Monday, July 23, 2018

In Defense Of Pope Pius XII


 The last pope before the Great Apostasy, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, is one of the most unfairly attacked pontiffs, especially among those purporting to be "Traditionalists." Coming into the world March 2, 1876, Eugene Pacelli was born into a family of devout Catholics. He felt called to the priesthood, and on Easter Sunday, April 2, 1899, he was ordained. Incredibly intelligent, young Father Pacelli received his doctorate in theology in 1904, being just 28 years old. His mentor was the great Cardinal Gasparri, whom he helped with the codification of Church Law, promulgated in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV as the Code of Canon Law. He also was good friends with Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, the "power behind the throne" of Pope St. Pius X. It was Cardinal Merry del Val who helped drive Pope St. Pius X's attack on Modernism. If we had a real pope, I'm confident the holy and erudite Cardinal would have an "St." in front of his name.

On May 13, 1917, the same day the Blessed Virgin appeared at Fatima, 41 year old Father Pacelli was consecrated a bishop at the Sistine Chapel by His Holiness Pope Benedict XV, who had appointed him as nuncio to Bavaria. On December 16, 1929, Pope Pius XI gave Bp. Pacelli the Cardinal's hat, and in February of 1930--a mere two months later--promoted him to Vatican Secretary of State. This appointment made Cardinal Pacelli one of the two most powerful men in the Church after the pope himself (the other powerful position is Pro-Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office).

Pope Pius XI died on February 10, 1939. In the conclave that followed, Cardinal Pacelli was elected Supreme Pontiff on his 64th birthday, after the third ballot. He took the name Pope Pius XII in honor of his immediate predecessor who had named him both cardinal and Secretary of State. Pope Pius had his solemn coronation ten days later, on March 12th. As the three-fold tiara of the papacy was placed on his head, he took seriously the words that were spoken for centuries: "Receive ye this tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the Father of Princes and Kings, Pastor of the Universe, and Vicar on Earth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom belongs all glory, world without end." His papacy was tumultuous, and lasted 19 years, 7 months, and 7 days until he went to Judgement on October 9, 1958. In this post, I will not be defending Pope Pius against the asinine attacks of those who claim he didn't "do enough to save the Jews," or that he was "Hitler's Pope," and other rank calumnies. There is enough literature out there that puts such lies to shame.

The purpose of my post will be to outline his many shining achievements, and expel the charges of those, from Vacancy Pushers (those who "push the time of the papal vacancy" before Roncalli), to the simply misguided, who believe that Pope Pius XII was "responsible" for the Great Apostasy, or allegedly promulgated "harmful changes" such as the mitigated Eucharistic Fast, and the New Rites of Holy Week.

Pastor Angelicus

 Pope Pius XII is sometimes thought to be the "Angelic Pastor" spoken of by the so-called "Prophesies of St. Malachy" regarding the popes. The so-called prophesies have no Magisterial approval, but have been influential in some "conservative" Vatican II sect circles. Nevertheless, the title for "Papa Pacelli" is most fitting. Here is a run down of some major theological accomplishments.

1. A True Marian Pope.
As a priest, the future pope celebrated his First Mass on April 3, 1899, at the altar of the icon of The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, under her title Salus Populi Romani in the Basilica of St. Mary Major. As previously written, he was consecrated a bishop the same day the Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima. As Pope, in 1940, he approved the Fatima apparitions as "worthy of belief," and in 1942, consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. (I refuse to get bogged down in argumentation over the "true meanings" of private revelations, and therefore will not argue with those whom assert he should have specifically consecrated Russia, as was the hallmark of "Fr." Gruner). 

Pope Pius XII claimed to have seen the "Miracle of the Sun" no less than four times. According to the Fatima visionaries, Mary had said there would be a miracle October 13, 1917, so that people would come to believe. Thousands had gathered at the site of the visions, and the sun "danced," reportedly drying instantaneously the rain-soaked land and spectators. Pius XII wrote, "I have seen the 'miracle of the sun,' this is the pure truth." 

The papal note says that at 4 p.m. on Oct. 30, 1950, during his "habitual walk in the Vatican Gardens, reading and studying," having arrived to the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, "toward the top of the hill […] I was awestruck by a phenomenon that before now I had never seen."

"The sun, which was still quite high, looked like a pale, opaque sphere, entirely surrounded by a luminous circle,” he recounted. And one could look at the sun, "without the slightest bother. There was a very light little cloud in front of it."

The Holy Father’s note goes on to describe "the opaque sphere" that "moved outward slightly, either spinning, or moving from left to right and vice versa. But within the sphere, you could see marked movements with total clarity and without interruption." (See https://zenit.org/articles/pius-xii-saw-miracle-of-the-sun/)

For Pius, this served as a confirmation of one of his greatest acts as pope. On November 1, 1950, wearing the papal tiara and invoking his Supreme Apostolic Authority as infallible teacher of all Christians, he declared ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption. The Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus declares:

 "For which reason, after We have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

The text of the Apostolic Constitution was drafted by the eminent theologian, Fr. Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, one of the first sedevacantists, who was consecrated a bishop in 1981 by Archbishop Thuc.

2. Foe of Communism.  Pius was doggedly anti-Communist. On July 1, 1949, the Holy Office published a decree, approved by His Holiness, declaring any Catholics who became Communists as apostates.

DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE
FORMULATED BY PIUS XII
JULY 1, 1949


This Sacred Supreme Congregation has been asked:
1. whether it is lawful to join Communist Parties or to favor them;

2. whether it is lawful to publish, disseminate, or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them;

3. whether the faithful who knowingly and freely perform the acts specified in questions 1 and 2 may be admitted to the Sacraments;

4. whether the faithful who profess the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See as apostates from the Catholic faith.

The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers entrusted with the supervision of matters concerning the safeguarding of Faith and morals, having previously heard the opinion of the Reverend Lords Consultors, decreed in the plenary session held on Tuesday (instead of Wednesday), June 28, 1949, that the answers should be as follows:

To 1. in the negative: because Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; and the leaders of the Communists, although they sometimes profess in words that they do not oppose religion, do in fact show themselves, both in their teaching and in their actions, to be the enemies of God, of the true religion and of the Church of Christ;

to 2. in the negative: they are prohibited ipso iure (cf. Can. 1399 of the Codex Iuris Canonici);

to 3. in the negative, in accordance with the ordinary principles concerning the refusal of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed;

to 4. in the affirmative.
And the following Thursday, on the 30th day of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, Pope by the Divine Providence, in the ordinary audience, granted to the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Assessor of the Sacred Office, approved of the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers which had been reported to Him, and ordered the same to be promulgated officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, on July 1st, 1949.

(Signed) Petrus Vigorita,

Notary of the Sacred Supreme Congregation
of the Holy Office.

A further dubium ( a question answered) dated April 4, 1959 from the Holy Office made the provisions of the 1949 Decree more specific, stating that it implied a prohibition on voting for parties that were helping Communists, even if such parties themselves had inoffensive doctrines or even called themselves "Christian."

