Liguori decrees that a wife may steal from her husband in matters where “husbands often don’t understand and it would be of no use to ask them.” According to the “saint,” a wife commits no sin in secretly “subtracting” (subducendo) from his wealth (Theologia Moralis, iv. 541). A son under certain circumstances may steal from his own father (Theologia Moralis, iv. 543, and iv. 488.3).
Liguori writes on the subject of a wife who does not pay her dowry to her husband and therefore is rightly reduced by her lawfully wedded husband to the degraded status of a mere servant and nothing more:
“Is the husband bound to keep or support his wife if her dowry has not been paid? The Doctors in common say no, if it is the fault of the promiser that it has not been paid. So Sanchez, Bonacina, Bossius, the Salamanca Doctors, Fagundez, Trulenchius and others, saying that the object of the dowry is that the husband may keep his wife with it. Except, however, 1., if the husband married without a dowry being promised, and, 2., if the wife pays obedience to her husband, for then he is at least bound to keep her as a servant. So say the Salamanca Doctors, with Abbas, Lupo etc. quoted by Sanchez. Sanchez however, with Surdus and others, does not allow the second exception because (as he says) the wife is bound to pay her husband both a dowry and obedience, and therefore it is not necessary for him to maintain her if she only pays obedience. But I rather adhere to the opposite opinion, because the law of nature itself teaches you to keep one who occupies himself in being your servant.” (vi. 939).
According to Liguori, a son who curses his father commits only a venial sin. The curse does not become a grave sin unless he actually means the curse to take effect, otherwise, si oretenus tantum maledixerit, it is venial (iv. 334). Liguori does not stipulate at how young an age children may curse their parents and still only incur a venial sin.
Another Talmudic example (one may rightly term it demonic), concerns Liguori’s aforementioned permission for servants to steal from their masters. As we noted earlier, Innocent XI condemned similar permissions like this. Liguori eats the heart out of the pope’s condemnation in a masterful exhibition of exceedingly cunning exceptions which had the effect of nullifying the decree of the Pope. Alphonsus Liguori:
“The Salamanca Doctors and others, speaking of this condemned proposition say, 1. That a servant can not afterwards make himself compensation if he makes his bargain freely with his master for a lower sum, without necessity; but that he is not forbidden to do so, if he agrees on wages considerably less than are just, from necessity; namely to lighten his own distress. The reason is that Pontifical decrees do not mean to bind a servant contrary to justice.” (iv. 522). Neither, it seems, do the decrees of the Ten Commandments, Jesus Christ and the New Testament bind contrary to Liguori’s casuistry.
When Frederick Meyrick and his party of English travelers were in Italy seeking lodging, they found a house for rent which suited them well and was priced lower than the other houses that were for let in that particular Italian vicinity. Ignorant of Liguori’s compensation principle as elucidated above, they rented the lower-priced accommodation and took up residence. They soon discovered that their personal articles, including clothing, had gone missing. A careful search of the house revealed that their property was hidden in out-of-the-way places throughout the house. Confronting the dishonest landlords, they denied the theft. Meyrick writes, “They knew, from their attendance at the confessional, that household servants might ‘compensate’ themselves…if they had wages lower than their services deserved, and they knew that tailors, tradesmen etc. were justified in purloining little pieces of cloth, using short measures, etc. ‘if they would otherwise make no profits, or if they ought to raise their price and then would find no customers’ (Liguori, iv. 533).
“Being gifted with reasoning powers, they inferred that as they had let their apartments at a lower rate than their neighbors, and as they ‘ought’ to have raised their price, but very likely would not, they thought, having then found lodgers, they were fairly entitled to make up their profits by secret compensation. This they accordingly did…” 87
Liguori states that “The servant may steal small amounts of food and drink from his master without troubling himself over much on account of it, if the items are not locked up and are not stolen for purposes of re-sale.” (iv. 545). Prof. Meyrick: So much for the guileless uprightness and security of any home where reside servants who make confession to confessors who adhere to the theology of Rome’s ‘Patron Saint of Confessors.’ Under Liguori’s system and that of his fellow casuists, the wife pilfers from her husband and taking care that he not know of it; servants pilfer to recompense themselves for wages they regard as too low. The name of home cannot be applied to places where these dishonest practices are but trifling affairs, except in mockery.”
