The name Father Tissa Balasuriya was brought to mind in the past week. He was a “liberation theologian” from Sri Lanka, an Oblate of Mary Immaculate, excommunicated for a while because of his many and disgusting heresies regarding our Blessed Mother. He died in early 2013, a week or so after Pope Benedict XVI did what he did (whatever it is that he did). It was Cardinal Ratzinger who had published the excommunication so many years earlier (1997). Here’s an excerpt:
“A fundamental aspect of the thought of Father Balasuriya is the denial of the dogma of original sin, held by him to be simply a product of the theological thought of the West (cf. pp. 66-78). This contradicts the nature of this dogma and its intrinsic connection to revealed truth. The author, in fact, does not hold that the meaning of dogmatic formulas remains always true and unchangeable, though capable of being expressed more clearly and better understood. [In contrast, I was able to demonstrate the “mechanism” (well, God’s justice precisely in view of how He created us), regarding the transmission of original sin not by imitation but by propagation, showing the inescapable logic of this from the Hebrew text, a first as far as I can tell after a quite exhaustive examination of millennia of commentary on the matter.]
“On the basis of these positions, the author arrives at the point of denying, in particular, the marian dogmas. Mary’s divine motherhood, her Immaculate Conception and virginity, as well as her bodily Assumption into heaven, are not recognized as truths belonging to the Word of God (cf. pp. 47, 106, 139, 152, 191). [In contrast, in my own work, I demonstrated how all these dogmas are necessary upon the examination of the text of the Sacred Scriptures, again, a first as far as I know in the history of Judeo-Catholicism.] Wanting to present a vision of Mary free from «theological elaborations, which are derived from a particular interpretation of one sentence or other of the scriptures» (p. 150) [In contrast, I demonstrated how Genesis 2:4a–3:24 is a tightly scripted equation, a syllogism], Father Balasuriya, in fact, deprives the dogmatic doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin of every revealed character, thus denying the authority of tradition as a mediation of revealed truth. [In contrast, I demonstrated the revealed character of all the present Marian dogmas, and more, that is, regarding Mary as Advocate, Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix.]
“Finally, it must be noted that Father Balasuriya, denying and relativizing some statements of both the extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary universal Magisterium, reveals that he does not recognize the existence of an infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and of the college of Bishops cum et sub Petro. Reducing the primacy of the Successor of Peter to a question of power (cf. pp. 42, 84, 170), he denies the special character of this ministry. [In contrast, I have attempted, as a courtesy, to correct Francis’ assertions of power as an attempt to control Sacred Tradition (he taking up Balasuriya’s heretical assertions), pointing Francis instead to correct philological exegesis of Matthew 16 regarding the limits of infallibility apart from Sacred Tradition. This is speaking with parrhesia, with charity. I must say, this has been quite the exhaustive, comprehensive examination, though spread out over very many articles over very many years.]
“In publishing this Notification, the Congregation is obliged also to declare that Father Balasuriya has deviated from the integrity of the truth of the Catholic faith and, therefore, cannot be considered a Catholic theologian; moreover, he has incurred excommunication latae sententiae (can. 1364, par. 1). [In other words, the automatic nature of the excommunication was now also declared, therefore having external penalties imposed and supervised.]
“The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Notification, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
“Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2 January 1997, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect” [So, that’s weird. I think the multiple dates here refer, perhaps, to the approval, and/or the signing, and/or the publishing.]
A year later, in 1998, this excommunication was lifted upon Tissa’s admission that there might be “perceptions of error” in his writings, whatever that means. While teaching in major seminaries in Australia a few years later, I saw a BBC interview with Tissa in which, if I remember correctly, he mocked this decision of the foolish Holy See rehabilitating him. I was intent on getting him excommunicated once again (with full encouragement of the Holy Office), and so contacted the BBC to get a DVD copy of the interview (which they advertised at the end of the program). To their credit, they responded and took my phone calls. But they got nervous and said that sharing a copy was, in this case, forbidden by the interviewee. Who would’ve guessed? The BBC guy was super nervous, as denial is against government policy (the BBC being a government agency). Anyway, you can fool what is now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith some of the time, but not Jesus, not Mary at any time. One way or the other, now Tissa knows the rest of the story, with great clarity. I hope he turned around before he died. I don’t wish anyone any harm, even with the infliction of penalties which are medicinal in nature. For the eternal repose of Tissa’s soul (We’re to pray for our enemies, right?): Hail Mary…
Whatever the perception of Tissa as a full-on heretic, he did get due process. That’s charity, right?