3. Pope Condemning Modern Errors. 
One of the greatest encyclicals of the 20th century was Humani generis "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine" which was promulgated August 12, 1950. It was drafted by the Dominican theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Its salient points include:

  • Encyclicals usually speak to matters already expounded upon in doctrine; however, should the Pope pass supreme judgment on a disputed matter, it should be considered closed for discussion.
  • Divine revelation was given by God as guidance for the Church to exercise her living teaching authority, not for private deterministic interpretation.
  • Some dispute the divine authorship of Scripture in part or in whole and interpret it on the basis of exegesis, looking for hidden meanings, instead of on the Church’s teachings.
  • They claim that a new exegesis of the Old Testament would replace literal difficulties with symbolic/spiritual truth.
  • Their claims oppose the norms of interpretation explained in previous encyclicals.
  • Doubt regarding revealed truths is a result of this way of thinking. (e.g. Creation out of love, God’s eternal foreknowledge of men’s free choices, etc.)
  • Angels, essence, the supernatural order, original sin, sin in general, the efficacy of Christ’s sarifice, and the Real Presence or all debated.
  • The necessity and value of the Church and the faith itself is questioned.
  • These errors are being pointed out herein because some Catholic theologians are committing them and are hereby censured.
  • The Church relies on reason to understand the faith, God’s law, the mysteries, and even the existence of God. Reason comes with training and leads to truth.
  • Teaching Authority only covers matters of faith and morals. "New" truth cannot overturn established truth, but it can correct errors.
  • Priests must learn philosophy and Aquinas’ method is tried and true.
  • Opponents claim that the traditional philosophy used by the Church is adequate for basic instruction but not for practical application, and that all other philosophies, albeit evolving, are ultimately compatible with Catholicism.
  • They claim that the Church’s philosophy appeals to intellect and ignores the will and emotions; however, this is clearly and historically false, for the Church teaches that the will can see truth beyond what the intellect can deduce on its own.
  • Theodicy and ethics (philosophical sciences) are threatened by these new opinions. Not only are they themselves debased, but so is the protection provided by the Church’s Teaching Authority.
  • Discussion of theories not yet proven scientifically but merely hypothesized must follow. Theories can only be considered if they do not oppose Church teaching.
  • Human evolution (origin of man from pre-existent and living matter) is up for discussion, but cannot contradict that God is the immediate creator of souls.
  • Polygenism (origin from two or more distinct ancestors) is irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin.
  • The first eleven chapters of Genesis may not fit the modern concept of history, but any inclusion of folklore was done under divine inspiration.
  • Thus, these are not imaginative myths but expressions of truth. Ancient sacred authors were clearly superior to secular ("profane") authors of the same period.

Thus while condemning the modern errors, Pope Pius was careful to allow discussion on evolution of the body of humans, and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis in certain instances (which idea was advanced by Pope St. Pius X).

4. Pope who developed the traditional and correct ecclesiology and also defended the Mass. 
In his great encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943), His Holiness taught that the One True Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on Earth. It made clear that the Church of Christ is not a mere collection of believers (as taught by Protestants), but is identical to the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching would be repudiated for "the People of God" false ecclesiology at Vatican II, whereby the Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, but merely "subsists" there in its fullness, yet can be found in false sects as well.

In Mediator Dei, Pius, as if seeing the year 1969 and the Novus Bogus "mass," he condemns those who, under the guise of "returning to old ways," would make unlawful and radical changes to the Mass in these words:

"But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (para. #62; Emphasis mine).

5. The "greatest act of my papacy." Near his death, when Pope Pius reflected upon all he had done, he considered one act to be "the greatest act" of his papacy. What was this act to which he referred? On May 29, 1954 when he canonized his predecessor Pope Pius X, and enrolled the "Foe of Modernism" among the saints of the Church!

Unjust Criticisms
With all the great things this pope did, how could he be so harshly criticized? He was a theologian who looked up to, and surrounded himself with, Anti-Modernists. I will list the criticisms I hear most often, and devote a separate section to the revised Rites of Holy Week. 

  • Pope Pius was "soft on Modernism." It is claimed he didn't clamp down on Modernist theologians as he should have done, and promoted heretics such as Roncalli and Montini. First, there is nothing that protects a pope from making poor choices in whom he elevates to Cardinal or appoints as a bishop. While Montini and Roncalli were "suspect of Modernism," the word "suspect" means just that--not yet guilt. His confessor, Cardinal Bea, may have convinced him they were rehabilitated. Bea was a real snake in the grass; a closet Modernist no one suspected until he came out at Vatican II. Has not (unfortunately) almost everyone been betrayed by a trusted family member or friend? Does that somehow cast doubts on your character? Did Pius make poor choices in appointments? Objectively, yes, but subjectively we don't know all the reasons. It's another case of playing "Monday morning quarterback." The calumny that Pius knew certain facts about clergy and deliberately elevated them is on the same level as the Jews who scream that he knowingly and willingly helped Hitler.
  • Pope Pius "praised the Masonic United Nations." Actually, he enunciated (in 1953) the sound principle that should guide such a body: "Within the limits of the possible and the lawful, to promote everything that facilitates union and makes it more effective; to raise dykes against anything that disturbs it; to tolerate at times that which it is impossible to correct, but which, on the other hand, must not be permitted to make shipwreck of the community of peoples, because of the higher good that is expected from it." The detractors of His Holiness never mention this, or the fact he never "praised" Masonry or Masonic ideals. 
  • Pope Pius modified the Eucharistic fast. Yes, he did, and (a) he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator, and (b) there was good reason for it. With the increasing secularization of the world, people had to work on Holy Days of Obligation, and sometimes on Sundays (police officers, doctors in hospitals, etc.) with it being harder and harder to take off and make ends meet for their families. They had to miss Mass and say an extra Rosary that night and/or read devoutly from the missal. Pope Pius therefore allowed evening Masses. The ancient fast began at midnight. If I'm working and the Traditionalist Chapel near me has an 8pm Mass, I would need to go over twenty (20) hours without food. Many people due to infirmity, old age, or the need to keep their strength for work (especially in manual labor) would not be able to do it. They would have to go to Mass and abstain from Communion, or risk their health and job performance. With his decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus (1905), Pope St. Pius X encouraged frequent Holy Communion, not as a reward for the just but as the antidote to sin. The Saint said, "Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven." By mitigating the fast to three hours before Communion (water and medicine don't break the fast and may be taken at any time), Pope Pius XII was ensuring the will of His Predecessor was continued. I agree with some of my readers who say that, if you can do so without harm to your health or occupation, the midnight fast should be voluntarily kept as penance. Those who cannot do so (such as my now deceased mother who was sickly most of her life), should not be the least afraid to avail themselves of the modified fast. 
  • Pope Pius changed some feast days and made some changes in the Mass rubrics. As I stated above, yes, he did, and he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator. He instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (August 22) and The Queenship of Mary (May 31). On May 1st, the day used by Communists as "May Day" to show the might of Marxism, Pope Pius made it the feast of St. Joseph the Workman. Here he clearly shows the proper understanding of labor exemplified by St. Joseph as opposed to the evil system of Karl Marx. With Cum hac nostra aetate (March 23, 1955), he slightly changed the rankings of feasts, eliminated some octaves and suppressed the Proper Last Gospels for the usual Last Gospel of St. John.  
None of the above makes him a promoter of heresy or evil. The following section deals with the most controversial aspect of his papacy---only controversial, I may add, after Vatican II and complained of by some Traditionalists---the Reformed Rite of Holy Week. 

The New Rites of Holy Week

 On Novenber 19, 1955, Pope Pius XII issued the decree Maxima Redemptionis, for a Revised Rite of Holy Week to take effect in 1956. (In 1951, the Vigil of Easter on Holy Saturday was altered experimentally, and made official in 1956). There are some Traditionalist clergy who hold the Revised Rites are obligatory. Still others hold that the Rites have ceased to bind because they have become "noxious" over time in a way Pope Pius XII could not have foreseen. They use the pre-Pius XII Rites. As I have no Magisterial authority, and I am not a theologian, I can not settle the issue. What all agree about, as do I, is that the reforms of Pope Pius XII are just as good and Catholic as the former Holy Week. Do the reformed Rites cease to bind? Not for the reasons given by those who reject them. I do believe a case can be made for using the older Rites. I have attended both with no problem. I prefer the older Rites, but that's all it is--a preference. So while I think a case can be made that the older Rites can be used, I believe the stronger arguments are on the side of those who use the Reformed Rites as obligatory. I will set forth my reasons below.

1. The Rites were promulgated by a True Pope. No Traditionalist clergy denies the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII. Some Traditionalist laymen have called his papacy into question, as well as Vacancy Pushers such as Michael Bizzaro. Their arguments hold no water, and the clergy know it.

2. The Church is Infallible in Her Universal Disciplinary Laws. According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls...The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine).

