN ATTENDING CERTAIN NON-CATHOLIC SCHOOLS (C. 1374) Association with non-catholics causes Catholic children to lose their faith They will deny the Salvation Dogma Pre-1917 popes and antipopes condemn the bad law contained in Canon Apostate Antipope Pius IX Pope Leo XIII taken out of context to support the bad part of Canon Popes since the 1917 Code of Canon Law support the bad law Pope Benedict XV Pope Pius XI This bad law is not heretical Bad bishops needed this law to pervert children INFAMOUS ARE NO LONGER INFAMOUS These bad laws mock God and corrupt Catholics These bad laws are contrary to reason and idolize men Led to the same attitude towards heretics Denies the Catholic obligation to profess the faith Creates and perpetuates scandal Makes light of heresy and proves the Great Apostasy

6 6

7 Pope Benedict XV Promulgated the 1917 Code of Canon Law Catholic Encyclopedia, Supplement, Code of Canon Law: After the death of Pius X the completed work was ratified, approved, and sanctioned by His Holiness Pope Benedict XV, as announced by his Bull Providentissima Mater Ecclesia (27 May, 1917), which decreed that the prescriptions of the Code should have the force of law from Pentecost, 19 May, The work, which was published by the Vatican Press, opens with the Bull of promulgation, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia 1 Pope Benedict XV s Bull Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, May 27, 1917, was signed by his Secretary of State, Pedro Cardinal Gasparri. And Pope Benedict XV s Motu Proprio Commissio Instituitur Ad Codicis Canones, September 15, 1917, teaches who are the authentic interpreters of the Code of Canon Law. Both documents are in the preface of the original 1917 Code of Canon Law in Latin. The fact that future popes and their Holy Offices used the 1917 Code as the law of the Church also proves that the Code was officially promulgated by Pope Benedict XV and was and still is in force. The Code of Canon Law Is Not Infallible Canon laws in and of themselves are not infallible. Canon laws that do not deal with faith or morals are not infallible Canon laws that do not deal with faith or morals are not infallible, and these are known as disciplinary laws: The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, by Bishop Josef Fessler, Secretary to the Vatican Council, 1872: Utterances of Popes, either to individuals or to the whole Church, even in their solemn rescripts, made by virtue of their supreme power of jurisdiction, in issuing disciplinary laws, in judicial decrees and penal enactments, and in other acts of ecclesiastical government, are not dogmatic Papal definitions or infallible utterances ex cathedrâ. The Vatican Council of 1870 limits papal infallibility to doctrines on faith or morals: Vatican Council, 1870, Sess. IV, chap. 4, Definition of infallibility: We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Hence disciplinary laws promulgated by a pope are not infallible and thus can be bad, sinful, and harmful; and this would not cause the pope to lose his office. However, a pope does lose his office if he publicly teaches or practices heresy: 1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and 1 Catholic Encyclopedia, sup. i, vol. xvii, Code of Canon Law. 7

8 hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are:... (4) if he has publicly defected (fallen away) from the Catholic faith. Indeed, many saints and theologians teach that popes can make bad, sinful, and harmful disciplinary laws and thus be disobeyed and resisted in these matters: St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. ( ): Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. 2 Summa de Ecclesia, quoting St. Robert Bellarmine: Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. St. Catherine of Siena ( 1380): Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. 3 Sylvester Prieras, O.P., Theologian: He [the pope] would certainly be in sin, and it would be unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion, and likewise to obey him in matters which are evil; on the contrary, there is a duty to oppose him while administering a courteous rebuke. Thus, were he to wish to distribute the Church's wealth, or Peter's Patrimony among his own relatives; were he to wish to destroy the church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is so doing it is lawful to oppose him. It is clear from the preceding that, if the pope by his commands or by his actions is destroying the church, he may be resisted and the fulfillment of his commands prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates abuse of authority stems also from natural law. 4 Fr. Francisco de Victoria, O.P., ( 1546) Canonist and Theologian: According to natural law, violence may lawfully be opposed by violence. Now, through the acts permitted and the orders of the kind under discussion, the Pope does commit violence, because he is acting contrary to what is lawful. It therefore follows that it is lawful to oppose him publicly. Cajetan draws attention to the fact that this should not be interpreted as meaning that anybody whosoever can judge the Pope, or assume authority over him, but rather that it is lawful to defend oneself even against him. Every person, in fact, has the right to oppose an unjust action in order to prevent, if he is able, its being carried out, and thus he defends himself. 5 St. Cajetan ( 1547): It is imperative to resist a pope who is openly destroying the Church. 6 Francisco Suarez ( 1617): If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence. 7 (See my book The Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium: Error - Popes disciplinary decrees cannot be bad or harmful and Error - All the popes teachings are error free. ) 2 De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch Letter to Pope Gregory XI. 4 Dialogus de Potestate Papae. 5 Obras, pp De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio. 7 De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N