You have heard that it’s been said that on February 14, 2022, Pope Francis let us know about his latest motu proprio, Fidem servare, by which he divided up a bit more incisively the “Holy Office” into a section, effectively, for the old Promoter of Justice crowd and another section for the old Doctrine of the Faith crowd, and that this quite complete break (though under one Prefect) weakens the punch of executive action from the doctrinal section. I’m not so sure about that. Not at all. I think it’s the other way around.
There already was a division along these lines, more or less. But now, those who are faithful are wide open to being condemned as heretics and excommunicated without much oversight. The doctrinal crowd are supposed to follow the old Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine, which fully encourages the declaration of excommunications which cannot be appealed. From my point of view, this gives the heretics more power to do damage to the faithful of the Lord’s Little Flock. I ask, from my perspective as a nothing-priest in the smallest parish of North America in the most remote area of Appalachia:
Why is it these days that believing in any and all the Catholic Creeds of old – the Apostles Creed (usually recited before the Holy Rosary), the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (often recited at Holy Mass) and the Athanasian Creed (usually recited, for instance, during exorcisms) – why is it, I ask, that believing in all the articles of Faith (Traditiones as the first dogmatic decree of the Fourth Session of the Trent called them) these days is bound to make one ♬ feel ♬ that one is oneself a heretic? Am I to ♬ feel ♬ guilty for what would, in any other time, be a basic prerequisite for being a priest, nothing special, just believing in the faith? Am I to ♬ feel ♬ guilty for upholding the integrity of the Sacraments? Am I to ♬ feel ♬ guilty for encouraging with joy and charity the following of the Commandments not as mere sometimes-suggestions but as Commandments which you do out of love of Jesus?
For me, as a priest just trying to do the right thing, this ♬ feeling ♬ of guilt comes about because so very many of my fellow priests and bishops are heretic apostates, and I, in my fallen human nature, ♬ feel ♬ left behind. I gotta tell you, that’s momentarily annoying, like for a nano-second, and is a ♬ feeling ♬ replaced instantaneously by the righteous aggression of an Elijah on Mount Carmel: If you think that the demon-idol Pachamama to whom human sacrifice is made is a demon-goddess who rules over all, then follow her; if you think that the Lord God is the one and only God, then follow Him. There is no middle ground: “Thou shalt not have strange gods before thee.”
We can multiply examples of blasphemy and heresy and apostacy and violent aggression. Should we bring up all the example of insulting Christ Jesus and His Immaculate Mother? Should we bring up the solicitation of sin in the encouragement of absolving people from sin that they don’t think is a sin and for which they are not repentant, “accompanying” them? Are we to be forced to be subject to abortion tainted “vaccines”? Are we to reject that the Sacrifice of Jesus has relevancy to the life of the parish? Etc.
Let me just speak to one example which goes to the very foundation of the Church, which to change is to reject the Church. These are just some random thoughts, incomplete, about infallibility, which are ever more necessary to express in these confusing, ambiguous times, not in any particular order:
Infallibility is a negative expression. I’m not talking about ♬ negative vibes ♬ or ♬ negative feelings ♬. Infallibility refers to the inability to fail. That’s it.
Now buckle your seatbelt: Infallibility does not refer to any positive inspiration or ♬ positive feelings ♬, even if much more abstractly, as if to some sort of historical movement of dialogue, in which, although plenty of mistakes are made, generally things go toward an evolutionary advancement, because, yeah, you know, like a perpetual dialogue of right and wrong but somehow right includes wrong and that’s somehow more right than just right or wrong because we’re all together in total contradiction to each other, but all together, you know, in Hegelian Rahnerianism… Right? Let’s continue. ;-)
Infallibility only refers to Peter upon whose flesh and blood person the Church is founded by Christ Jesus.
When Jorge Bergoglio says that everybody is infallible in believing, and says this in Latin (infallibile in credendo) as if he’s citing a maxim of the ancient Fathers of the Church, that’s actually his own heretical statement that was never ever used in the history of the Church until it came out of his own heretical mouth. Again, no one is infallible except Peter and his successors, and only when he is specifically teaching as (1) bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, (2) to the universal Church, (3) on a matter of faith and morals (especially controverted in whatever historical circumstances), and (4) pronounces that what he is saying is already revealed in Sacred Revelation (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition), which Sacred Revelation has not been somehow more fully provided by God since the death of the last Apostle. Extremely few Popes have made an infallible pronouncement. Jorge Bergoglio has never done this.