According to theologian Hermann, "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…" ( See Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae 1:258).

Therefore, the Reformed Rites of Holy Week are guaranteed to be holy and non-heretical.

3. The Reformed Rites had some obvious improvements. Pope Pius XII allowed the times of the services to be held later, for more people to participate and to be aligned with when they actually occurred (Good Friday in the afternoon, Maundy Thursday in the evening) and allowed Our Lord to be received in Holy Communion on Good Friday during the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified.  It also lengthened the end of fasting and abstinence until midnight on Holy Saturday, rather than 12 noon.

So why the rejection by some clergy? Fr. Anthony Cekada has written on this extensively, and has recently made a change in the upshot of his arguments in a video. He (and others) argued:

1. The Rites introduced changes that "became harmful over time." To read the argument if full, please see http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P12MoreLegal.pdf. Fr. Cekada lists certain "false principles and practices," such as: the vernacular may be an integral part of the liturgy, the priest’s role is reduced, lay participation must ideally be vocal, etc. These were incorporated into the Novus Bogus of 1969. If a principle is wrong, it's always wrong, and does not become wrong. If the vernacular may never be an integral part of the liturgy, then it was wrong when Pope Pius XII introduced it, which is impossible, unless you want to say he wasn't pope. The application of the principle may be wrong, but not the principle itself.  Therefore, there was nothing that could have "become harmful." To use an analogy, praying to saints is good and laudatory. Certain "High Church" Anglican heretics, offer their invalid and heretical liturgy in honor of St. Thomas More as a "Martyr of the Reformation (sic)." The dishonoring of St. Thomas More through a false service that equates him with others who were Protestants in no way derogates from the principle that praying to saints is good, or that honoring St. Thomas More is in some way "rendered harmful" because of what some heretics have done.

2. Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason and behind the changes. It doesn't matter. If Pius XII was pope, the Holy Ghost protected all  Pius did in the Liturgy. Bugnini can say 2+2=4 and he's not automatically wrong because he's a Freemason. He was putting in true principles which could be misapplied later. That doesn't make them per se bad, and Fr. Cekada agrees they are not bad in and of themselves.

3. The Changes led to the "New Mass" of 1969. No. I believe the changes were transient and leading to a different form of the Mass that would fight Modernism. What this final product would look like, I have no idea. Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII were calling for and working on reforming the liturgy. Pope St. Pius X began with Divino Afflatu of November 1, 1911. The year after the change, Pope Pius XII declared, "...the faithful must seek from Scripture, tradition and the sacred liturgy as from a deep untainted source." (See Haurietis Aquas, May 15, 1956; the True Mass will always be untainted even when changes are made by the pope because it is the working of the Holy Ghost). It was not leading to a Masonic bread and wine service as in the Novus Bogus. The Modernists hijacked the Liturgical Movement beginning with Roncalli.

4.  By using the Reformed Rite of Holy Week, we lend credibility to the lie of Montini (Paul VI). In a video, Fr. Cekada changed his argument slightly. In the video, he is "sent back in time" to have an audience with Pope Pius XII.  Fr. Cekada concedes that the changes made were not evil or heretical, but since Montini claimed they were the first step towards the Novus Bogus "mass," they should no longer be used because they give credibility to that notion. Pius agrees, and Fr. Cekada returns to 2018. The video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmsEOsohZKM. Actually, the argument works the exact opposite to what Fr. Cekada states. Since the reforms of Pope Pius XII were not the first steps to the "new mass," Montini lied (no surprise there). By refusing to use those reforms, it makes their rejection seem to stem from the fact that they were the first steps to the Novus Bogus "mass"---why else would you reject them?

5. We can't be sure Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) were not true popes (at least until 1964), so you can't reject those changes if you accept Pope Pius XII's changes. For clergy and laity in 1959-1964, that would hold true. However, since then, we have good reason to doubt the validity of Roncalli's and Montini's election on several counts. As theologian Szal explains, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Scismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 2; Emphasis mine).  Since we can suspect the elections of Roncalli and Montini, we can safely disregard their "laws" at any stage. Not so Pope Pius XII.

6. Laymen don't understand these matters like clergy, so they have no business discussing them. This argument is fatuous at best. In the absence of a pope, which Traditionalist clergy do the laity follow when they disagree on a disputed point of theology? In this time of the Great Apostasy, we can't "check our brains at the door." Moreover, I received Holy Communion from the hands of my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar DePauw, on Good Friday for years, as he explained the changes of Pope Pius XII. Father was ordained in 1942, was an approved pre-Vatican II canonist (doctorate in canon law [JCD] in 1955 from Catholic University of America), and a peritus (theological expert) at Vatican II who fought the Modernists. He was a seminary professor for the Archdiocese of Baltimore (1955-1962), and was the first to publicly stand against Vatican II in 1964. I'd love Fr. Cekada, or any other Traditionalist priest, to tell me with a straight face that he "didn't understand" the complexities of the rubrics and all it entailed!

That the Reformed Rite was not meant to be permanent, and we don't know how it was heading in a truly orthodox way, in my opinion, would perhaps justify the Old Rites. I don't condemn (nor could I) the SSPV or Fr. Cekada in using them. However, the Reformed Rites are good and holy--equal to the Old. No one should claim that the Old Rites are "Bugnini-free" as if the Reformed Rites of Pope Pius XII were the work of Bugnini and not protected by the Holy Ghost. One may have a preference, but that's all it is; a preference. The CMRI has a much stronger position that the Rites can be considered obligatory. Finally, one must be careful when invoking epieikeia, for as theologians McHugh and Callan note:

"There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one’s ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epieikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now." (See Moral Theology 1:141).

Conclusion
Pope Pius XII was a good and holy pontiff. he has been attacked unjustly on the left by the Jews, and unjustly on the right by certain Traditionalists (and those of the lunatic fringe calling themselves "Traditionalists"). We need more unity and less diversity as we struggle to make our Catholic way in these perilous times. The chaos all began with the death of "Papa Pacelli" on October 9, 1958. I'd say that's a good date to retain all that was in place, and to reject all that comes after it, until we get a new pope, or Our Lord returns in glory. 




Monday, July 16, 2018

East Meets (And Defeats) West


 Western civilization is being taken over by Eastern paganism. It's so pervasive, many people don't even realize it. The inroads made by Eastern paganism began with Vatican II. The heretical document Gaudium et Spes falsely attributes to pagan sects, like Hinduism and Buddhism, that they believe in God as the Creator of the universe. Paragraph #36 states: "...[All] believers of whatever religion have always heard His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures." The Eastern pagans completely ignore the idea of a God who created from nothing and who reveals Himself in His creatures. This is because these Eastern religions are convinced that reality proceeds through the emanation of an impersonal, cosmic, eternal force which is identically replicated in all things; from which force all comes, and to which all returns, becoming a part of it, and dissolving into it.

The basic worldview of the East is pantheism, the belief that in some sense all of reality is ultimately One and Divine. In bringing their false religions to the West, many people adopt another (yet similar) worldview known as panentheism (the belief that God is "in" all things). Panentheism recognizes God and the world as distinct concepts, but then holds that God is the spirit or "divine energy" or "mind" that fills and pervades and expresses itself in the world. On this view God and the world are interdependent, needing each other to form a complete reality. Thus the standard analogy for panentheism is the idea that a human being is both a spirit (or mind) and a body, with neither doing anything without the other. God is not a personal Creator of the world, but the divine potential of the world and of each one of us. Most people in Western culture could not clearly distinguish pantheism from panentheism, and in most contexts the difference is of little practical significance. This is why the apostate Catholic priest, Matthew Fox, can be an advocate of Eastern thinking while technically holding to panentheism rather than pantheism.