9 Canon laws that do deal with faith or morals can be erroneous Canon laws that do deal with faith or morals are also not infallible in and of themselves. They are only infallible if they concur with previous infallible papal decrees. The purpose of canon laws is not to make infallible definitions but to govern and regulate those who are subject to the Catholic Church and to penalize those who violate Her laws. One proof that canon laws that deal with faith or morals are not infallible is that past canon laws contradict current ones in matters of faith, such as how to treat a catechumen who dies unbaptized. The former law did not allow the Church to pray for his soul whereas the current law does. This is a very serious matter of the faith in which one law is correct and the other erroneous. Both cannot be correct! (See in this book Either the Previous or the Current Canon Law Is a Bad Law, p. 10.) This is just one proof that canon laws that deal with faith or morals are not infallible in and of themselves. Therefore, canon laws can contain doctrinal errors on faith or morals. There can be three kinds of errors: 1. The error can be an allowable opinion if it has not been condemned by the solemn or ordinary magisterium. 2. The error can be false but not heretical if it contradicts a doctrine that belongs to the ordinary but not the solemn magisterium. 3. The error can be heretical if it contradicts a dogma that hence belongs to the solemn magisterium. Regarding the first error, if a pope teaches an error regarding faith or morals that has not been condemned by the solemn or ordinary magisterium, he remains the pope. He does not sin and does not lose his office. Popes have taught erroneous doctrines regarding the faith that were not yet infallibly condemned in their day. (See my book A Public Heretic Cannot Be the Pope: Papal Errors.) Regarding the second error, if a pope teaches an error regarding faith or morals that has been condemned by the ordinary but not the solemn magisterium, he sins but his sin is not heresy and hence he does not lose the papal office. Regarding the third error, if a pope teaches an error regarding faith or morals that has been condemned by the solemn magisterium, his sin is heresy and he loses the papal office for publicly teaching heresy. If it can be proved that a pope who promulgated a heretical canon law knew about it and still promulgated it or knew about it after he promulgated it and approved it, then that apparent pope would then be known to be a public heretic who thus was automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church and automatically lost his office and hence was not the pope from the point that he publicly taught or practiced heresy. That is not to say the pope is not responsible for errors that he does not know about in the Code he promulgated, but his ignorance may lessen his culpability. Some of the ways a Catholic can know if a so-called pope approved of an error in a canon law he promulgated is to read his personal teachings as contained in his private works and in his official pontifical acts such as papal bulls, encyclicals, exhortations, letters, etc. (See my book Heresy and Heretics: Ways to know if an apparent offender believes in heresy.) 9

10 Either the Previous or the Current Canon Law Is a Bad Law The case of the catechumen and baptism of desire (c. 737, c. 1239) It is my opinion that Canon 737 teaches a doctrinal error regarding a matter of faith. It erroneously teaches that catechumens can be sanctified by baptism of desire: 1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 737. Baptism... the Sacrament which, if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired is given validly by ablution with truly natural water and the pronouncing of the prescribed form of words. It is my opinion that the sacrament of baptism, in which water must be used, must be actually received for a soul to be sanctified and thus in the way of salvation. Both opinions are allowed until a future pope settles this dispute. (See my book Baptism Controversy.) In a related matter, Canon 1239 teaches that dead unbaptized catechumens can now be buried in the Church and prayed for as faithful departed: 1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon Unbaptized persons may not receive ecclesiastical burial, with the exception of catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism, and therefore to be regarded as among those baptized. I believe this is another erroneous teaching regarding the faith. It also contradicts past laws which teach that dead unbaptized catechumens cannot be buried in the Catholic Church and prayed for as faithful departed: Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, 1913: IX NECESSITY OF BAPTISM: A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance Second Council of Braga, 6th century: Canon 17. Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism. 8 This was the constant teaching and practice of the Catholic Church before the 1917 Code of Canon Law contradicted it in Canon Now both laws deal with the same matter of faith, the fate and treatment of dead unbaptized catechumens, and one law contradicts the other. Hence one of the laws has to be erroneous and also harmful. If the previous law is erroneous, it would also be a very bad and harmful law because it deprived dead unbaptized catechumens in Purgatory of spiritual and physical relief from the Catholic Church on earth, which would be criminal and evil. If this previous law is erroneous, then from the birth of the Catholic Church until 1917 all the dead unbaptized catechumens that are in Purgatory would have been deprived of any direct assistance from the Catholic Church on earth to help expiate their venial sins and the punishment due to their sins, which, again, would be a harmful, criminal, and evil law. If the current law is erroneous, it is also a very bad and harmful law for giving Catholics the false impression that the sacrament of baptism is not absolutely necessary for catechumens to be sanctified and saved. And this would instill a false confidence in baptism of desire as a last resort instead of the sacrament of baptism, which is the only resort. Catholics would not be so inclined 8 Sacrorum Conciliorum, Mansi, vol. ix, p

11 to die if they must to baptize a catechumen with water if they believed that baptism of desire could take its place. And their lack of baptizing these catechumens with water would be the cause of these catechumens being damned to hell and all because of their false confidence in baptism of desire which led them to not risk their lives to baptize these catechumens! Hence if this law is erroneous, it would also be criminal, evil, and harmful to souls. We will read how the heretic and schismatic Bishop Lefebvre placed a false confidence in baptism of desire for one of his catechumens that was begging to receive the sacrament of baptism because Lefebvre was going away and would not return for some time: Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp : Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell. I told him, No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you... Now even if it is true that a catechumen can be baptized by desire, it is not actually the desire that sanctifies him but perfect contrition. (See my book Baptism Controversy: The Catechumen and Perfect Contrition.) And perfect contrition is not a common thing and hence one cannot depend upon it. One cannot presume that all catechumens will have it and hence will be baptized by desire if they die before receiving the sacrament. So Bishop Lefebvre s presumption regarding this catechumen is mortally sinful and leaves this catechumen at great risk of losing his soul for want of the grace of baptism that Lefebvre could have easily made available to him by baptizing him. Lefebvre, as well as those who believe like him regarding baptism of desire, makes a mockery of the sacrament of baptism and demotes it to some mere symbolic thing that is not really necessary or at most a mere initiation rite for those with the use of reason because he believes that every catechumen with the use of reason is already sanctified by desire before they receive the sacrament. These are just some of the many reasons that I do not believe the opinions of baptism of desire and blood are true. Instead, I believe in the opinion which teaches that the sacrament of baptism, in which water must be used, is absolutely necessary for everyone to be justified and hence in the way of salvation. (See my book Baptism Controversy.) The case of baptizing infants in the womb (c. 746) The 1917 Code of Canon Law allows for a practice that could be erroneous and later on condemned: 1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 746: An infant shall not be baptized while still enclosed in the mother s womb as long as there is probable hope that it can be baptized when born If the fetus was baptized in the mother s womb, it shall, when born, be baptized again conditionally. To baptize in the womb means to inject a syringe filled with water into the womb with the hope that the water from the syringe would touch the flesh of the fetus while the words of baptism are recited: A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law [hereafter PCC], Woywod and Smith, on Canon 746: The Church did not want to decide the disputed question whether a child can be validly baptized in the mother s womb, wherefore the Code gives a practical solution of the difficulty by insisting on conditional repetition of Baptism of an infant baptized in the mother s womb. Even if one admits that the child in the mother s womb can be considered as a homo viator, that is to say, as having a distinct body and soul, a human individual existing 11

12 in this world and only dependent on the mother as a necessary condition for the uterine stage of life, still in nearly every case the very fact whether the water of baptism properly touched the child does remain doubtful. 9 (v. 1, p. 375) Another dilemma is whether baptism is valid if the baptismal water touches only a limb of the infant: Canon 746. If the fetus was baptized in the mother s womb, it shall, when born, be baptized again conditionally... Should any other limb emerge, the infant may be baptized on that limb conditionally, if the danger of death is imminent, but if the infant is born alive it must be baptized again conditionally. PCC, on c. 746, v. 1, p. 375: Another doubtful baptism remains unsolved in the Code, namely, whether Baptism conferred on any part of the human body other than the head is a valid Baptism. Theologians disagree whether baptism conferred by the pouring of water on a hand or foot, arm or leg, is a valid baptism. 