Rorate Caeli

The Portuguese choose Moloch


"...blood is in their hands, ... their children, whom they bore to me, they have offered to [the idols] to be devoured. ... And when they sacrificed their children to their idols, and went into my sanctuary the same day to profane it: they did these things even in the midst of my house." (Ezechiel, xxiii)

This materialism ... encourages scorn for human life, even for life which is destroyed before seeing the light of day (Pius XII, Le Pèlerinage de Lourdes)

The Masters of Europe have achieved their goal in Portugal: a majority for death, which will be taken by the Socialist majority in Parliament as an authorization for their pro-abortion projects, despite the low turnout (an under-50% turnout means any result is non-binding). If they follow the past trends of other European nations, abortion rates in Portugal will increase substantially in the first years after decriminalization, possibly leading to demographic collapse in a nation with already very worrisome birth rates.

Europe, created by the Church, chooses suicide. Following their European Masters, the Portuguese (actually a slight majority of the Portuguese voters who decided to vote) have chosen Moloch. As it always happens in Europe, when the Masters receive the expected results, no further popular consultation will ever be made. Abortion on demand will become a reality in the land of Fatima, and only three other nations will stand in the way of Death: Ireland, Poland, and Malta (in this order?...).

We, then, remember the words of Pope John Paul II (Evangelium Vitæ), quoted here a few days ago:


...the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part.

In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy.

Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality ... .

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

And yet Pope Benedict XVI told Catholics that the Church has to embrace the friendly face of the French Revolution, i.e., democracy in his speech to the Curia in December 2005.

Florestan said...

Anon.,
are you referring to this speech?
http://tinyurl.com/guu7f

I couldn't find the part where he told the Curia to "embrace the friendly face of the French Revolution"; perhaps you can help by pointing it out to me?

JSarto said...

With the brutal pressure of the leftist mainstream media and the surrender of Catholic Hierarchy, it was almost impossible other final result...

frival said...

Anonymous, regardless whether the Pope said specifically that, the purpose of embracing some aspect of the culture as a Catholic is not to become it, but to transform it. Or rather, to allow oneself to become God's agent in its transformation. Benedict believes fully that God desires to work through us in the process of salvation, much as he used the prophets to light the way to Jesus.

That said, however, what a terribly sad day in the history of the world. New Catholic, those prophetic words from JPII struck a chord in me when I first read them several years ago and they still resonate. There are many who need to hear and interiorize them.

Anonymous said...

So, does this prove the Fatima prophecy (viz., Portugal will stay Catholic) is flawed or worse yet a sham? By the way, hadn't the essential Revolution (the Jacobins over throwing the Tsar, one of the last monarchy) already occured before the Russian "prophecy"?

Simon-Peter said...

Anon:

no, no, and no.

Yes, you clearly haven't the foggiest about OLoF or what she actually said or when she said it and about whom.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Nice try.

I repeat myself yet again: the inherent contradictions in the developing correlation of forces are heightening.

Consecrate Russia, by name, alone & unequivocally, publicly and in union with the Bishops to the IHM.

That is all.

Stop doubting like Namaan and do it.

Oh the wisdom of the wise as the inherent contradictions heighten.

bona gratia said...

I would be interested in any published statements by Portugese bishops on the previously pending election abortion issue. Or, were they silent...

Fr. John Pecoraro said...

As the grandson of pious Portuguese immigrants I deeply saddened. The fact that Portugal was abortion free, was to me a point of pride. Our Lady of Fatima intercede for us.

Athanasius said...

Anon,

The Tsar went into retirement in 1917 the same year as the Fatima prophecy. It made very little news, it was the Bolshevik revolution which made news. No one in Portugal, half a world away could have known that. The shepherd children in question did not know how to spell, they could not have read a newspaper. Their parents were illiterate, there was no feasible way for them to have known anything about Russia before Our Lady's prophecy, since they likely did not even know what Russia was. When Our Lady spoke to them they thought Russia was a person not a country. Only a government official could have known anything about Russia, since after Napolean it completely dropped out of the interest of the West until World War I and the Bolshevik slaughter.

Simon-Peter said...

February 23rd 1917, stikes in St.Petersburg.

March 2nd, Tsar abdicates.

July 13, 1917, Fatima:
"I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart." [which She did in 1929]

November 7th (25th Oct) ***1917,Bolsheviks seize power***

16th-17th July 1918 Tsar & family killed.

