Saturday, November 26, 2022

“Last of Vatican II Fathers” Proposes Killing Children as He Nears His Particular Judgement

Bishop Luigi Bettazzi, who sees the Second Vatican Council in Pope Francis, wants to legitimize the killing of unborn children through abortion at the age of 99.

 (Rome) The "last living council father", the "red bishop", wants to justify the killing of unborn children as his last act before his death - at least up to the "fourth/fifth month".  The process of disintegration in the church, illustrated by a concrete, shocking example.

IMonsignor Luigi Bettazzi will celebrate his 99th birthday in three days.  In 1946 he was ordained after his training at the seminary of Bologna and in 1963 was installed by Pope Paul VI.  as auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Bologna.  Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, Archbishop of Bologna at the time and one of the four moderators of the Second Vatican Council, gave him episcopal consecration.  Cardinal Lercaro was one of the Council's progressive ringleaders and became known as the "Red Cardinal," and not because of the purple.

Bettazzi himself, who attended three of the four sessions of the Council, liked to provoke in the Council Hall with a quotation from a book that used to be on the Index Liborum  Prohibitorum.  Substantial contributions by him have not survived.  The Romagna Regional Seminary in Bologna was a center of progressive subversion.

The name for Cardinal Lercaro, whose assistant was Bettazzi, was soon brought into his own when Bettazi was asked by Paul VI in 1966 to be appointed bishop of Ivrea.  As the “red bishop” he caused a stir and caused a nuisance without making any profit for the faith or the Church.

In 1994, for the first time, it seemed that the takeover of power by Italy's Communists was within reach.  But then Silvio Berlusconi and his new electoral alliance became an unexpected problem at the last moment.  In his election campaign for the United Left Front, which called itself the Alliance of Progressives, Bettazzi went so far as to say that Jesus was a "progressive."

For several years, Bettazzi has been regarded as the "last surviving council father".  While that's not entirely accurate, it helps the image and is meant to give Bettazzi's voice more weight.  Only last June did Msgr. Gabino Díaz Merchán, former Archbishop of Oviedo, die as the last surviving member of the Council in Spain.  In 2018 the last Council Fathers of the USA and France had died, two ultra-progressives: Monsignor Raymond Hunthausen, former Archbishop of Seattle, and Monsignor Pierre Pican, former Bishop of Bayeux and Lisieux.  The last German Council Father, Msgr. Johannes Jobst, former Bishop of Broome in Australia, had already died in 2014.  In addition to Bettazzi, four other Council Fathers live;  three of them in Mexico, South Korea and India, which are unknown in Europe.  Only the youngest of them, Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, who was Prefect of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 2002 to 2008, would be known in the universal Church.  He was only ordained bishop on August 29, 1965 and therefore touched on the Council only in the last sessions.  Probably the reason why he is more reluctant to tell his own stories abo Post: Edit ut it.

On the other hand, it is true that Bettazzi is the last living signatory of the so-called Catacomb Pact, which was concluded in 1965 by 40 Council Fathers at the end of the Council in the spirit of liberation theology.  On the 50th anniversary of the signing, Bettazzi said:

 "With Pope Francis, the catacomb pact is revived."

In 2016, Bettazzi happily said Pope Francis was making a Don Andrea Gallo — a “priest who denied almost everything” — a “forerunner” who sowed what could now be reaped.

In the summer of 2020, Bettazzi gave Pope Francis the progressive accolade by calling the first pope not himself a member of the Council the “son of the Second Vatican Council.”  Bettazzi went further by saying:

 "With the election of Bergoglio I saw the programmatic culmination of the Council in which I took part."

Bettazzi: The "new reality" will only become a human at some point

On August 15, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary of all places, Bettazzi spoke in the magazine Rocca (16/17/2022) of the association Pro Civitate Christiana of Assisi, a “historic voice of progressive and pacifist Catholicism”, according to the Vaticanist Sandro Magister.  In it, the 99-year-old presented “considerations on abortion”.

On the two pages of his contribution, Bettazzi provided evidence that progressivism can actually mean a step backwards by returning to a position that he believed to have been overcome long ago and advocating the thesis that an unborn child is only a human being from the “fourth/fifth” month of pregnancy and can, therefore, be killed by abortion.  Scientifically, the statement has been refuted since the groundbreaking research of the German anatomist Erich Blechschmidt (1904-1992), who specialized in embryogenesis, especially morphology.  He proved that man is man from conception and does not eventually become man.