10 Canon 746, then, put forth opinions that have not been dogmatically defined and are still open to legitimate debate. That means this canon law will be declared by a future pope to be erroneous one way or the other. For instance, if a future pope infallibly defines that valid baptism occurs when the baptismal water touches only a limb, then Canon 746 is in error for teaching that those who have been baptized as such may not have been validly baptized and hence should be conditionally baptized. And if a future pope infallibly defines that baptism does not occur if the baptismal water touches only a limb, then Canon 746 is in error for allowing these baptisms to take place as if they could be valid. In this we learn two things: the purpose of canon law is not to make infallible definitions, and canon laws can be erroneous regarding doctrines of faith or morals. Laws That Blaspheme God, Create Scandal, and Cause Sin The 1917 Code of Canon Law contains bad laws that blaspheme God, create scandal, and cause others to sin. Because none of these bad laws are heretical, the popes were not heretics for supporting and defending them and hence did not lose the papal office. However, they sinned mortally, led numerous souls into hell, and promoted the Great Apostasy. God curses all the popes who promulgate and defend bad laws, as well as all the bishops, priests, and laymen who defend and utilize these bad laws. To those who deny or doubt that a pope can be wicked and evil and still be the pope, I present the following infallible evidence: Council of Constance: Condemned proposition # 20. If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then, as Judas the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it! Therefore, popes can be as evil as the devil himself and still be the pope, which was the case with almost all of the popes since the Protestant revolts of the 16th century. 9 A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law [hereafter PCC], Woywod and Smith, By Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., LL.B., revised by Rev. Callistus Smith, O.F.M., J.C.L., Nihil Obstat: Fr. Felician Berkery, O.F.M., Imprimi Potent: Fr. Thomas Plassmann, O.F.M., Minister Provincialis, Nihil Obstat: John Goodwine, J.C.D., Censor Librorum, Imprimatur + Francis Cardinal Spellman, D.D. Archbishop of New York, Nov. 14, Benedict XIV, De Synodo Diecesana, lib. VII, c. 5, nn. 7-10; St. Thomas, Summa, P. III, t. III, q. 68, art

13 A pope loses his office if he publicly defects from the Catholic faith, if he publicly teaches or practices heresy. (See my book A Public Heretic Cannot Be the Pope: An Immoral Pope Versus a Pope Who Becomes a Heretic.) Attending non-catholic religious services (c. 1258) The second part of Canon 1258 is an evil law because it allows Catholics to passively attend services at non-catholic churches, meaning they do not participate in the services in any way: 1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-catholics. At funerals of non-catholics, at their marriages, and similar solemnities, provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal, passive or merely material presence on account of a civil office or for the purpose of showing respect to a person 11 may be tolerated for a grave reason This is an evil law because it denies a doctrine that belongs to the ordinary magisterium, blasphemes God, creates scandal, and causes men to commit mortal sins. Hence any pope or anyone else who supports and defends this evil law commits all of these mortal sins. It is a dogma of the solemn magisterium that Catholics are forbidden to actively attend services in non-catholic churches, which means participating in the services in some way. And it is a doctrine of the ordinary magisterium that Catholics are forbidden to even passively attend services in non-catholic churches, which means being present but not participating in the services in any way. Hence Canon Law 1258, which teaches Catholics are allowed to passively attend non-catholic services, is a mortally sinful law for violating a doctrine that belongs to the ordinary magisterium, as well as for the other mortal sins mentioned above. The original commentary from the Douay Bible in 1619 presents the teaching of the Catholic Church that forbids Catholics to even be present in non-catholic churches during their services and sermons: Original Douay commentary on Dan. 3:6: (b) Now in England personal presence at heretical service or sermon is a distinctive sign of conformity to the protestants pretended religion; because such presence is there exacted for this purpose. And in 1859 the Catholic commentary repeats these magisterial teachings: Catholic commentary on Dan. 3: Ver. 5. Offering incense [was] sometimes considered as marks of idolatry; so being present at the sermons and churches of Protestants was a sign of joining in their communion, being required for that purpose. And in 1875, just 42 years before the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Apostate Antipope Pius IX 12 condemns anyone who would dare teach that Catholics are allowed for any reason to attend religious services conducted by non-catholics: Apostate Antipope Pius IX, Graves Ac Diuturnae, 1875: 4. We think it is Our duty to repeat this public declaration now and to request you to preserve the unity of faith among your faithful by every possible means You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. They should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and 11 RJMI Comment: Here we see a motive for this unvigilant law, respect of person. Human respect over the respect of God is a sin of idolatry and a sign of lack of love and faith in God. 12 Pius IX lost the papal office in See RJMI article Pius IX Denied the Salvation Dogma and Lost His Office. (Added in October 2012) 13