13th June 1929, novitiate of the Dorotheans at Tuy, Spain:
"The moment has come when ***God*** asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart..."

-----------------------------
"When Sister Lucy questioned Our Lord as to why He would not convert Russia without the solemn public consecration of that nation specifically, Jesus answered:

'Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its homage later on, and put the devotion to This Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.'"

Janice said...

Anonymous,

Benedict NEVER said that. All he said was that the age of revolutions also produced the American revolution, which also proved that there could be an impartial government, which guaranteed that all religious groups could worship.

Anyway guys, here's the deal. Instead of all the internecine fighting, the real challenge is: how do we, as a group, reverse all of this? We've seen Europe fall country by country into the pit of secularism, while at the same time Islam is making ever greater incursions there. The US is in no better shape. Ditto for Australia. So rather than indulge ourselves in parlor-room disputes, and rather than let lesser vehicles of Catholicism (like syncretistic ones) do the work for us, what do we do?

Anonymous said...

What about portugal never losing the faith? This looks like a loss thereof...

Prof. Basto said...

As a citizen of the Portuguese Republic by descent from my mother, I´m deeply ashamed of my country.

I didn´t have the right to take part in that referendum, because I live outside Portugal. I can vote for the Assembly of the Republic and for President, but not in referenda.

We must now turn our slim hopes towards the Constitutional Court for a ruling on any challenge that might be brought against the Bill that the Government intends to pass through Parliament, and also towards the President of the Republic, who is not a Socialist and who yealds the power of withholding the promulgation of Laws. Given the result of the referendum, it is very unlikely that he will refuse to promulgate the Bill - however, since Portuguese law stipulates that the referendum is void unless a majority of the voting citizen cast their votes, and given that more than half of the electorate abstained, I still have a slim hope that a miracle may save Portugal from the culture of death.

Anonymous said...

The above is another anonymous. I am the first one who brought up Fatima on this subject. But the above anonymous is right. No one answered my questions. Except Simon Peter, who affirmed that the Czar had been deposed before the prophecies. It just makes it possible that the Fatima seerers had been fed some information (maybe by a monarchist cleric, who weren't in short supply in Portugal at the time). In any case what about Portugal not losing the faith?

By the way, the fact that traditionalists of all stripes (sedes included) wrongly consider Fatima to be dogmatic necessitates that I write as anonymous.

from_ireland said...

re. Ireland still standing against abortion - not for much longer, probably. The latest tactic from the government is to try to change the rules and pack the (currently pro-life) medical council with political appointees, thus removing a major bulwark against legalised abortion in this country.

All the major political parties here are totally enthralled by the secular European project, and view our constitutional ban as an embarrassment to be done away with as soon as possible.

Brideshead said...

'... what do we do?'

Stand united in favor of Tradition, stop bashing the FSSPX (which does not mean that one must agree with everything that the FSSPX says and does), learn the tools of (post-)modernity (e.g., technological innovation) and use them in the service of Truth, pray the (traditional) Rosary daily, practice devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pray for the Pope, pray for our enemies.

Simon-Peter said...

Anon:

you understand that you have just calumniated three very special people as declared by the Church? You also understand that Fatima has been declared worthy of belief by the Church? This includes the post 1917 messages too...e.g. 1929.

These are all fabrications? Why 1929? Because by then it was clear what the "errors of Russia" (first mentioned in 1917, and rather vague and ambiguous, see below) were, though in 2007 it seems the messaage still hasn't gotten through. Who holds it to be dogma?

No one.

You still fail to grasp that the "errors of Russia" was not the de facto deposing (or killing) of the Tsar -- depsosing or attempting to despose a sovereign has been going on since Lucifer first grumbled, examples are too numerous to mention -- it was the melding of the state with the Bolsheviks, and NO ONE, not even the Bolsehviks themselves, prior to the October revolution and for a good deal of the civil war thought they would actually pull it off.

Who actually thought between February and October 1917 the Bolseheviks would have seized control?

No one.

For all their bluster they were considered weak, a temporary aberration and soon-to-be consigned to the trashcan of history.You make the mistake of thinking their seizure of power was inevitable, when it is not the case: they rolled the dice and won.

BY 1928 a certain Mr. Stalin was in de facto control, and in 1929 he had Leon Trotsky exiled, his last obstacle to supreme power...

"errors of Russia" now made manifest.

Anon: you are reading history backwards.