Fox, ordained a Dominican priest in 1967, was dismissed for "disobedience" in 1993 by the Order and upbraided by "Cardinal" Ratzinger, but not for heresy. This was in spite of the fact that he:

  • referred to God the Mother (not Father)
  • rejected Original Sin
  • accepted Native American "spirituality"
  • refused to condemn homosexuality
  • worked with Miriam Simos, a feminist neo-pagan witch who calls herself "Starhawk" 
In this post the errors of the Eastern pagan worldview will be examined, as well as how it has permeated our Western culture since Vatican II.

The Errors of Pantheism

 There is much wrong with thinking God and the universe are one (or God is in all things). The Vatican Council (1870), infallibly condemned the idea:

"3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema.

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema.

5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema."

In addition, there are four good reasons for the average person to believe pantheism/panentheism to be wrong:

1) The universal amnesia regarding our "divinity" cannot be satisfactorily explained.
If humanity is really "part of the divine," how is it that we are unaware of it? Wouldn't "god" know he is divine? Why does it take some guru, or yoga, or meditation for "god" to realize who he is? How do we account for this "cosmic amnesia"?

2. How does the pantheist know that HE is not the one mis-perceiving reality?
The Eastern pagans claim that Christians who believe in a world external to their senses are caught in the grip of an illusion, because "all is one." How does the pagan know it is we who are deceived by our common sense experience and not himself for thinking that "all is one;" contrary to what reason and sense experience tells us?

3. If pantheism is true, we can never distinguish between fantasy and reality. 
The burden of proof is clearly on the Eastern pagan to tell us why we should abandon our common ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy. We should believe what our experience tells us is true unless or until we have good reason to think otherwise. The pagans reverse this and would have us believe what is counter-intuitive is true despite the lack of evidence. This is absurd.

4. The Eastern pagans reject logic.
D.T. Suzuki wrote in his Introduction to Zen Buddhism  that we "comprehend life only when we abandon logic." In other words, he's trying to convince you with arguments (using logic) that you need to abandon logic--a self-refuting position. It is (for the pagan) logical to be illogical (if your head is spinning--good for you, it's mumbo-jumbo).

Eastern Pagan Worldview Infects The West
1. Education. Many public (and Vatican II sect) schools offer yoga in Physical Education classes. Many programs are used to enhance self-esteem, tell students they have the answers to life "inside them," and they must discover their "inner powers." Even the very popular drug prevention program D.A.R.E. ("Drug Abuse Resistance Education) contains Eastern pagan overtones. In many social studies classes, large amounts of time are spent studying pagan religion, and assignments include "visiting a Hindu or Buddhist temple, and writing about your spiritual experience."

2. Business. The quest for a competitive edge in many businesses is thought by some CEOs and upper management to be connected to increasing employees' "human potential." This potential is often connected to Eastern pagan ideas. Employees must take mandatory workshops. Among such workshops include those conducted by Tony Robbins, the $480 million dollar charlatan/ guru, whose "finding your god-like potential" training contains such claims as improving "your health, your finances, your relationships, your career, your emotions, and your time." His tagline is "unleash the power within." (See tonyrobbins.com)

3. Medicine. Eastern religious ideas wrapped up under the guise of "staying healthy" include Reiki (Bergoglio uses this paganism! See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/12/francis-and-dark-side-of-force.html). Also included are Transcendental Meditation (TM), "aroma therapy," and hypnotism.

4. Media. The Star Wars franchise pushes pantheism. The oft quoted "May the Force be with you," is a blasphemous attempt to replace the True God ("The Lord be with you") with an impersonal energy that binds the universe together. The so-called force may be used to perform seeming miracles such as levitation, moving objects, detecting the presence of various persons, being guided without using your senses, and healing. The force can be used for good or evil ("the dark side of the force"). Although the Force is never called God, those who believe in it and seek to use it are said to be followers of a “religion,” and the teacher of “the ways of the Force” is a 900-year-old “Jedi Master” called Yoda who functions much as a Zen Buddhist master. In The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Yoda explains:
"For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter! You must feel the Force around you — here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere — yes, even between the land and the ship."

5. "New Atheists." While Dr. Richard Dawkins hates "supernatural religion," he does not mind "the god of Einstein." When asked if he believed in immortality, Einstein said, "No. And one life is enough for me." In response to a Rabbi’s 1929 telegram, asking specifically, "Do you believe in God?," Einstein replied, "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." (See Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, (New York: Simon & Schuster, [2007], pgs. 386-390). So while claiming to be an atheist, even Dawkins is open to pagan pantheism!

Conclusion
Eastern paganism is responsible for a totally monist and pantheistic conception of the divinity and the world, because by conceiving of God as a cosmic, impersonal force, it does not admit the idea of creation, and, as a result of Vatican II, these pagan ideas have infected all aspects of Western Civilization. Millions are being deceived. In the document  De Deposito Fidel Pure Custodiendo, Vatican II was originally set to condemn reincarnation and other pagan, Eastern ideas. Roncalli scrapped all the orthodox documents drawn up by the great theologians, and allowed the Modernists to re-write every document for the Robber Council. De Deposito had to be destroyed because it wasn't "ecumenical." It was replaced by the heretical Nostra Aetate. 

That heretical document tells us in paragraph #2, "The Catholic Church (sic) rejects nothing that is true and holy (vera et sancta) in these [pagan] religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." This is the false ecclesiology of Vatican II whereby all religions are more or less good because they "contain some truth." We now have millions of souls heading for Hell as they follow these false sects to their eternal perdition.

The One True Church has always taught, in unison with Sacred Scripture, "No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons." (1 Corinthians 10:20). 

Monday, July 9, 2018

The Copernican Revolution In Ecclesiology


 The heretical Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, "promulgated" by Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) on November 21, 1964, spawned a man-made sect with a heretical ecclesiology (the study/teaching regarding the nature of the Church). Nothing brought that home better than when I read the proposed "Constitution on the Church" from the Vatican Council of 1869-1870. Discussion of the document on the nature of the Church was to continue when the bishops returned after a summer break, however, the Franco-Prussian War put a halt to these plans. The swift German advance and the capture of Emperor Napoleon III disabled France from being able to protect the Pope’s rule in Rome. The Vatican Council thus ended before finishing its work.

Even though this proposed document (called a schema) was never debated and voted upon by the Council, or taken up by Pope Pius IX, it is invaluable for assessing Catholic vs. Modernist ecclesiology. A schema is only drawn up by the most eminent approved theologians, distinguished in both learning and personal piety. They are hand-picked by the Pontiff, and they work together to write a document that contains theological truths which they feel are ripe for dogmatic definition. The unanimous teachings of the theologians give witness that these truths are ready to be declared of Divine and Catholic Faith. When you compare this schema to the documents of Vatican II, no thinking person could possibly say the two express the same Faith. Not only are the Vatican II documents substantially different in what they teach, they proposed things that are mutually exclusive with pre-Vatican II teaching.

Hence, if Vatican II is correct, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology isn't merely "less developed" or "teaching other compatible truths" or "expressing the same things in different terminology," it is wrong. However, the One True Church is Infallible and Indefectible. She cannot teach error, and cannot give evil. Nor can She be stopped from Her Divine Mission to govern, teach, and sanctify. The inescapable conclusion is that either (a) the Church only started teaching the Truth in 1964 and was wrong prior to that time (impossible), or (b) the documents didn't come to us from the Church. Montini either never attained the papacy or lost it prior to November 21, 1964 by the profession of heresy as a private theologian. Had he been pope on November 21, 1964, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it, and he would have censured those who wrote it and/or voted for it. Below I will compare the theology as expressed at the Vatican Council (1870) and Robber Council Vatican II (1964).

The "People of God"

The schema at the Vatican Council had this to say in Chapter 10:
Christ's Church is not a society of equals as if all the faithful in Her had the same rights; but it is a society in which not all are equal. And this is not only because some of the faithful are clerics and some laymen, but especially because in the Church there is a power of Divine institution, by which some are authorized to sanctify, teach, and govern, and others do not have this authority...Hence, we believe Christ's Church is a perfect society. This true and highly favored Church of Christ is none other than the one, holy, catholic, and Roman Church. (All quotes are taken from The Church Teaches by The Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, B.Herder Book Co., [1955], pgs. 86-94).