14 apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice. Now either Pius IX is correct on this topic, which happens to be in conformity with all of the popes and Church Fathers that came before him, or Pope Benedict XV, who promulgated the 1917 Code, and all the popes after him who accepted the Code are correct. Catholics must choose between these contradictory papal teachings but they cannot choose both. Hence they must reject one or the other of these papal teachings. And if they reject the former and accept the latter, then they deny a doctrine of the ordinary magisterium and commit several other mortal sins. Canon 1258 blasphemes God and creates scandal This bad law places false gods and false religions on equal footing with the Catholic God and Catholic religion and hence blasphemes the one true God, the Catholic God, and His one true religion, the Catholic religion. This applies not only to those who actively participate in non- Catholic religious services but also to Catholics who passively attend non-catholic religious services because both active and passive presence blasphemes the Catholic God, not just in the eyes of others, but also in their own eyes by their mere voluntary presence. During the whole Old Testament era and from the very birth of the Catholic Church until 1917, God, speaking through His Church, commands His chosen people to avoid any kind of religious fellowship or association with false gods and false religions, even by appearance only: Beware thou never join in friendship with the inhabitants of that land, which may be thy ruin: But destroy their altars, break their statues, and cut down their groves: Adore not any strange god. The Lord his name is Jealous, he is a jealous God. Make no covenant with the men of those countries lest, when they have committed fornication with their gods, and have adored their idols, some one call thee to eat of the things sacrificed. (Ex. 34:12-15) Instead of respecting false religions by being present during their religious services, King David expresses his hatred of all false gods and false religions and proves it by proclaiming that he would not dare so much as sit with unbelievers during their religious services and hence respect them and pretend to be part of them: I have not sat with the council of vanity: neither will I go in with the doers of unjust things. I have hated the assembly of the malignant; and with the wicked I will not sit. (Ps. 25:4-5) And St. Paul teaches the same: Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing. (2 Cor. 6:14-17) Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. And 14

15 have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph. 5:5-11) From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves. (1 Thes. 5:22) All false gods and false religions are works of darkness. Instead of having no fellowship with and reproving the works of darkness, Canon 1258 allows Catholics to attend religious services in which false gods are worshiped and false religions practiced and hence to have a degree of fellowship with the works of darkness. In God s eyes those who place themselves in a position in which it makes them appear to be worshipping a false god or practicing a false religion indeed have fellowship with the works of darkness. This was the case with the lapsed Christians who fell outside the Catholic Church for even appearing to worship idols. 13 Speaking to Catholics, St. Paul says, From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves. (1 Thes. 5:22) Hence the injunction to have no fellowship with the works of darkness, with false gods and false religions, applies to those who even appear to have fellowship with the works of darkness. Therefore Catholics are forbidden to do anything that would even make it appear as if they have fellowship with the works of darkness. Both active and passive presence of so-called Catholics at non-catholic religious services give the appearance to others that the false religion and its false god are equal to or at least acceptable to the Catholic God and Catholic religion, and that is blasphemy on both counts. What a man does speaks more about the man than what he says or professes to believe in. And people are more inclined to imitate what other people do than what they say or profess to believe in hence the great evil of scandal because it blasphemes God, causes men to sin, and confirms other men in their sins. That is why Jesus scathingly denounces all who create scandal, and especially those who scandalize children: And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. (Mk. 9:41) Speaking for Jesus, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the obligation to prevent and not cause scandal proceeds from the natural divine law and the positive divine law: Comparative Study of Crime and Its Imputability in Ecclesiastical Criminal Law, and American Civil Law, Rev. John McGrath, 1957: All types of active religious communication with non-catholics are gravely illicit. Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil for a) if the worship is non-catholic in form (as in the Mohammedan ablutions, or in the eating of the Jewish paschal lamb), it expresses a belief in a false creed symbolized in the ceremony, and b) if the worship is Catholic in form but is undertaken under the auspices of a non-catholic body (as in the celebration of Mass by a schismatic priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church. [Footnote 12: McHugh-Callan, Moral Theology, I, p. 376, n. 964.] The obligation to avoid exposing oneself to the danger of perversion and to prevent giving scandal to others proceeds from the natural divine law. The positive divine law on the other hand forbids one to perform such an action which would be tantamount to at least an external denial of faith and a quasi-profession of a false sect. This prohibition is expressed in the words of our Lord: He that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. [Footnote 13: Matthew, X, 33; Cocchi, Commentarium, V, n. 93, p. 179.] Hence any communication with non-catholics which involves a danger of perversion or offers an occasion of scandal remains inherently illicit in consequence of the unchanging divine law, which cannot but disapprove of all voluntary risks for one s own true faith and of all direct occasioning of scandal for others See my book A Public Heretic Cannot Be the Pope: Spirit of Martyrdom: Want of freedom and grave fear. 14 Comparative Study of Crime and Its Imputability in Ecclesiastical Criminal Law, and American Civil Law, A Dissertation, Rev. John J. McGrath, A.B., LL.B., J.C.L., Imprimatur: + John King Mussio, J.C.D., Episocpus 15

16 The exact same scandal is created when a so-called Catholic actively or passively attends a non-catholic religious service. The mortally sinful scandal produces the same effect on others who witness and know about his presence. A Catholic s mere presence at a non-catholic religious service gives a false hope of salvation for those who are outside the Catholic Church by giving the appearance to the non-catholics that their false religion is a true religion and hence acceptable to God. The non-catholics perceive that the Catholic is praying in communion with them and positively see the Catholic respecting their false religious service. If it is a funeral service of a non-catholic, it would lend itself to the appearance that the Catholic is praying for the dead non-catholic which is forbidden to Catholics and would allow the non-catholics to believe they can live and die in their false religion (outside the Catholic Church) and be saved. A Catholic s duty is to condemn all false religions reprove the works of darkness and not give the least appearance of acceptance of them: From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves. (1 Thess. 5:22) Woe to those who scandalize others, even by the appearance of evil! Canon 1258 causes the blood of the martyrs to cry out against it The blood of the martyrs cries out against Canon 1258 for allowing the very thing they fought against and resisted unto death. To uphold the honor of the Catholic God and Catholic religion and to avoid scandal and falling into mortal sin, they fought against all false gods and false religions by condemning all of them and by not giving others even the appearance that false gods and false religions are acceptable or respectable. Far from respecting false gods and false religions even by appearance only, the martyrs condemned these evil things and in so doing did what all Catholics are obliged to do in order to uphold the honor of the Catholic God and Catholic religion and to not commit mortal sin. Eleazar, a very faithful Jew, knew that both doing evil and giving the appearance of evil merits the same condemnation from God and creates the same scandal in which the true God is blasphemed and souls are led astray. At the cost of his life, he refused to even appear to practice a false religion and worship its false god because he would offend the true God and because he would lead the men of Israel astray, who would follow his evil example: Eleazar one of the chief of the scribes, a man advanced in years, and of a comely countenance, was pressed to open his mouth to eat swine's flesh. But he, choosing rather a most glorious death than a hateful life, went forward voluntarily to the torment. And considering in what manner he was come to it, patiently bearing, he determined not to do any unlawful things for the love of life. But they that stood by, being moved with wicked pity, for the old friendship they had with the man, taking him aside, desired that flesh might be brought, which it was lawful for him to eat, that he might make as if he had eaten, as the king had commanded of the flesh of the sacrifice: That by so doing he might be delivered from death: and for the sake of their old friendship with the man they did him this courtesy. But he began to consider the dignity of his age, and his ancient years, and the inbred honour of his grey head, and his good life and conversation from a child: and he answered without delay, according to the ordinances of the holy law made by God, saying, that he would rather be sent into the other world. For it doth not become our age, said he, to dissemble: whereby many young persons might think that Eleazar, at the age of fourscore and ten years, was gone over to the life of the heathens: And so they, through my dissimulation, and for a little time of a corruptible life, should be deceived, and hereby I should bring a stain and a curse upon my old age. For though, for the present time, I should be delivered from the punishments of men, yet should I not escape the hand of the Almighty neither alive nor dead. Wherefore by Steubenvicensis, oct. 10, 1957, Catholic University of America Canon Law Series, Catholic University Press 1957, pp