Liguori on restitution: “If the theft is uncertain — i.e. if it is not known who the person is to whom the damage is done — the penitent is to be bound to make restitution for the purpose of having Masses celebrated, or giving alms to the poor, or making gifts to holy places, and, if he is poor himself, he may apply it to himself, or to his family. 88
The Roman Cicero famously expressed his fierce indignation at a brazen swindle that the politically-connected Governor of Sicily, Gaius Verres, arranged through his partner Lucius Rabonius, in order to give himself a security deposit that was intended as compensation for damage he caused others: “Deridet quum sibi ipsum jubet satisdare Rabonium.” 89 Cicero called Gaius Verres the “king of hell.” What would Cicero have called a Liguorian Catholic who stole and then made “restitution” to himself with his ill-gotten gains, with the approval of one of the highest moral authorities of the Church that bears the name of Rome? 90
Here we witness the power of criminal politics. Exposure of the criminal ideology of Alphonsus Liguori which brings the Catholic Church into grave disrepute and instructs the followers of the Church of Rome on the best methods of lying and thieving within Talmudic-like perimeters, will bring down upon the head, name and reputation of the person exposing Liguori, the most fearsome calumny. This occurred when we published just a few facts about the Italian saint in our Revisionist History newsletter. Like Judaics defending a criminal rabbi, we were showered with cries of rage, such as “How dare you besmirch the author of The Glories of Mary!” (or with reference to one of the other titles of mystical devotion that the “saint” penned).
“…in The Glories of Mary Ligurori peppered the text with spurious quotes and citations, and a heretical theology which teaches that hardened sinners who mumble Hail Marys while half asleep, or wear her scapular while committing crimes of blasphemy and Satan worship, will be preserved from damnation by being given the grace of final repentance.” 91 In the first instance, Rev. Meyrick is referring to the following passage from The Glories of Mary:
“It is the opinion of many theologians and of S. Thomas in particular, that for many who have died in mortal sin the Divine Mother has obtained from God a suspension of their sentence…Trustworthy authors give us many instances in which this has occurred…the Divine Mother has been able to deliver from hell even some who have died in sin…
“In the year 1604, in a city in Flanders, there were two young men, students who, instead of attending to their studies, gave themselves up to a life of debauchery. One night they were both in a house with an evil companion, when one of them, named Richard returned home, leaving his companion there. After he got home, and had begun to undress, he remembered that he had not that day said some ‘Hail Marys’ that he was in the habit of reciting. Feeling very sleepy he was loath to say them; he did himself violence and repeated them, though without devotion, and half asleep.
“He then laid down, and had fallen into a sound slumber, when he was suddenly roused by a violent knocking at the door, and without its opening he saw his companion deformed and hideous standing before him. ‘Who art thou?’ he cried out. ‘What! Dost thou not know me?’ ‘Ah! yes, but how thou art changed; thou seemest to me a devil.�
� ‘Truly,’ he exclaimed, ‘poor creature that I am, I am damned, and how? When I was leaving that wicked house a devil came and strangled me: my body is in the street, and my soul is in hell; and thou must know,’ added he, ‘that the same fate awaited thee had not the Blessed Virgin preserved thee in consideration of that little act of homage of the ‘Hail Mary.’…With these words he opened his mantle, and showing the flames and serpents by which he was tormented, he disappeared.” 92
Liguori’s iniquitous theology does not register with his followers. We observed a similar phenomenon in the matter of the child molestation facilitator Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, a strong proponent of the Tridentine Mass, who wrote a letter to Bishop Pierre Pican, bishop of Bayeux-Lisieux in France, congratulating him on shielding a molester-priest, Father René Bissey, from the police. Father René Bissey was guilty of raping minors. According to Vatican analyst Jean-Marie Guenois, the Congregation for the Clergy, under Cardinal Hoyos, argued for protective treatment of accused molesters.93 After his criminal cheerleading for Bishop Pican was published and made known to the world, as far as we could detect it detracted not one iota from the illustrious standing of Cardinal Hoyos among “traditional Catholics.” We have preserved the record of the numerous “traditional Catholic” media outlets, some internationally renowned, which had nothing meaningful to say concerning Hoyos’ letter to the bishop, while continuing to celebrate him as a bastion of fidelity to “traditional Catholicism,” which can only signify that one of the “traditions” of “Catholicism” is the facilitation of child molestation. What counted in the eyes of those many persons who dare to selfdescribe themselves as “traditional Catholics” was Hoyos’ devotion to an ancient rite of worship; clouds of incense serving to obscure (or minimize) the molestation of children.