This document clearly sets forth the traditional teaching that the Church is hierarchical and monarchical in nature. The Church is Divinely appointed to govern, teach, and sanctify by Her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is solely and uniquely the One True Church of Christ and bears the Four Marks (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic). This also is affirmed by theologian Dorsch, who teaches that the nature of the Church does not change, even during a very long period of sedevacante.

 "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II has a novel and heretical view of the Church as the "People of God." In Lumen Gentium para #9 and 10, we read :This [The Church] was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God, not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, are finally established as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . . who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God"...
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. (Emphasis and words in brackets mine).

The new definition takes the part for the whole, meaning that it takes the "people of God," mentioned in I Pet. 2:10 ("Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."), for the totality of the Church. This is a radical twist lending itself to a strictly "democratic" and "communitarian" vision of the Church herself, a vision alien to Catholic Tradition but close to the thinking and meaning of Protestant heretics. On the other hand, the hierarchy is included in the idea of "people," and so are defined simply as "members of the people of God." The downplaying of the hierarchical and monarchical structure is clearly seen in discussing a "ministerial" priesthood distinct from the hierarchical one, and they both are interrelated. This is the "topsy-turvy-dom of ecclesiology." The "people" are put on more or less equal footing with the hierarchy. The hierarchy are part of the people, rather than the people being completely distinct and subordinate to the hierarchy. This is why laymen as "lectors," "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" (sic), and "leaders of song" dominate at the Novus Bogus "mass."

The priest loses his authentic vocation because he becomes a mere function of the "People of God" as a whole. This function is exercised under two forms: the "common priesthood of the faithful," and the "ministerial" or "hierarchic" priesthood, that is, the authentic priesthood of priests, which have been eradicated by the invalid Pauline Rite of Holy Orders.

The Vatican schema emphasized that only the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church of Christ. Lumen Gentium, in para. #8 says:

 This Church [of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic (sic) unity. (Emphasis and words in parenthesis mine).

The Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It "subsists" there in it's fullness because it contains all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ "subsists" in other sects according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is just as good and "impels toward catholic (sic) unity." Maybe they would like to explain why the Eastern Schismatics and Protestants have not been "impelled" to become Catholic? The answer is easy enough: They don't need to convert because they are "in partial communion" with the Church of Christ and can be saved outside the Catholic Church. It is in this warped and false sense the elements "impel" unity. This is pure heresy, yet it explains why Bergoglio can say, "Proselytism is nonsense." 

The Theologians Once More Affirm Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

The Vatican schema has a whole section strongly reaffirming that Outside the One True Church there is no salvation. Section 6 states:
Therefore, We teach that the Church is not a free society, as if it were a matter indifferent to salvation whether it were known or ignored, entered or abandoned; but the Church is absolutely necessary, and, indeed, not just with a necessity coming from a precept of the Lord by which the Savior commanded all nations to enter it; but it is also necessary as a means because, in the order of salvation established by Providence, the communication of the Holy Ghost and the participation of truth and life is not had except in the Church and through the Church of which Christ is the Head. (Emphasis mine).

Notice the complete lack of ambiguity as to the True Church, the Church of Christ, being one and the same as the Roman Catholic Church, which is absolutely necessary for all human beings to achieve salvation. However, in a rebuke to Feeneyites (unheard of in 1870), the very next chapter of the schema shows Baptism of Desire (BOD) as completely in accord, and in no way opposed to, the teaching Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus ("outside the Church, there is no salvation"). In chapter 7, the schema declares:

Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. Nevertheless, those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church are not to be judged worthy of eternal punishment because of this ignorance. For they are innocent in the eyes of the Lord of any fault in this matter. God wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth; and if one does what he can, God does not withhold the grace for him to obtain justification and eternal life. (Emphasis mine).

Be assured that ignorance saves no one. However, if a person does not know of the True Church because of invincible (inculpable) ignorance, and cooperates with God's actual graces in trying to lead an upright life, God can enlighten him at the moment of death with the Faith and sanctifying grace so the person dies within the Catholic Church. Some Feeneyites will object that God allowed the Franco-Prussian War to prevent the Vatican Council from "committing error." Two responses: (1) the teaching of BOD and BOB are already truths of the Catholic Faith by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) as taught by that same Council and (2) Pope Pius IX already taught this truth in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." (para. #7; Emphasis mine). BOD and BOB were ready for elevation via ex cathedra pronouncement almost 150 years ago, yet Feeneyites will protest that it is "error" taught by "liberal theologians"!

Conclusion

The documents of Vatican II, and the schema of the First Vatican Council (the only Vatican Council) reveal a tale of two opposing ecclesiologies. According to Vatican II the Church of Christ is separate from the Roman Catholic Church, but "subsists" there in its fullness because it contains all the "elements" of sanctification. Other sects also possess some elements of sanctification, and they are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church. These sects are a "means of salvation" (as Vatican II stated in Unitatis Redintegratio) because of the elements they have.  

The theologians at the Vatican Council in 1870 taught that the Church of Christ is identical to the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which no one can be saved. No other sect can save you, or is in "partial communion" with the One True Church. Furthermore, in contrast to today's Feeneyites, the same theologians after teaching the absolute necessity of salvation through membership in the Church, grant that those of good will in invincible ignorance who do what they can to lead a good life and cooperate with grace, can be enlightened and saved by a miracle of grace (BOD). It should be clear that there is no "hermeneutic of continuity" that can make one believe there is no substantial difference. Just as Copernicus changed the view of the world, Vatican II gave us an entirely new, and heretical, view of the Church


Monday, July 2, 2018

Singing For Satan---Part 12


This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.


Elton John
Born Reginald Kenneth Dwight in 1947, Elton John is one of the most prolific rock musicians of all time. He is a sodomite who flaunts it, and advocates for sexual deviancy every chance he gets. He was raised in Pinner, Middlesex, and was a child prodigy who could play the piano by ear at the tender age of three. His father, Stanley Dwight, was absent most of the time, and abusive to his son when he was around. His mother was stern, but not abusive, and he was mostly raised by his maternal grandparents. When John decided to become a musician at age 17, his father wanted him to become a banker, but he refused. He had much musical training, including attending the Royal Academy of Music, so he felt he was ready to make it on his own. He didn't like the classical music in which he was trained and wanted to be a rock star. 

At age 15, he started a blues/soft rock band with his friends called Bluesology. By the time John was 18, the band had become quite popular, and his band was touring with American Soul and R&B artists, such as the Isley Brothers. His life would be forever changed at age 20, when in 1967 a record producer introduced him to Bernie Taupin (b. 1950), a poet who could write lyrics but wasn't a polished musician. Elton John had the musical component, but wasn't able to write lyrics well. The two worked together from then onward with John writing the music to Taupin's lyrics. Dwight then decided to change his name to "Elton John" in homage to two members of Bluesology: saxophonist Elton Dean and vocalist "Long John" Baldry. He made his legal name Elton Hercules John on January 7, 1972. 

In 1969, John (with the ever-present help of Taupin) released his debut album Empty Sky to critical acclaim. In 1970, his eponymous sophomore album Elton John, gave him his first hit single with Your Song, which catapulted him to fame. As of this writing, John has sold over 300 million albums. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1994, and for 31 consecutive years (1970–2000) he had at least one song in the "Top 100 Hits" according to Billboard magazineHis tribute single "Candle in the Wind 1997," rewritten in dedication to Princess Diana, sold over 33 million copies worldwide, making it the most successful single in both U.S. and U.K. history. Billboard magazine lists him as the third greatest artist of all time (behind The Beatles at #1, and Madonna at #2), and Rolling Stone magazine ranked him #49 on its list of "100 influential musicians of the rock and roll era." He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of England in 1998 for "services to music and charitable services." In September of 2018, he will begin a three year "farewell tour," ending with his retirement from the music industry in September 2021 at age 74. 