The Rocca issue of August 15, 2022 with the Bettazzi contribution: "Considerations on abortion"

The abortion lobby, on the other hand, has blinkers on and does not accept the current state of scientific knowledge because it diametrically contradicts their “stance”.  This lobby is fed by two currents, both of which go back to Social Darwinism: the wealthy Western Neo-Malthusians (overpopulation theorists) and the Marxist (emancipatory) movement, which is why the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to legalize abortion in 1920.  Both currents have been working together for a long time.  When National Socialism still existed, it was also part of the party.  For pro-abortion advocates, ideology comes before science, a moral deficit that has claimed tens of millions of lives and made abortion the greatest massacre in human history.

Since 1968, the abortion lobby, in cooperation with neo-Malthusian financiers and Marxist foot soldiers in the western world, has succeeded in questioning the right to life of unborn children.  The Catholic Church opposed this and became the last great bulwark of humanity.  This is hurting progressive Church officials as it threatens their solidarity with the political left, which has emerged as a globalist mainstream, led by neo-Malthusians.  Some churchmen even support their theses out of conviction.

Under pressure from left-wing leadership, progressive church representatives are attempting to square the circle.  An impossibility, which is why they are willing to raze the ecclesiastical bastions and accept the hostile takeover.  Bettazzi also takes this position, specifically in a question of life or death.  From an earthly point of view, the endangerment of the soul seems to have become almost superfluous, since the soul itself and the salvation of the soul have largely been successfully suppressed from the vocabulary of the Church.

The article in Rocco magazine notes that Bettazzi is well aware that his position is in stark contradiction to Catholic Church teaching and "undermines the Church's concept of abortion."

Piana: When someone becomes human is "ever open"?

A few days ago, again in the same magazine (Rocca, 22/2022), Giannino Piana, priest, former ethics lecturer at the Universities of Turin and Urbino and one of the most widely read progressive moral theologians in Italy, seconded him.  The 83-year-old Piana takes up Bettazzi's thesis and develops it further, that is, he drives the tunnels that are dug under the Church walls to place the explosives with which they are to be blown up.

In order to overcome the contradiction "with the traditional teaching of the Church", Piana fabulates that "the authentic Christian tradition cannot and must not be thought of as a monolithic block that is mummified and passed on repetitively".  On the contrary, it is “an open and innovative tradition that is constantly evolving”, because “the courage to change, while fully preserving the evangelical substance, is the way to make it credible and universalizable”.  So so.  A typically weak argument of weak thinking, which is mostly interest-led.

The Rocca issue of November 15 with the Piana contribution: "When do you become a person"

It is all the more clear from the two essays that Bettazzi and Piana – as is currently happening primarily through attacks on the sacrament of Holy Orders and with a view to homosexuality against the doctrine of marriage and morality – want to break the dam in the question of the right to life.  Wherever the Catholic Church stands in contradiction to the prevailing godless thinking, it should adapt - at any price.

Bettazzi's basis of argument is inevitably thin.  He speaks of a distinction between "reason" and "intuition", between a form of cognition of reality that focuses on the "I" and one that focuses on the "we".  It would be more honest to speak of the tension between should and want.  Instead, in his corrosive remarks, he misuses Genesis, which says, "God formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being" to deduce that the  biblical narrative in what is formed with the dust of the earth is to be understood as "something preliminary", "which is not yet the individual human being", who only later becomes such through the breath of life.

Bettazzi thus poses the question of when the breath of life makes "this reality" human: "Reason tells us that this is the moment when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg".  However, “intuition” is “more insecure and open to secrets”.  It hesitates to say "that this new reality is already a person.  Is this the case after the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb?  Is that the case in the third month of pregnancy when the different parts of the body are already configured?”

Bettazzi answered both questions with no.  Much more convincing is the assertion, according to the bishop, "of a modern scientist," whose name he prudently does not name, that "man only becomes an autonomous individual, a person, when he is still in the womb capable of being human  live and breathe independently: not before the fourth/fifth month, like John the Baptist, who jumped in Elizabeth's lap at Mary's greeting in the sixth month".

How convenient that Bettazzi's random fishing in the dark should result in a conclusion that is consistent with current abortion laws in most Western countries.

Piana, once president of the Italian Association of Moral Theologians (ATISM), founded in 1966, jumps on Bettazzi's bandwagon and emphasizes "the special feeling of women" which is "shaped by a unique existential entanglement" to "the human process in which one  becomes a person”, who is “in no way locked into predefined schemes” and “presents himself as perpetually open”.