Popes can be personally heretical and even publicly manifest their personal heretical opinions. This is really bad and evil on their part, but it does not offend against infallibility. They are just being jerks. They cannot do this and fulfill all the conditions for an infallible pronouncement listed just above. Thus:
A Pope cannot make an incorrect infallible statement. Many even saintly people said/say that a Pope can infallibly fail. Um… any saint who has said such a thing was not canonized for saying such a thing, but rather for their personal holiness. Thank God that also people who just don’t get it on some things can still be great saints that we all respect.
People are simply too soft these days, and think Christ Jesus was a wimp, and couldn’t possibly have meant what He said, namely, in an actual translation of the inspired Greek which NO ONE wants to translate literally: Whatever you bind or loose on earth already perfectly continues to stand and will perfectly continue to stand that way for all eternity in heaven, since before the foundation of the world onward. In other words, mind you, the very person of Peter is expendable before the eternal unmanipulatable unchangeable Truth: before he can fail in an infallible pronouncement he will die, be incapacitated, be martyred, whatever. It simply will not come to pass, ever, that Peter or his successors will be able to fail in an infallible pronouncement.
Just because a Pope is personally, manifestly, a total heretic, day and day out, to the scandal of the entire Church and the world, does not mean that he is no longer Pope. It matters not that he does this as Successor of Peter, bishop of Rome, on a matter of faith and morals and to the universal Church. It would be guaranteed that he has not pronounced his heresy as being also already that which is manifest in Sacred Revelation itself. It just cannot happen.
It’s not a matter of “Oooh! The pope has failed in his infallibility and so ipso facto he is no longer Pope.” That is to say, by definition, that the pope is not infallible. That’s heresy. But so many hold that today, you know, just because of their unreasoned ♬ feelings ♬. I get that. Scandal makes us angry. Rightly so. But don’t let anger make you into a heretic. He just said something heretical, but not infallibly because he didn’t fulfill all the conditions for infallibility. Right? Yep. That’s exactly right. It’s really annoying, and scandalous, and odious to the salvation of souls, but non-infallible heretical opinions of whatever pope are not infallible. Get it?
Just because any pope is personally, manifestly a heretic doesn’t mean that there is any legitimate mechanism by which to remove him, not a bunch of good-guy cardinals holding a meeting, not a trial by all the bishops of the world. Nope. That would be to say that everybody is infallible when the Pope is not. And that’s the very heresy for which such as Jorge Bergoglio would be removed by such a fake mechanism. Right? Don’t be so upset that you become cynical and become a heretic, being condemned to hell for that which you condemn. Irony. More on that below. But it’s a fact: people easily fall into the very heresy that they are combatting. Be careful. A lot of people are not careful. They give into their entitlement to ♬ negative feelings ♬, not because they are right – and they are right – because merely because they are entitled wusses and they gotta throw hissy fits. Dang. Be right, but don’t become what you condemn. Just be crucified with our Lord Jesus by Peter who denies you to your face. As the Master so the disciple. And if Paul should reprimand Peter because Peter thinks he is infallible in his non-infallible opinions about the faith (Galatians 2:11), know that Peter, although having stood condemned, converted and because a saint. Desire the conversion of the apostate heretic.
So, any objection?
“But Father George! Father George! You give too much weight to Matthew 16! You should take a look at the verbatim passage in Matthew 18 which is like everyone is infallible! Pope Francis is right! And you’re a fraud, Father George!”
Calm down, calm down. Matthew 18 merely has it that everyone may know the faith as exactly as Peter may know the faith, or even better than Peter knows the faith. But it doesn’t say they are infallible or infallible in their believing. In fact, it speaks of their being fallible, fallen human beings that we are, so that when we’re wrong, we’re to bring that disagreement to Peter, who alone is infallible. Yep.