SVs are not traditionalists. Portugal will not lose the faith, because it has been stated so and this statement is "worthy of belief." This does not mean the powers of hell will not have a good try or make advances.

"By the way, the fact that traditionalists of all stripes (sedes included) wrongly consider Fatima to be dogmatic necessitates that I write as anonymous."

Until you get a grip on Fatima perhaps you should not write about it all.

Anonymous said...

Simon-Peter is a case in point: don't dare question Fatima. In any case as controverted as this apparition is--replete with secrets and all--is it any wonder I don't have "a grip" on it?

Simon-Peter said...

kismet Janice, you've just asked the equivalent of "what is to be done?" (VI Ulianov [Lenin]).

1. Heroic Act.
2. First Saturdays.
3. Rosary (the real one) everyday, making reparation each decade for the 5 things that offend God the most. Ask for the consecration of Russia.
4. Enroll Brown Scapular.
5. Consecrate yourself to the IHoM.
6. Weekly Confession.
7. At least weekly adoration.
8. Pursue the normal, traditional measn of sanctification and developing your interior life.
9. As the BVM said "penance, penance, penance,"

Guadalupe Guard said...

A country that legalizes the killing of unborn babies by the approval (tacit or not: low voter turn-out) of its people is certainly not Catholic.

Simon-Peter said...

You didn't *question* Fatima, you just demonstrated how ignorant you were about it and a number of other things.

Rather than move on you perist:

"controverted as this apparition is"

Why don't you just come clean and state exactly why you cannot give your interior assent?

"case-in-point"...now that IS funny. I am so NOT a "traditionalist."

Anyway, the Church has stated it is worthy of belief, you don't agree, fair enough: it doesn't make you an enemy of God, it does not mean you are not a Catholic in good standing.

Anonymous said...

Since Portugal is no longer Catholic, as per Guadalupe's comment, can the apparitions be authentic?

Simon-Peter said...

Sorry, FYI the five things I mentioned above are (nd offering each one, in turn, per decade, in reparation for):

1.Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
2. Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity.
3. Blasphemies aginst Her Divine maternity by refusing to recognize her as the second Eve and mother of all men.
4. Blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow scorn or indifference or hatred in the hearts of children to the Immaculate Concepetion Herself.
5. The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her Holy Images.
May 29th-30th, 1930, Jesus to Sister Lucia.

That is why there are five (5) first Saturdays. But most people do not know of the specific reparations, only the general one "offenses against the Immaculate Heart."

Focus on number 3. Jesus loves His mum. He is done with the flim-flam about her. He requires all men to publicly recognize Her for who she really is in the economy of salvation and He will not permit the glory He has given Her, His creature, to be appropriated by anyone, which is why:

"When Sister Lucy questioned Our Lord as to why He would not convert Russia without the solemn public consecration of that nation specifically, Jesus answered:

'Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its homage later on, and put the devotion to This Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.'"

"Russia" *broadly* speaking is the other "half" of Christianity...right?

Adam-Eve, Jesus-Mary...

"put the devotion to This Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart."

Makes sense?

This is real ecuminism, the *conversion* of Russia by "dialogue" with the BVM and Her Son, Her God and ours.

Janice said...

Simon-Peter,

Knock it off. Equating me with Lenin is ignorant. My point, which you obviously didn't get, is that you have to do more than just revel is your own sanctimony and correctness. And by the way, Fatima is not dogma. Ask Pope Benedict.

All you have, however correctly, advocated is private prayer. What about going outward? Brideshead has it right: use technology and catechize. If evil-doers like al-Qaeda make use of technology, then so should we. We can't just continue to talk to each other. And, believe me, there are plenty of other conventicles that are doing plenty of talking. Just go to "Intentional Disciples," for example. It's a hybrid, syncretistic Evangelical-Catholic organization that says it preaches Roman Catholicism, but actually preaches a tertium quid. So if you really want Truth to conquer, then stop cannibalizing each other, stop focusing only on Fatima, and direct your considerable efforts to the uncatechized.

Muret said...

Dear New Catholic: Just a few comments about this issue to demonstrate the satanic irony of it.
The name of President of Portugal is Socrates. Ha!.
This same satanic philosopher stated just two days before the referendum that a low turnout should be considered a failure and a set back to his projects. Therefore, a vast majority of citizens decided not to vote. Considering also that 60% of the Portuguese did not vote (or, which is the same: voted against it, because that is how this fact should be read), and that of the 40% that did it, 18% voted against it, the law will be passed with the approval of only 22% of the Portuguese.
Now this Alcibiades stated that no matter the low turnout, he will pass the Law in Parliament resting in his majority there.
You can not get more democratic than that!!