A similar absolution for the prelate who grants freedom to ceremony while committing heresy is the “traditional” Catholic nostalgia for Pope Benedict XVI after he abdicated. We are here tracking criminal politics. With the Word of God as our guide, we mark the love of money as manifested in rule by the Money Power as the root of all other crime, after which we acknowledge Jesus Christ’s cosmic battle with the God-defying, Scripture nullifying “Scribes and Pharisees” as having established the nature and identity of His principal enemies. In the matter of Benedict XVI, he is culpable for supporting rule by the Money Power through the permission for usury and “Catholic” usurers, which he continued as part of the dreadful legacy of his predecessors. On the second count he continued the abominable practice of Pope “Saint” John Paul II of entering synagogues in order to win the favor of the Christdeniers within its walls, and failing to contend with them for the faith. Let us compare the behavior of Pope Benedict XVI with St. Paul:
“Every sabbath he held a disputation in the synagogue, trying to convince both Jews and Greeks by confronting them with the name of the Lord Jesus. Just at the time when Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was much occupied with preaching, while he bore witness to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. But they set their faces against it and talked blasphemy, until he shook the dust out of his garments, and said to them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clear of it….he spared no pains to refute the Jews publicly, proving from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” 94
When did Pope Benedict have a disputation in the synagogue(s) he entered and prayed within? When did Pope Benedict in the synagogue “bear witness to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ” and without Him they were lost? When did Pope Benedict “spare no pains to refute the Jews publicly”?
He did nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary, he betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ by confirming the unbelieving people in the synagogue, in their sins and blasphemy by upholding, through his presence and his weasel words, Pope “Saint” John Paul II’s disastrous “elder brothers in the Faith” theology. What is the “traditional” Catholic response to Pope Benedict XVI, whose burlesque of the Christian witness and mission of Jesus Himself classes him as a turncoat? From a leading “traditional” Catholic pundit on the “Benedictine Respite”:
“During the seven-year Benedictine Respite, the postconciliar revolution in the Church seemed to have lost its momentum, even if it was far from being in retreat. Traditional Catholics rejoiced to see a series of papal acts favorable to Tradition: the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (2007), bringing an end at last to the insane suppression of the traditional Roman Rite…and the long-overdue correction of the errant, doctrinally defective translations of the Latin typical edition of the Novus Ordo Missal…Also cause for rejoicing was Benedict’s return to dignity and decorum in the papacy as befits the august Vicar of Christ…Pope Benedict returned to the line of his preconciliar predecessors, issuing prophetic warnings…In his Address to the Parish Priests and Clergy of Rome on February 14, 2013, given on the heels of his staggering announcement that he was abdicating the papacy, Benedict…conceded what traditionalists have been contending since the post-conciliar crisis began: that the entire program of ‘updating’ the Church in the name of the Council had been a disaster…during the Benedictine Respite the revolution did seem to lose momentum, while a Latin Mass revival was gaining momentum all over the world…With Pope Benedict’s abdication, however, the promising signs of renewal during the Respite were soon overshadowed…” 95
Too often — far too often — the devil uses the human fascination with pietism, ceremonies, long robes (“cappa magna”), bells, chants, incense, candles and all the outward signs of antiquarian devotion, as a substitute of that for which there is no substitute, obedience to the law of God. When an agent of the devil advocates for pious customs and venerable, Latin-rite traditions and is then seen to defend them, that is all that most “conservatives” and “traditionalists” need to know. It is the ceremony, the outward show, the deceptive theatricals, that register as sure signs of Christian faith in the eyes of these deluded persons. The Cryptocracy has used “traditional” Catholicism with as much effectiveness and potency as it has exploited Liberalism, to obstruct God’s will being done on earth. In fact, one might go so far as to venture to say that it has wrought more damage through “traditional” Catholics, because of the pharisaical pride of many within this movement, who regard themselves as infinitely morally superior to a Liberal; and, due to the stealth by which the beautiful, outward trappings of “traditional” Catholicism have served to conceal the horribly disfigured and deceitful theology which “Popes and Saints” of the ilk of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Alphonsus Liguori have injected into the bowels of the Church of Rome.