But what if:
But what if Jorge published some statement of what he himself calls a mere dialogue (Amoris laetitia), isn’t that infallible and can’t we throw an entitled tantrum and say he’s not the Pope anymore? Well, you can, and many have, and will continue to do so, wearing themselves out as they pound sand and kick rocks, but that’s just being butt-hurt. Nothing more. It’s just some stupid dialogue. It’s scandalous. It hurts souls. It’s really bad and evil. But that’s it. It hasn’t offended against infallibility.
Alright, alright, but what if Pope Francis actually makes an upcoming infallible statement with all the conditions above being met that the church is now different, a dialogue church, in which all truth and morality and liturgy are up for grabs according to historical circumstance where might makes right because everyone is infallible and it’s all about the tyranny of relativism by majority rule (or really the rule of the tyrannical dictator? So glad you asked: As said above, he will firstly die, or be incapacitated or martyred. Get it?
Here’s what I suggest to those who think any pope can change the truth: Get over yourselves with all your pope-worship or across-the-mountain-ism, however you want to define those terms, and just be Catholic? The Truth is not the mean between two poles. The Truth is living. God is Truth. Jesus said: “I am the Truth.” The Truth doesn’t have to dance around between two poles of right and left made up of out-of-control-gyroscopes so that the Truth has to move way to the left of what was the center or way to the right of what was center to keep – ooh! – exactly between those poles that are simply in reaction to one another in all historical vicissitudes. No. Instead:
Crux stat dum volvitur orbis. [The Truth of the] Cross remains steadfast while the world spins madly.
And you know I’m going to say this: the only way people are not going to be cynical is by also praying for the conversion of heretics, and that includes the Pope.
By the way. There are heaps of really excellent arguments on both sides that Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope or is not the Pope. I wasn’t there. I don’t know. The Lord knows how to handle our prayers.
I do have some intense experience with the Sankt Gallen mafia, both in Rome (being dragged to the actual politicking session at the Irish College), and almost right to the campus of Sankt Gallen with one of the engineers of same), and being praised and defended by the highest powers that be of…. cough cough… giving a retreat to… gag… gag… but ending the career of… cough cough… I had better stop. What I know is that “Francis”, a close friend of many close friends, might well not be Pope. I don’t know. I wasn’t at particular sessions, certainly I was not present in the conclaves… although… dang… I gotta stop. My point in this post is just to clear up some matters on infallibility.
“Dang it Father George! You can’t do that! What about if Jorge is not actually the Pope. That means in theory he could make a fallible infallible pronouncement, as it were, so to speak, right? He could check all the prerequisites you listed above and pronounce, say, on Easter Sunday, 2023, that we have an everyone-is-infallible different church, no longer founded on the person of Peter by the Son of the Living God, but on the notion that everyone is infallible, right, Father George, isn’t that right?!”
Yes, that’s true. But here’s my thought on that. Even though that wouldn’t offend against infallibility because, after all, he’s not actually the Pope in that scenario, I don’t think our Lord will block the angels from taking the imposter out on the spot, seconds before he does that. It’s just too scandalous, too confusing. Our Lord says the time will be shortened, otherwise not even one of the elect would be saved. Let that sink in for a moment. It would be just too much. The time will be shortened to the second before Jorge could do such a thing. I’m quite sure that will be dramatic, like another lightning bolt out of the heavens. :-) But we pray for conversion. Right? Come on… Hail Mary…
P.S. I was once told that I write this blog not to have more clarity in my own thinking (the primary reason of this blog), nor for any apostolate in helping others in the Church and in the world have greater clarity regarding the faith (though I attempt to take this as deadly seriously, however weakly, as Christ Jesus took us deadly seriously, laying down His life for us, Innocent for guilty, on the Cross)… No… I was told that I write this blog for the exclusive motivation of producing admiratio, the vice of drawing attention to oneself simply to draw attention to oneself, that my efforts have nothing to do with a priestly desire to brings souls to the Sacraments, to Jesus, with all the honesty and integrity that demands of all of us.
My answer to is to say that, of course, absolutely, I’m full of pride, and would go to hell for my pride, diabolical as my pride would be if not for the mercy and forgiveness of my dark and wretched soul by Mary Immaculate’s dear Divine Son, Jesus.