Anonymous said...

The Irish state already facilitates and funds abortions carried out in England.

One example from a recent rape trial of an African convicted of raping a 14yo girl..

"The girl became pregnant as a result of Kasenge Bangu raping her, and she was later assisted by Irish authorities in travelling to England for an abortion."

Full Story

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0205/banguk.html

Colm

Simon-Peter said...

janice:

I can't blame you for not reading anything I have ever posted, as you clearly haven't. A couple of weeks ago I said exactly on THIS BLOG what you are now saying I disavow, i.e. the use of the internet and technology.

If you read my blog, which you clearly haven't (and who can blame you) you would have seen a long article I posted only last week called "Ratzinger's Clown" which deals EXACTLY with the issue about cathechizing and happens to be in agreement with the Pope about using the natural law as a jumping off point.

Back to the first point: If you had read my blog you would have come accross a number of links under "friendlies" such as "Maria-Lectirx" which are using technology to do the very thing you think we should be doing.

If you read my blog, you will note that my posts are replate with hyperlinks so the reader can verify what I am saying and correct me if I am astray, I try to cite my sources technology wise, if you see what I mean.

The fact I have a blog at all...

As to the boots on the ground work, why on earth do you think I go to a Novus Ordo parish Janice? As I have said before on this blog (months ago)...it is for a reason...

Additionally, it is God who gives the increase, all the busy outward work in the world will avail nought if one is not right (or approaching same) with God.

I did not equate you with Lenin, Janice, do you read anything I say?

Read it again. Perhaps I should have said "you've just asked the CATHOLIC equivalent" but I didn't think it was necessary. It seems it is.

For the last time, Fatima is not DOGMA.

I do not always go on about Fatima. If I did, you'd find my blog full of it, off the top of my head, I don't think I have actually posted a single article dedicated to fatima (tahnks for showing me how remiss I have been) and have only mentioned it in passing (i.e. my post called "Bertie Wooster saves the Motu Proprio") a few times.

"you have to do more than just revel is your own sanctimony and correctness"

that speaks to you Janice, not to me.


BTW: I don't need to ask the Pope about whether it's dogma or not...why don't you read my article "The Neo-Catholic Mindset Understood 101 part I" also on my blog: you'll find it in the recent archives or under the labels.

When you've done all that, then try again.

http://simon-peter-says.blogspot.com/

Pascendi said...

This tragedy simply confirms, once again, the Truth of the "forgotten" encyclical, Quas Primas.

New Catholic said...

Interesting comments by all, esp. prof.basto and Muret.

brideshead said...

Simon-Peter,

I love your blog. Roman Catholicism meets Web 2.0. Consider the possibilities for harnessing the power of information in the service of Truth and achieving a critical mass of tech-savvy Catholics (wise as serpents, gentle as doves) capable of defeating the armies of Moloch (or Mordor,if you prefer):

http://tinyurl.com/938j7

Can everyone say: "Po-ta-to"? :-)

The Flash image of Margaret Sanger IS a bit disturbing.

It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that devotion (public as well as private, including resotration of the Traditional Mass) and personal holiness must come first. Your top 9 list is a great start.

ThePublican said...

New Catholic,

I pressume you read Spanish, based on past postings. Go to "El ultimo Alcazar" a blog linked in yours for a very good comment on the whole issue.

Janice,

I think that unless you do something akin to what Simon-Peter states regarding private sanctification/reparation through prayer first, all efforts to evangelize, be it with or without technology, will fail. There is a difference between living the Faith and talkin about it. St. Paul I believe has something to say about that.

We do need to stop fighting other people's battles (or arguing about them) and fight well our own in our own place. Graces will flow if we become "just" (in the Biblical sense). Thus, I think S-P's program is a good beginning. Much of what happens in the world occurs because of the ommission of those of us who could be doing more good and being more faithful to Christ and are not.

Be good.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, Publican, I had read it.

May the Blessed Mother protect the unborn children of Portugal.

Janice said...

Sorry Simon-Peter, I have not as yet seen your blog. I will, though.

Simon-Peter said...

Janice:

those 9 points are not mine, I am truly simply trying to pass on what I have received, what I have been taught. Those 9 points were just off the top of my head and are really pretty basic stuff when you think about it?