17 departing manfully out of this life, I shall shew myself worthy of my old age: And I shall leave an example of fortitude to young men, if with a ready mind and constancy I suffer an honourable death, for the most venerable and most holy laws. And having spoken thus, he was forthwith carried to execution. And they that led him, and had been a little before more mild, were changed to wrath for the words he had spoken, which they thought were uttered out of arrogancy. But when he was now ready to die with the stripes, he groaned, and said: O Lord, who hast the holy knowledge, thou knowest manifestly that whereas I might be delivered from death, I suffer grevious pains in body: but in soul am well content to suffer these things because I fear thee. Thus did this man die, leaving not only to young men, but also to the whole nation, the memory of his death for an example of virtue and fortitude. (2 Mac. 6:18-31) Oh, and what a great blasphemy and scandal so-called Catholics cause when they attend non-catholic religious services for the sake of a temporal gain, for the sake of not falling under the wrath of non-catholics, for the sake of being loved or respected by non-catholics. In so doing they incur the wrath of God and by their scandal murder their souls and the souls of others, especially young Catholics. For the sake of temporal gain or peace, these so-called Catholics pretend to believe in false gods and false religions while positively respecting them by their mere voluntary presence at non-catholic religious services. How contrary this is to the spirit of martyrdom, to the blood of the martyrs who would rather be tortured and die than even appear to worship a false god or practice a false religion: Catholic commentary on Lk. 17:2: We [Catholics] must be ready to undergo the most excruciating torments, rather than cause any scandal to our neighbour. The second part of Canon 1258 is an evil law that places men and temporal life, comforts, and peace over God and spiritual life, comforts, and peace. It teaches Catholics that they can attend non-catholic religious services so as to not offend non-catholics and hence not be persecuted or martyred by them. And in so doing, they offend God and bring death to their souls and the souls of others. Canon 1258 was a major step in killing the spirit of martyrdom that all Catholics need in order to save their souls. Even though not all Catholics will die as martyrs, all Catholics must be willing to die as martyrs. They must all have the spirit of martyrdom or they will eventually deny the faith. Canon 1258 causes mortal sins of omission A Catholic who passively attends non-catholic religious services places himself in the occasion of sin in which it is impossible for him not to commit mortal sins. He commits mortal sins for blasphemy and scandal, as already stated. But he also commits mortal sins of omission for not professing the Catholic faith to and admonishing the non-catholics whose religious service he is attending. Instead of professing the Catholic faith to and admonishing the non- Catholics by condemning their false god and false religion and denouncing them and calling them to conversion, he remains silent. His silence in this regard causes him to sin by omission and thus share in the mortal guilt of these non-catholics, whose mortal guilt consists of sins against the Catholic faith for worshipping a false god, professing a false faith, and practicing a false religion. If a Catholic who attempted to passively attend a non-catholic religious service fulfilled his obligation to profess the Catholic faith and admonish sinners as he must and as he should so as not to sin by omission, he would not be allowed to attend the non-catholic religious service and hence would be kicked out. The mere fact that non-catholics allow a Catholic to attend their 17

18 non-catholic religious service is proof that the Catholic has not fulfilled his obligation to profess the faith and admonish sinners and hence has committed mortal sins of omission: 1917 Code of Canon Law: Obligation to Profess the Faith - The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor. Catechism Question: In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another s sin? Answer: We may either cause or share the guilt of another s sin in nine ways: 6. By concealment, 7. By being a partner in the sin, 8. By silence Pope St. Felix III ( ): Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them. Pope Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892: An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity. All non-catholic religious services are crimes against the true God, the Catholic God, to the highest degree! The great danger of denying the Salvation Dogma Because of a Catholic s friendly association with non-catholics during their non-catholic religious service, the Catholic will be greatly tempted to deny the Salvation Dogma and God s grace will not be there to help him because he voluntarily placed himself in the occasion of sin where it is impossible not to commit mortal sins. God will allow the Catholic to be seduced by the non-catholics and their non-catholic religious service. The Catholic will develop sympathy and a liking or, in the very least, respect for the non-catholics and their false gods and false religions and hence will not want to believe they are on the road to