Elton John, Bernie Taupin, and Wicca

Bernie Taupin (left) and Elton John (right) in the early days. Both were into Satanic and Wiccan practices.
Bernie Taupin is deeply immersed in Wicca, and introduced it to Elton John. In an interview for US magazine, Taupin stated that John's "home is laden with trinkets and books relating to Satanism and witchcraft." (7/22/80, pg. 42). Earlier that year, Taupin told People magazine that he too decorates his walls with "Satanic art," and said, "the occult fascinates me." (6/23/80 issue). Not surprisingly, in 1991, Bernie Taupin self-published a book of poems called The Devil at High Noon. That Elton John hates religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is well-established. 

According to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, John had previously made the public claim that, "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely." On MNBC he stated, "Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate." 
In 2010, John blasphemously claimed Our Lord Jesus Christ was a sodomite when he called Him a "compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems." (See The Guardian, 2/19/10, "Sir Elton John Claims Jesus was Gay" by Adam Gabbatt).  

The song Goodbye Yellow Brick Road was inspired by the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz. The movie was based on a book of the same name written by Frank Baum, an occultist who claimed he had "channeled" the idea from an other-worldly source. (See Michael Patrick Hearn edition; The Annotated Wizard of Oz, New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1973) In the movie, the protagonist (Dorothy) and her friends are following the "yellow brick road." In Heaven, it is said there are "streets of gold" (See Apoc. 21). They go to see the "all knowing, all powerful" Wizard of Oz. Only God is omniscient and omnipotent. It turns out the Wizard is just a fake. (Wiccans denigrate or even deny the Christian God). Lastly, they are told that the power to obtain all they want (courage, brains, a heart, and going home) "lies within"--a common theme in witchcraft and Satanism; independence from God because we have the potential to be like God.  

John's (really Taupin's) lyrics to the song state:
 Back to the howling old owl in the woods
Hunting the horny back toad
Oh I've finally decided my future lies
Beyond the yellow brick road
The "owl" is notorious in both Wicca and Satanism, being representative of the pagan goddess Lilith.

In I've Seen the Saucers, he sings:
Tune in, wouldn't it be something
Rumors spreading into panic
I've seen movements in the clearing
Someone sent you something satanic (Emphasis mine).

Again, more references to witchcraft in Saint:
To sweeten up the witch's brew
You had a better way of working magic
A little mystery in your eyes
Instead of rolling over you remained the same
You took the whole world by surprise (Emphasis mine).

Elton John: Pervert Who Hates God
David Furbish and Elton John on their "wedding day" with the two children produced by a surrogate mother. Poor children!

John has attempted suicide at least twice. The song Someone Saved My Life Tonight is dedicated to his friend Long John Baldry, whom he credits with saving him from committing suicide. John was depressed over his pending marriage to his first lover Linda Woodrow, and ultimately decided not to go through with the wedding. Despite his massive wealth ($500 million as of 2018) and libertine lifestyle, all it brought him is depression. John once reportedly took 60 Valiums and jumped into a hotel swimming pool yelling, "I’m going to die!" On yet another occasion he turned on an oven and laid his head in the range, but subsequently aborted the suicide attempt. Ironically, he glorifies suicide in I Think I'm Going To Kill Myself:

I’m getting bored
Being part of mankind,
Think I’ll buy a forty-four
And give ‘em all a sunrise.
Yeah, think I’m gonna kill myself,

Cause a little suicide (Emphasis mine).

He married Renate Blauel in 1984, but she was seen as merely his "beard" (term for a woman who pretends to be with a man to disguise his homosexuality). John is noted for his outlandish costumes on stage, most of which portray him as feminine or androgynous. John divorced Blauel and declared himself a bisexual. Later, he said he had enthusiastically embraced homosexuality. John "married" his lover since 1993, David Furnish, in 2014. They have custody of two children, both boys, born of the same surrogate mother; one in 2010, the other in 2013. John declared, "I'm going to fight for them [sodomite "rights"], whether I do it silently behind the scenes or so vocally that I get locked up." (See BBC News of November 12th, 2006).

As to his sick lifestyle, John sees nothing wrong except perhaps bestiality (sex with animals). He said, "There’s nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. I just think people should be very free with sex…They should draw the line at goats." (Rolling Stone, October 7, 1976, p. 17). He has admitted to having numerous lovers and hook-ups with both men and women, but exclusively men after he declared himself a sodomite. His song All The Girls Love Alice is about a sixteen year old lesbian:
All the young girls love Alice
Tender young Alice, they say
Come over and see me
Come over and please me
Alice, it's my turn today

Sweet Painted Lady sings approvingly of a prostitute:
If the boys all behave themselves here
Well, there's pretty young ladies and beer in the rear
You won't need a gutter to sleep in tonight
Oh, the prices I charge here will see you alright
So, she lays down beside me again
My sweet painted lady, the one with no name
Many have used her and many still do
There's a place in the world for a woman like you
Oh, sweet painted lady
Seems it's always been the same
Getting paid for being laid
Guess that's the name of the game

John's hatred of God is gets spewed forth in Dear God (not to be confused with the atheist anthem by XTC), which wonders if God exists, and ends by declaring Him "forgetful/disinterested" in the plight of humanity:

Dear God, are you there
Can you hear me, do you care
Dear God, here are we
Less than perfect, far from free
Oh we take what we get and we don't take no more
But we sometimes forget what it was you created us for
Dear God, now's the time
If you're listening, show some sign
Dear God, hear me plead
Don't desert us in our need
Dear God, lend a hand
Is this really what you planned
Dear God, in you we trust
Though we've failed you, don't fail us
Oh we take what we get but we can't take much more
Do you sometimes forget what it was you created us for, dear God (Emphasis mine).

In the song If There's A God In Heaven (What's He Waiting For?)...John rails against the Almighty once more:

Torn from their families 
Mothers go hungry 
To feed their children 
But children go hungry 
There's so many big men 
They're out making millions 
When poverty's profits 
Just blame the children 

If there's a God in heaven 
What's he waiting for 
If He can't hear the children 
Then he must see the war 
But it seems to me 
That he leads his lambs 
To the slaughter house 
And not the promised land 

Dying for causes 
They don't understand 
We've been taking their futures 
Right out of their hands 
They need the handouts 
To hold back the tears 
There's so many crying 
But so few that hear 

If there's a God in heaven 
Well, what's he waiting for (Emphasis mine). 

Elton Loves Frankie

 With all this hatred of God and religion, who is the one person representing a religion Elton John likes and admires? You guessed it: Jorge Bergoglio, the Vatican II sect's very own "pope!" In 2014, John stated Christ would've backed "gay marriage." He said, "If Jesus Christ was alive today, I can not see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen." His cited authority for this comment was..."Pope" Francis! According to Elton John, Frankie has"... stripped (the Vatican II sect) down to the bare bones and said it's all basically about love..and inclusiveness." (See The Telegraph, 6/30/14, article entitled "Elton John says Jesus would've backed gay marriage. Millions will presume he's right" by Tim Stanley). 

John has declared that Bergoglio is staunchly in the camp of the sexual deviants, and an ally of sodomites. According to The Catholic (sic) Herald:

"On BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme the musician said he considered Pope Francis an "ally" against conservative bishops in Africa in his views on same-sex relationships.

“My sly bet is yes he is. He’s just had the [synod] in Rome and I think he’s fighting an uphill battle against the African cardinals and bishops.”

Elton John said his message to the Pope was: “Keep going, keep pushing it. Change is very hard, especially in the Catholic Church, you don’t get things done immediately, you’re not going to persuade people, just keep going and keep going and eventually the wall will fall. I think he's on our side.”

The singer, who is in a same-sex marriage, added: “I would love to meet him. I’m not a Catholic but from the first day he was elected he tried to bring a new message and change the Church and bring it into the 21st century. To be an inclusive Church. He has brought hope and change." (See http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/11/05/elton-john-says-he-would-like-to-meet-his-hero-pope-francis/). 