But, here’s the deal: I might stand out like a sore thumb because those who are supposed to teach the faith do not teach the faith, and they are terribly offended by my incredibly mediocre efforts. As inept as they are, my own little writings show them up, not because my writings are any good, but they don’t make any effort at all. It’s like on a scale of 1-100, I’ve gone from zero to one, but they’ve remained at zero. My tiny effort looks out of the ordinary because they make no effort at all. In any other time, everyone else would be high up the scale and I would terribly pitied for being so unlearned in the faith. But these are terribly dark times. Amazingly, my little candle flame seems to shine with the force of the sun. Those who should be doing more do not. And they are upset. They are stunned by the mere statement of truth.
Two literary bits to keep in mind:
“To the young, the pure, and the ingenuous, irony must always appear to have a quality of something evil, and so it has, for […] it is a sword to wound. It is so directly the product or reflex of evil that, though it can never be used – nay, can hardly exist – save in the chastisement of evil, yet irony always carries with it some reflections of the bad spirit against which it was directed. […] It suggests most powerfully the evil against which it is directed, and those innocent of evil shun so terrible an instrument. […] The mere truth is vivid with ironical power […] when the mere utterance of a plain truth labouriously concealed by hypocrisy, denied by contemporary falsehood, and forgotten in the moral lethargy of the populace, takes upon itself an ironical quality more powerful than any elaboration of special ironies could have taken in the past. […] No man possessed of irony and using it has lived happily; nor has any man possessing it and using it died without having done great good to his fellows and secured a singular advantage to his own soul.” [Hilaire Belloc, “On Irony” (pages 124-127; Penguin books 1325. Selected Essays (2/6), edited by J.B. Morton; Harmondsworth – Baltimore – Mitcham 1958).]
And “The Donkey” by Gilbert Keith Chesterton:
When fishes flew and forests walked And figs grew upon thorn, Some moment when the moon was blood Then surely I was born.
With monstrous head and sickening cry And ears like errant wings, The devil’s walking parody On all four-footed things.
The tattered outlaw of the earth, Of ancient crooked will; Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb, I keep my secret still.
Fools! For I also had my hour; One far fierce hour and sweet: There was a shout about my ears, And palms before my feet.
I don’t ♬ feel ♬ guilty in the least for putting up a post like this. It’s my obligation as a priest. I don’t bring on malicious division because of this. No, this is a sword of holy division – even divisiveness – however much I’ve made it dull, the sword which Christ Jesus came to bring. I’m happy to wield this sword, no matter how awkwardly, no matter how ineptly. Simply put: I’m happy to be a priest, even if there are those who think I’m a heretic for believing the faith with the kindness of Galatians 2:11.
Wherein a rather vivacious apologetic is offered for the medicinal usage of excommunication. Here’s the deal: I’m Pope Francis’ Missionary of Mercy. Most of what we do is to lift non-declared excommunications, you know, latae sententiae. And then we absolve whatever sin, however reserved, according to the faculties granted us by the Holy Father. Pope Francis didn’t say that there is no such thing as excommunication anymore. No, no. He holds that there is so much latae sententiae excommunication going around that we need more personnel than is present in the Apostolic Pentitentiary over in Rome. Thus, the Missionaries of Mercy.
My internet interlocutor who challenges me on the Gospels of the day sent a missive just before Mass. So, what could I do, but preach on all of that after some remarks on the Gospel. I love it.
This Missionary of Mercy of Pope Francis is entirely in accord with the great Cardinal Sarah as seconded also by Monsignor Bux regarding the distribution of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Holy Communion, that the priest or deacon or Acolyte or EMHC wearing any kind of gloves for this distribution is objectively committing sacrilege against the Most Blessed Sacrament. I’m paraphrasing. Cardinal Sarah uses most extraordinary language to insist on this insane, blasphemous, ridiculous, clownish, faithless, immoral mocking of God.
Maybe some of my fellow priests carried away in “creativity” will come to their senses and realize that they’ve done something wrong, terribly wrong, along the lines of “nefas est.”
An automatic excommunication comes about and, as long as it is not declared (no chance of that, methinks), a Missionary of Mercy can lift and absolve such an excommunication.
As a Missionary of Mercy able to do this, I only ask that the priest be penitent with a resolve to never do it again, even in a “second wave” or “third wave” or with a thousand other viruses, etc., that are sure to come our way.
In giving the absolution, I’ll use the “old formula” in Latin, which firstly deals with the excommunication and then goes on to the absolution, a method of proceeding asked of us Missionaries of Mercy by the Holy See.