"8. Pursue the normal, traditional measn of sanctification and developing your interior life."

That was my version of a (complete) integration clause (that's for the Publican ;-)).

Like my wife says, always go for the "tried, tested & true."

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the Bertie Wooster and Outrage in Raleigh posts, oh, and the one about Cardinal Kaspar is right up your street...I know you are a fan of his.

Anonymous said...

Florestan:
The Pope says: "“In the 19th century under Pius IX, the clash between the Church's faith and a radical liberalism and the natural sciences, which also claimed to embrace with their knowledge the whole of reality to its limit, stubbornly proposing to make the "hypothesis of God" superfluous." But he goes on to say: ' In the meantime, however, the modern age... experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution." In what way does the model offered by the American revolution differ from that of the French Revolution? By offering the figure of a Deist God modeled revealed in Thomas Jefferson's expurgated New Testament? Then the Pope says that on this basis, namely, the model presented by the American Revolution: "It was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion." Ergo: Vatican Council II. The Pope believes something was different in the Revolution in France and the one in America. I believe that that they are in essence the same. The difference was only that France had a monarchy so rooted in Catholic identity that it took until 1871 for the French to finally accept a republic. But in the eastern US populated by radicals, freethinkers and protestants too extreme in their beliefs to be toleated in Europe of the period republicanism with a Deist figleaf was accepted immediately.

Now in Catholic Portugal and Spain is not the religious tolerance of which the Pope speaks so fondly the root oft the problem? The majority are Catholic. But the Pope's tolerance of differing religious and non-religious ideologies suggests that the majority should make room for the abortionists instead of evengelizing them and converting them to the full Catholic faith. Did we hear anything like the Pope Benedict XV's message under Salazar or Franco? The reason we did not hear of it was because they were following Catholic political teaching as it has always existed, at least, before John Courtenay Murray, S.J. and Vatican II.

With Peter said...

The principle which unites Tradition and Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty is diversely stated as "the common good" or "the just requirements of public order."

The religious freedom advocated by the Council does NOT grant universal license to any behavior or belief. And the Church's right and obligation to evangelize and make converts is fiercely and univocally defended by Dignitatis Humanae.

Therefore what you present, "Anonymous," is a caricature of the Second Vatican Council that directly contradicts its actual documents.

PS. Although DH in some ways originates from the problematic theology of John Courtney Murray, the distinction between the two must be recognized. The document was subject to fierce debate and was the object of multiple amendments and it ended up gaining the approval of many bishops with opinions opposed to Murray's.

Dignitatis Humanae does NOT represent the Church's universal approbation for everything ever said or written by Murray, who is thus essentially irrelevant to the question at hand. Whether the document originated as his brain-child does not mean that he is the supreme interpreter of its meaning. It was approved not by Murray, but by Paul VI and the Fathers of Vatican II. It is NOT Murray, Bugnini or the other periti, but THEY (and arguably the Holy Spirit) who must be credited or blamed for the documents they approved and promulgated.

ClemensMaria said...

Thank you Simon-Peter for your courage and patience in explaining Our Lady of Fatima's message. I'm not surprised that you were viciously attacked. "If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you." Jn 15:18 How much more will they hate you if you love His mother too?

The dogma accusation is a part strawman, part red herring. The message itself is NOT a dogma but the message is meant to strengthen belief in the DOGMA of the Immaculate Conception. Those who take Fatima lightly not only show a lack of respect for the Popes who promoted it and held it up as an admirable devotion but they also show an incredible lack of the sensus fidei with regard to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

A great temptation for traditionalists is to throw out those "pious devotions" which the liberals and the neo-conservatives alike find particularly loathsome in order to seem more acceptable to the main stream currents in the Church. The fact that Catholics can't see a connection between Fatima and the Immaculate Conception is a sign that the diabolical disorientation which Sr. Lucy spoke of is a reality even for traditionalists.

If you find it embarassing that three ignorant little peasant children were chosen to convey Our Lady's message, or if you are afraid that 99% of Catholics, never mind the rest of the world's population, will think you are a lunatic because you believe the stories of peasant children, you should seriously consider taking that to prayer, and praying long and hard over it.

ClemensMaria said...

By the way, for those of you who don't know much about Fatima, I highly recommend William Thomas Walsh's book, _Our_Lady_of_Fatima_ (naturally). There is nothing controversial at all in it. It is simply a very well-written, pious and respectful telling of the story up to the time of its publication (1947). Read the book, don't bother with the movie.

knit_tgz said...