 Elton John has said Frankie is a "saint" and should be "canonized" now. (With all the requirements of canonization trashed, why limit it to those who have died, right?)  Keep in mind that John has no intention of amending his life, rather he likes the fact that Bergoglio is joining him in the quest to completely eradicate true Faith and Morals. Frankie wants Christ to conform to the world and not have the world conform to Christ.

 Mr. Mark Shea, a Vatican II sect apologist, sees John's praise of Frankie as something wonderful (of course). According to Shea, Frankie is causing John to "revisit what the Gospel has to say." Furthermore, John doesn't need a set of moral precepts, but an "encounter with a person." This is Modernist drivel, pure and simple. Mark Shea wants us to believe Elton John has revisited the Gospel. No, Mark, he's revising it to justify his perversity---even citing to Francis himself-----in order to make people believe the unnatural is acceptable. Does Francis condemn any of this, you ask? Has he told Elton John he will not and cannot change God's Moral Law against sodomy? Has he told him that he must repent, convert, or go to Hell? Why no! Elton is having an "encounter," don't you see? Raised an Anglican, John is a God-hating pervert on his way to perdition, and Bergoglio does nothing to correct him. Why? Because Frankie isn't the pope.  

 When a man such as Elton John lauds Francis (as he continues unabated on his evil ways corrupting Faith and Morals), what does this say about the so-called "pope"? Mark Shea and Frankie will condemn Traditionalists as "self-absorbed, Promethean, neo-Pelagians." Ironically, the same duo will look at Elton John and declare, "Who am I to judge?" 

Conclusion
John lives for pleasure, but as the Church teaches, those who live for pleasure will never be satisfied. Elton John has struggled to fill the empty void in his soul with sex, drugs, and fame.  Elton John lives a lifestyle that is doomed and headed toward destruction. John has stated, "In most artists there’s a self-destructive streak. Drugs, sex and doomed liaisons were my form of destruction." Besides his sexually perverse lifestyle Elton John has been known for his temper tantrums and deep depression. Pray for Elton John's conversion, and that of Bernie Taupin. If they don't change they will join their "hero" Bergoglio, spending eternity with the Evil One they all served so well. 

Monday, June 25, 2018

Millennials And Dealing With Doubt


 Sacred Scripture assures us, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6). As Traditionalists, it is imperative that the next generation be stronger in the Faith than ever before. We are now decades into the Great Apostasy, and there is much that will corrupt and destroy the Faith that only arose within the last thirty years. Let's face it, when I was 15 years old in 1980 and searching for the truth, personal computers, the Internet, DVDs, CDs, and 500 cable TV stations were science fiction. Your phone was attached to a wall, most had a rotary dial, and if you weren't around to pick up the phone, the caller could not leave a message and you had no way to tell who called. Now, teens think "research" is plugging words into a search engine. All of this technology come with a huge price in terms of the Millennials (those born from 1982-2004, inclusive), not to mention Generation Z (2005-present).

Millennials are known for many things; large student debt, refusal to grow-up ("adulting" is a neologism for "acting like an adult" now prevalent among them), unusually high self-esteem (everyone is allowed to do everything without merit and all grow up getting awards without achievement), and a low work ethic. According to Pew research, Millennials have another distinction: they are the largest group without any religious affiliation. The study states, " In other words, Millennials, who make up a growing share of the population as they reach adulthood and older Americans die off, are far less religiously observant than the older cohorts. Whether Millennials will become more religious as they age remains to be seen, but there is nothing in our data to suggest that Millennials or members of Generation X [1965-1981] have become any more religious in recent years. If anything, they have so far become less religious as they have aged." (See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/14/the-factors-driving-the-growth-of-religious-nones-in-the-u-s/; Dates in parenthesis mine).

The computer age has exacerbated the need for instant gratification, especially among teens. If they can't find a satisfying answer to a question in seconds, they get upset (at best), or willfully drop the subject for which they wanted to find an answer. Answers don't come easy, and sometimes they don't come at all. Most people, especially those born in or after 1982, don't know how to deal with doubt--and that is very evident in terms of religious belief. In my opinion, this is what accounts for so many without religion. I have a Twitter account for this blog, @IAltare, and in the last couple of years, two young men reached out to me asking questions about the Faith, and wanting to become priests.

 I was generous with my time and resources, doing all I could to message them with the answers to questions they had asked. The first one went to seminary only to leave within a month to become an Eastern Schismatic. He said he had doubts about the Faith from what he had read online. Within a couple of months later he gave up all Faith to be a Neo-Nazi and Twitter disabled his account due to racist and hateful rants. The second young man also wanted to be a priest, but he claimed that due to doubts over the historicity of some Old Testament accounts, he basically lost the Faith. He now calls himself a "Justice Democrat" who supports pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, socialist politicians. It's scary how someone can go to such extremes. I wonder what their ideology du jour will be next month, next year, and so forth as they must become functioning members of society. How will they impact our world? It won't bode well for themselves or humanity at large.

To be strong in the Faith, one must know how to deal with doubts, which is the subject of  this post.

Sources of Doubt

 To question, or have doubts about the Faith, has always plagued members of the Church. Even the greatest of theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas, who had miraculous events in his life, was not immune from doubt. He would pray, "Lord, I believe, help my disbelief." That's not to say the Angelic Doctor had willful doubts against the Faith. As theologian Jone teaches, "Although one is a heretic who deliberately doubts a truth of Faith, he who merely suspends his judgement about a truth proposed as true, but does not positively doubt it, is no heretic; yet, he sins against his duty of making an act of Faith. Whoever is tempted against Faith and hesitates between assent and denial, and deliberately withholds his assent, sins venially by neglecting to resist the temptation." (See Moral Theology, The Newman Press, MD., [1962], pg. 68). Today, the wickedness of the world and the Great Apostasy can give rise to even more doubt. Below are the sources of most doubt under three main headings.

1. Factual doubt. A common form of uncertainty is that which questions the underpinnings of the Faith. Such might frequently occur in the case of those new to the Church; including converts from the Vatican II sect. It stems from not having thought through many of the issues yet, or in the case of mature believers, hearing an accusation against the Faith which they cannot answer. This problem can be subdivided as follows:

  • Sidetracked by pseudo-problems. There are some questions that arise which are not really problems when correctly understood. For example, there are believers who worry over the Creation account in six days, and how that squares with modern science. In truth, it doesn't matter since the word yom, in Hebrew, has been incorrectly translated as "day." The word actually means a "period of time." God created the world in six time periods. These periods may be longer or shorter than a literal 24-hour day. What appears to be a problem is really a pseudo-problem. Other questions may not admit of a definite answer, as the Church has not decided the matter. For example, how we get a pope back again. Still other questions must be accepted on Faith because they are mysteries (above and beyond, yet not opposed to right reason), e.g. How God exists as a Trinity. In the case of the young man having problems understanding the Old Testament, many problems can only be worked out over time and with competent guidance. Finally, some accept what people say about the Church (e.g., religion is for weak people who need a "crutch"), without examining the evidence (or lack thereof) for the assertion thus made. 
  • The Great Apostasy and Religious Pluralism. People have more contact with various religions than ever before. A friend of mine who grew up in 1950s Ireland told me he never met anyone who wasn't Catholic until he came to America. Now Ireland is pagan once more, and has all religions out proselytizing (except the Vatican II sect, with Frankie telling us "proselytism is nonsense"). The problem is compounded by Traditionalists who are besieged by Feeneyites, Home Aloners, Conclavists, Recognize and Resisters, etc. The best way to approach these doubts when they come up, is to realize that just because people can't agree, doesn't mean there is no truth or right answer. Right is right even if no one is correct and wrong is wrong even if everyone is incorrect. Contradictory beliefs can't be true, so the idea of "all paths lead to God" is nonsensical. Equally devoid of reason are those who assert, "We can't know the truth." Ask them, "Is your statement 'we can't know the truth' true? How do you know?" It's a self-refuting position.
 The best way to help your children (and Traditionalists in general) against these types of doubts is continuing to learn the Faith well. Don't be satisfied with teaching your children the Baltimore Catechism. Have them start to read (together with you) the great theologians like Ott and Pohle. Discuss what you read. Remember the words of Scripture, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children." (Hosea 4:6). 