Judas is in hell. There, I said it. According to + Paglia, that makes me an automatically excommunicated heretic. For all of us merely automatically excommunicated heretics, that’s not enough. I want my automatic excommunication declared and publicized for all the world to hear. + Paglia has the ear of Pope Francis. Regardless of any Canon Law, declaring my excommunication from on high can easily be forced through. I insist! I entrench! I’m contentious! I’m obstinate. I’m persistent. Do it!
But will + Paglia slit my throat? Pffft. He’s just full of bluster and is a coward and would never do such a thing. He won’t because he knows that if he does, I’ll be able to appeal, which means I’ll be able to defend myself. I happen to have a bit more expertise in these matters, even on a jesuitical level, having degreed out at the Jesuit’s most academic of all their institutions in the world, the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and Jerusalem.I would really enjoy this. I would move to Rome and write a study on this as a response and defense, using all the libraries in Rome, particularly that of the Biblicum. The conclusion of all that will be about the abuse of office of + Paglia throwing around cowardly threats. The conclusion of all that will be about how + Paglia needs to have his heresy and therefore his automatic excommunication declared. Pfft.
But there’s more, much more.
Not that there’s necessarily any connection at all, but I find it striking that + Paglia connects his thoughts about Judas Iscariat being a saint with priests who “accompany” people – holding their hands – people who are in the very act of committing suicide (which accompaniment is scandalous to all involved, sending the wrong message].
To the priest writing this blog, such a connection by + Paglia is stunning because of an incident related to Terri Schiavo [Theresa Marie Schiavo (née Schindler)], who was put to death with the full encouragement of her bishop down in Florida. Remember that? At the time, I sent a message to that Bishop stating the case for Terri and saying that he, the bishop, was clearly a Judas for encouraging her murder. He objected, saying that, after all, he had thought about it. I’m sure Judas also thought about his own part in the murder of Jesus.
I was frantic to save Terri. Having secured cooperation, I had a moral analysis of the case I had worked up before her murder delivered to the moral theologian guy in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. That analysis was accepted and taken up. But it was too late. Dear Terri was murdered.
For myself, that means I’m on record for such things, and that record in my own file is open, of course, to all prefects, particularly to + Paglia, who would have it front and center when studying assisted suicide, as it would have been sent to his “dicastery” at the time, with comment, and filed under that topic and in my name.
I’ve put myself on the radar with + Paglia much more recently by making comments on his destruction of the Saint John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family. See, for instance:
Vatican Archbishop says those who say Judas is in hell are heretics and priests may accompany assisted suicides – by Edward Pentin – reported by Diane Montagna
ROME, December 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In a statement difficult to reconcile with Scripture and Tradition, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has claimed on behalf of the Catholic Church that anyone who says Judas Iscariot is in hell is a heretic.
In an even more disturbing statement, the Italian archbishop also asserted that a priest may legitimately remain at the beside of someone undergoing assisted suicide in order to “hold their hand” and “accompany” them. […]
Archbishop Paglia, who serves as chancellor of the new John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences in Rome (and presided over the former institute’s demolition), said he […] doesn’t believe that “anyone should ever be abandoned.”
[Speaking out of both sides of his mouth, he said:] “We are against assisted suicide because we do not want to do the dirty work of death [only emotion, then, that we have to heroically overcome? Just. Wow.] and because we are all well aware that, for believers, life goes on,” he continued. [So: “What difference does it make?” That’s frightening. That’s the rationalization of a murderer.] “To accompany and hold the hand of those who are dying” is therefore the “great task“ of every believer [Encouraging murder, participating in murder is the great task of every believer?] he said, along with fighting the culture of assisted suicide, which represents “a great defeat for society.” [But go ahead and encourage and assist suicides? This is like Satan talking.
“We cannot turn [assisted suicide] into a wise choice,” he said. [But it’s a choice that must be respected and accompanied and encouraged and assisted according to + Paglia.]
Archbishop Paglia then clarified: “I always celebrate funerals for those who commit suicide, because suicide is always a question of unfulfilled love. We must also remember that, for the Catholic Church, if someone says that Judas is in hell, he is a heretic.” […] [Copyright 1997-2019 LifeSiteNews.com. All Rights Reserved.]
There’s much more extremely worthwhile commentary on real Catholic doctrine and tradition and the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church and the great sainted theologians in that magnificent article of LifeSiteNews. Again, go there and read the whole thing.