As a Portuguese, as a voter, and as a Catholic, I want to comment.

First: it is true. Most of the Portuguese who did vote, voted "yes". (I am Catholic, and I did vote, and I voted "no", of course, and my bishop and the priests in my parish urged us to vote, and to vote "no", but I cannot say what other priests or bishops said). But most of the Portuguese did not vote. Which means, under Portuguese law, that the result of this referendum is non-binding. That the decision goes to the Parliament hands. (where a majority will indeed approve legalization of abortion on demand up until 10 weeks pregnancy).

Of course, I am sad.

Still, it is not true what most media say, that 90-plus % of our population is Catholic. Being baptized is not the same as being Catholic. From church attendance, I would say maybe 30%, though I don't have any data, and maybe my perception is distorted because I live in Lisbon.

About Fatima: yes, private revelations are not matter of faith. Still, I don't understand the prophecy "Portugal will keep the dogma of faith" to mean that the majority of Portuguese will always be faithful Catholics. I take it to mean that the Portuguese church (meaning, the "practising Catholics", as it is now said to distinguish from the nominal ones), even if it is only a small percentage of the people, will be a faithful church. I hope so!

Please keep my country in your prayers, especially the women and girls who will in the near future find themselves in distress and will now have the society and the law telling them it is OK to opt for abortion. Please pray they will find someone who not only tells them the truth, but also shows them a helping hand.

mikeT said...

Have you come accross this news yet. It might be time to start another novena - Our Lady as fended off the first attempts. The bill was considered null and void due to low voter turn-out.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=8611

Hope you get the news and can re-post some better news.

Caritas said...

Amazing, simply amazing how the flock followed the example set by Pontius Pilate: washed their hands by differing the decision to parliament.

“Ó Maria concebida sem pecado, rogai por nós que recorremos a vós”.

knit_tgz you are truly Brave and we shall continue to pray for Portugal and your kinship.

Of one thing I remain convinced, Providence never fails!

Caritas

New Catholic said...

It's not exactly accurate that it has "failed", miket, but that it does not a binding character (which we mentioned in the original post).

The Portuguese PM feels emboldened by the result (even if it was non-binding) and has a majority in Parliament willing to impose a pro-abortion law.

Now, there will be legitimate constitutional issues involved in case Parliament approves the law; the President, who is not a Socialist, may veto it; and it all will be under the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court.

May the Blessed Virgin protect Portugal.

Rafael said...

The strongest earthquake in over ten years struck the Iberian Peninsula on Monday. The tremor (5.8-6.3 on Richter scale) was noticable all over Portugal and parts of Spain.

poeta said...

with peter,

I would clarify that the Holy Spirit can be "credited" for what saving graces the V2 documents have, but must not be "blamed" for any failings.

Pax et bonum.

Prof Basto said...

Muret,

It is ironic indeed that there is a Portugese leader called Socrates, but he is not the president, he is the prime minister.

The president is Prof. Aníbal Cavaco Silva, and they are not of the same party.

Muret said...

Dear prof basto: Thank you, I stand corrected.
However, the irony stands, don´t you think?.
This new Socrates will never drink what the old one did.
Best regards

mikeT said...

New Catholic - Agreed. However at least for the time being there is still some more hope. Let us pray fervently that Our Lady will intervene for the salvation of souls!

With Peter said...

Poeta- Given the nature of this website and the dispositions of comment page participants, I made this point only as a parenthetical hypothesis (i.e. "arguably").

The argument is that as an authentic act of the Magisterium (regardless of its "infallibility"), Vatican II was protected and guided by the Holy Spirit. As such it did not teach error. And to speak of its failings is to speak only in a human sense: "My power is made perfect in weakness."

God bless,

With Peter said...

One other note: When I said the Holy Spirit must be "credited or blamed" I meant the following:

On the assumption that the documents of Vatican II are an act of even the ordinary and universal Magisterium (see Vatican I dogmatic constitution Dei Filius ch. 4, Denz. 1788), it is impossible to "blame" the documents without blaming the Holy Spirit as well. In this case, for obvious reasons, neither Vatican II nor the Holy Spirit ought to be "blamed" at all.

I am absolutely NOT picking an argument with anyone who disagrees with this logic. I'm only explaining what I meant when I said "and arguably the Holy Spirit."