The priest and moral theologian Giannino Piana was president of the Italian Association of Moral Theologians

The point in time when something, the "new reality", becomes a person is "perpetually open".  Hear hear.  A Catholic bishop and a priest set off a moral-theological atomic bomb with all its potential for destruction.

Piana's explanation that "the moment of the beginning of personal life is to be postponed before the act of fertilization" does not help either, since he adds in the same breath that "one cannot speak of an abortion in the strict sense unless one has had a considerable one."  distance from this event", and from this concludes - and this is what Bettazzi and Piana are about - that "the suppression of life in the early months of pregnancy, however serious, cannot be classified as homicide"  .

 And Rome?  silent

And Rome is reacting in the way Pope Francis is already accustomed to from other fronts on which the spirit of the times would have to be contradicted: by remaining silent.

But hasn't Francis repeatedly spoken out against the killing of unborn children in very drastic terms, thereby confirming the Church's teaching against the killing spree?

Yes, he has.  However, he avoids the consequences of this, because that would be a “culture war” and that seems particularly reprehensible in his eyes.  But that could also be interpreted differently.  From the perspective of their authors, Bettazzi's and Piana's thesis is in any case easily compatible with Francis' condemnation of abortion: one can only speak of a child, i.e. a person, as soon as the breath has been breathed in;  therefore one cannot speak of an abortion beforehand.

 So it seems, at least dialectically, to have succeeded in squaring the circle by hiding and straightening it out?  Yes, on a mountain of corpses, but with the advantage of having avoided a culture war.

Both the bishop and the moral theologian would assert all the more resolutely that from the "fourth/fifth" month of pregnancy onwards we would speak of a child, a person whose killing is the destruction of a human life, which is of course to be rejected - at least until then, until “intuition” and “feeling” (in plain language, the abortion lobby), draw other dividing lines, as is already the case in the left-wing states of New York (since 2019) and California (2022), where unborn children are kept until the time of birth  can be killed.  The German media, too, presented the most cruel possible abortion legislation as a “safe haven for women” and a “place of refuge”.  That they did so with quotation marks underscores at best the hypocrisy of the misanthropic neo-Malthusian-Marxist cartel's mind-control.

Some church representatives have long since changed sides.  This is a fact that must be faced and spoken out.

Pope Francis remains silent, as if he does not know what the former President of the Italian Association of Moral Theologians and the last living Council Father, whom he has personally received in audience, are saying, both of whom see themselves as "Bergoglians".

And one last thing: the ugly picture that Luigi Bettazzi paints as the last surviving Council Father in the West also seems to be characteristic of the Second Vatican Council with symbolic power.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi

Image: Youtube/Rocca (Screenshots)

Trans: Tancred




  1. Joe Nardi should invest a bit of time in studying the difference between Moral Theology and moralizing 'journalistic' opinion.

  2. Don’t you have to have a morality in the first place, Gaybrielle?

  3. There is no just cause for abortion. It is evil and always will be. God have mercy on those in the church who condone it. Their judgment will be severe.

  4. "There is no just cause for abortion. It is evil and always will be."

    So Nemo 11:55 AM, what about ectopic pregnancies, for example, when the placenta fixes on the wall of a fallopian tube instead of the uterus?

  5. An ectopic pregnancy and it's treatment is not an abortion.
    But you knew that, didn't you? Maybe you just got off on spelling "fallopian".


  6. Gaybrielle is an immoral theologian.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. Do you guys living in your parents’ basements get your jollies trying to plan how to deny women their fundamental natural right
    to reproductive self determination?

    1. Talking about your own damaged hellspawm?

  9. "Kim" demonic, harpy from the bowels of hell; how on earth can you cannibalistic she-freaks call slaughtering, tearing apart, murdering your own children in the womb a 'right'? Animals....ANIMALS protect their young (including preborn) with their very lives...OFTEN sacrificing their own lives for their offspring....while your ilk salivates to bath in your own children's blood. ENOUGH!, you, that's an insult to swine. How 'bout keeping your legs together for a change?...How 'bout your 'natural right' (actually your moral RESPONSIBILITY) to say "no" for a change. Being a slut comes with consequences, and a baby; a totally separate individual from the mother with their own set of DNA, should NEVER be given a death sentence for the sins of his/her mother....yes 'Kim', sluttiness is sinful...gravely so; and so is murdering babies; born and preborn.

    Grow up and be a woman, take responsibility for your actions and their logical consequences without turning to murder for your own convenience. ENOUGH!

  10. The “parent’s basement” was pretty low level boomer stuff.

  11. Memo to Kim:
    My parents are dead.
    I don't have a basement.
    You have no "right" to murder your child.