In Benedict XVI’s case we see that one can be both a Judaizer and “the august Vicar of Christ,” he who personifies “dignity and decorum in the papacy” (inside a synagogue); a pontiff “opposed to the updating of the Church,” who caused “the revolution to lose momentum,” yet who also de facto canonized Judaism’s post-modernist “Shoah” theology of Holocaustianity, suspended the evangelization of the Jews and buttressed the synagogue system of the rabbis as a legitimate forum for the worship of God without Christ. Ah, but he advanced the Latin language, the Latin Mass, the smells, the bells and “the decorum.” Obviously the aesthetic’s the thing. Here we have the “theology” of the interior designer and the hairdresser.
The legacy of Romanist equivocation, and of Liguorianism, is a mental fog that seeps into the mind like gas under a door, emitted by an ecclesiastical milieu that is permeated with it from the Confessional to the court—the il fumo di Satana revealed by Pope Paul VI; the reason why so many Catholics cannot think straight concerning these issues; why they prefer image to reality, and “rejoice” over a Judas pope who they consider “favorable to Tradition.” When one sees this reference to a “Tradition” one is reminded of that “Faith” in which John Paul II situated the “Jews” as our “elder brothers.” The question arises, whose Tradition is being referred to here, and which Faith is it in which the “Jews” are our elders? Collaborating with the deniers of Christ is not a tra
dition of the ancient Catholic Church. The Faith wherein faithless Jews are the elders cannot be the Christian Faith (1 John 2: 22-23). The Faith of Antichrist cannot be “our” Faith.
The “Tradition” of placing denial of Auschwitz gassings on a vastly higher plane of cosmic transgression than denial of the Resurrection of the Son of God, as Pope Benedict’s Vatican Secretariat of State did when it suspended the episcopal functions of Bishop Richard Williamson for questioning the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau, had no precedent beyond the papacy of John Paul II; if it is a “Tradition” it has been observed heretofore only in hell.
“Saint” Alphonsus Liguori on Contraception
Two thousand years ago the attitude of servile obedience represented by clericalism and immersion in priestcraft was the mental attitude that kept the Jewish people away from Jesus Christ, who had been branded an apikoros (wicked rebel against the Torah SheBeal Peh oral law). Whoever followed Christ when He walked on earth had to be an independent thinker free of the religious authority that controlled the Temple and had condemned Him. But “traditional” Catholics” don’t question the pieties, legends and lies that came before Vatican Council II on the part of saints and popes labeled conservative. Liguori is part of that pantheon.
Right to life activists in the Church of Rome have campaigned since the 1960s against the relaxed attitude in the Confessional toward husbands and wives who practice artificial contraception. To be fair it must be admitted that Pope Paul VI promulgated a traditional Catholic teaching on this subject, Humane Vitae. His teaching was firmly supported by the hierarchy of American bishops, 96 but it was defeated in the Confessional. Newman and other apologists for Liguori’s Machiavellianism allege that we should look to the Council of Trent for Catholic theology and not in Liguori’s Moral Theology which, they say, was intended as a guide for confessors and pastors. Even if this assertion were true, it is a patently foolish one. Theology is an academic exercise if it does not serve as a rule of life for the Catholic. The Church’s teaching on contraception was undermined and then subverted not by some abstract theological treatise issued by an ivory tower dissident. It was overthrown in the Confessional. Many Catholics will be appalled to learn that in the 1700s, long before Vatican Council II or the modernism condemned by Pope St. Pius X, subtle moral vagaries amounting to tacit permission for birth control were put forth by “Saint” Alphonsus. This fact is known to the Charles Currans of the Church of Rome but not to the lay people in the pews. Who has conspired to keep the laity in the dark?
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome Page 52