hell. And the very instant the Catholic believes this, he is no longer Catholic. He is an automatically excommunicated heretic for denying the Salvation Dogma. And even before the Catholic believes that non-catholics are not on the road to hell, he can be compelled to deny the Salvation Dogma if confronted by non-catholics when entering the non-catholic church or during the service or when leaving the church. For instance, a Catholic who passively attends a non-catholic funeral service of a Protestant friend whom he worked with for many years can easily be compelled to deny the Salvation Dogma. After attending the non- Catholic funeral and upon leaving the non-catholic church, the Catholic meets the Protestant spouse of the deceased and the spouse says to the Catholic, Oh, my husband Luther was such a good man. If he is not in heaven, then I don t know who is. Now the Catholic is faced with a dilemma. He can give only one answer if he does not want to deny the Salvation Dogma and mortally sin against the faith. He must tell the wife that Luther cannot be in heaven because he died as a non-catholic, because he professed belief in a false Church, false faith, and false religion. The wife would then say, Then why did you come into this church and attend his funeral if you believe our church is a false church and our religion is a false religion and our funeral rite is empty, graceless, and false? Why did you even come into this church? You are a hypocrite and deceiver! You see, dear reader, it would be very difficult for the Catholic to avoid denying the Salvation Dogma by telling the truth because by his own free will he entered the non-catholic church and attended the non-catholic funeral. God does not give the grace to such a man to withstand the temptation of denying the faith because he, of his own free will, attended the non-catholic service; and therefore he would deny the Salvation Dogma either by a sin of 18

19 omission for saying nothing to the Protestant spouse or by a sin of commission for agreeing with the Protestant spouse that her husband is in heaven or could be in heaven. What a powerful testimony it would be if a Catholic politician refused, as he must in order to not commit mortal sin, to attend the non-catholic funeral service of a non-catholic politician whom he worked with. And when asked why he would not attend the funeral answered, as he must according to his obligation to profess the faith and admonish sinners, Because I am not allowed to attend the religious services of false religions nor can I pray for him because he died as a non-catholic and as such he cannot be saved. In this one statement the Catholic politician fulfilled his obligation to profess the Catholic faith and admonish the sinner by making it absolutely clear that non- Catholic religions are false religions and that those who die worshipping false gods and practicing false religions are damned to hell. If he allows any other perception, he sins against the Catholic faith and places himself in mortal sin. And if he verbally states that the non-catholic religion is a true or a respectable religion or that the dead Protestant politician could be in heaven, then it would be manifest to all that heard him that he is an excommunicated heretic who hence is not Catholic. A Catholic politician s primary concern must be the Catholic faith if he wants to save his soul. He cannot separate his faith from his job or he would be separating himself from Christ the King in favor of mere men. Canon 1228 endangers souls by active participation A Catholic who passively attends non-catholic religious services commits several mortal sins, as stated above. And he also places himself in danger of actively participating in the non- Catholic religious services. For example, due to peer pressure and human sentiments and sympathy, the so-called Catholic may end up participating in the non-catholic service before realizing it. Or he may be carried away by a sermon or prayer or hymn and respond, even if to himself, with an Amen or by singing the hymn, even if to himself, along with the non- Catholics. And by these acts alone he sins against the faith for knowingly praying in communion and singing hymns with non-catholics: Council of Carthage: One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman, let him be excommunicated. And, as already stated in this chapter, a Catholic must not even give the appearance that he is doing these sinful things, which he does by his mere presence at non-catholic religious services. Canon 1258 is condemned by the ordinary magisterium An annotation from the original Rheims New Testament of 1582 teaches that a Catholic s mere presence at a non-catholic religious service is a damnable sin, a mortal sin: Original Rheims New Testament, 1582, Annotation on 2 John 1:10: 10. Receive him not.] Though in such times and places where the community or most part be infected, necessity often forceth the faithful to converse with such in worldly affairs, to salute them, to eat and speak with them, and the Church by decree of Council, for the more quietness of timorous consciences provideth, that they incur not excommunication or other censures for communicating in worldly affairs with any in this kind, except they be by name excommunicated or declared to be Heretics: yet even in worldly conversation and secular acts of our life, we must avoid them as much as we may, because their familiarity is many ways contagious and noisome to good men, namely to the simple: but in matter of religion, in 19