2. Emotional doubt. Moods, such as anxiety and depression, can cause someone to doubt. 

  • Medical causes. People who suffer from manic depressive states, or who are on certain types of medications, can become depressed and experience doubts because they are incapable of clear thinking. Proper medication and treatment can relieve such moods--and with it the doubt.
  • Anger over life's circumstances. Frequently, people will turn on God after the death of a loved one, loss of a job, or onset of a medical condition. "Why did God do this to me?" We must remember that God permits things to happen for our greater good, even if we can't see it. We follow in the footsteps of a Suffering Savior. 
  • Judging by feelings. This is a direct result of the Modernists, who expect us to feel warm and fuzzy, because religion (according to them) is emotive. The so-called "Charismatic Movement" thrives on making faith "an experience." When someone does not (or no longer) "feels close to God," they think He's not there. 
  • The World. Peer-pressure from those who think you're a "religious nut," will often make people want to give up the Faith to fit in. The "New Atheists" attack religious people as "superstitious" and "dangerous," while rock and pop music, TV, and movies attack religion and religious people as "not being with it." Hypocrites in the Church who don't live the Faith will exacerbate the problem. 
 Prayer and frequenting the sacraments as well as keeping good companions who are strong in the Faith is essential to fighting these doubts. 

3. Volitional doubt. These are doubts people (consciously or subconsciously) want to give themselves. Why would anyone want to doubt? There are a couple of reasons: 

  • An excuse to sin. Some people want to doubt because that gives them an excuse to lead a sinful life and quell their conscience. They make up intellectual "problems" to mask their evil desires. 
  • Temptations of Satan. The evil one and his minions will often try and tempt someone to doubt the goodness of God, or convince them Hell isn't real. Once you fall into sin, you don't want to give it up and you manufacture doubts as an excuse not to repent. It is very much like the excuse to sin above, but from a supernatural origin that a person permits to take hold by not combating it immediately. 
  • Immature Faith. Those who don't advance in the love of Christ and His Church will find themselves drifting away, and making up doubts and excuses for not becoming more devout. Being devout is "too hard."
A combination of deeply understanding the Faith, and growing in sanctity will prevent someone from wanting doubts. 

Conclusion
I'm glad I'm not a teen in today's world. 1980 was (almost literally) a different universe from 2018. We have a new generation that can't cope with doubt, and they change ideologies more frequently and drastically than ever before. Many more souls will be lost if we do not do a better job of educating young Traditionalists. I implore sedevacantist priests to preach on the Faith, and don't be afraid of mentioning sedevacantism. The Truth may hurt some, but it will always win out and heal many. I love the SSPV priests, but their sermons make me feel like it's 1958, Pope Pius XII is still on the Throne, and all is right with the world. The Millennials need to know what was stolen from them and why. They need to understand the reasons for the Faith, and Bergoglio is a fraud.  

 We all need to reach the young and make them stronger in Faith than we are (if possible). The future of the Church and the world in this time of near universal apostasy depends on it. 



Monday, June 18, 2018

An Education In Evil


 Few things in life really shock me anymore. I guess the combination of my over 50 years of experience on this Earth, plus my education, and thirty-seven years in the Traditionalist Movement, make it rather difficult for me to gasp in disbelief anymore. Last year, I experienced an exception. In October, a colleague of mine introduced me to a potential client, whom I'll call "Joan" (not her real name). Joan is a teacher, and by all indications, she seemed smart, sincere, passionate about teaching, and concerned about giving her students the best possible learning experiences. I have a place in my heart for teachers, having been a middle school science teacher in New York City for five years prior to entering law school and becoming an attorney.

I asked her where she taught, and I discovered she was at a Waldorf School. I had heard of these private schools in my education courses both as an undergrad, and as a graduate student, but they were glossed over for the most part, just like Montessori Schools. (Dr. Maria Montessori, was an Italian physician who also developed a "child-centered" theory of education. She died in 1952). Although I was taught various educational theories, Waldorf education was presented as a place for rich parents to send their kids for a 1960s "hippie" type of learning experience.

Children at these schools learn at their own pace, and most don't read until they are about 9 years old. They generally have only two or three teachers from first through eighth grade, because the teachers stay with them for about three grades each (in education, this is known as "looping"). The price is hefty, tuition is about $18, 000 per year (plus additional charges), and many executives from technology firms send their kids there, in spite of the fact Waldorf schools eschew technology for the most part. To educate a child from first grade through high school would cost approximately $235,000 when all is said and done. There are about 1,100 Waldorf schools in the world and approximately 160 are in the United States.

I agreed to drive out and meet Joan at her Waldorf school, after the students left, to discuss the specifics of her case. This particular school was in the suburbs, outside city limits, so I gave myself plenty of travel time to get there. I arrived about 40 minutes before the end of the school day. The main office let me in, and offered me a guided tour, which I accepted. I felt like I was in some alternate universe. The only technology was the iPhone 8 I had on me. The school was big, with statues, and a huge fountain with flowing water was in the center of the main hall. The students have no uniforms, unlike most private academy schools, and they were engaged in unusual activities. In one class, they were singing songs as the teacher played guitar, in another, they were finger-painting, and in the courtyard outside, the teacher had the students in a circle reading poetry to them. The "three Rs" were not to be found.

When the students left, and my tour was over, I met Joan in the teacher's lounge. I told her that things were so laid back, I probably wouldn't have left teaching had I been a teacher at Waldorf. "You can't teach here," she said. "Why not? I'm a licensed science teacher," I replied. "You must be instructed in the methodology of Rudolf Steiner before we will allow anyone to teach here." "Wasn't he a child psychologist and scientist?" I asked. "Everything we do goes back to Rudolf Steiner," she said sternly. We discussed her case and I left. I was so intrigued with this place, I decided to do a little research on Waldorf schools. It was during my research I got one of my rare "jaw-drops." I will spell it all out below, but in a nutshell I will tell you what I found out:

Rudolf Steiner was an occultist, and the goal of his educational method is to train children to become clairvoyants who can make contact with the spirit world.  I know it sounds like an episode of the Twilight Zone, but I haven't lost my mind. Alarmingly, Joan was baptized in the True Church as she is Italian-American and in her late 50s. Most of the students have Irish, Italian, or Hispanic last names, which suggests they are members of the Vatican II sect, yet this is where they are getting educated. Read the facts below.


Rudolf Steiner: Occultist Before All Else

 The life of Rudolph Steiner was sanitized in my studies. Very little was said about him, and most of it lauded him as some scientist and child psychologist, with very few specifics. Since we were not tested on the material, and it was a cursory overview, I never questioned the accounts. Steiner (1861-1925), an Austrian, actually had a PhD in philosophy and was a Freemason. He became interested in the occult at age nine, when he claimed he saw the soul of his aunt appear to him and ask for help. Later, he found out she had just died in village far away when she allegedly appeared. Steiner then grew up to became a follower of the occult belief system of Theosophy. He split with other Theosophists circa 1912 after most accepted an Indian child named Krishnamurti as the new “World Teacher” and "reincarnation of Christ."  He ridiculed the idea that a "Hindu lad" (as Steiner called him) could be the new cosmic leader. He took with him the German speaking Theosophists to found his own occult religion which he called Anthroposophy. At some point, he joined the Masons. A core belief of Steiner’s was that human souls evolve through a series of incarnations (i.e. reincarnation) and as a soul develops it will take on different racial forms with dark skinned people being the most "immature" souls and white, pure Aryans being the highest spiritual form. He was a convinced racist. He wrote:

"A humanity that thinks materialistically will produce frightful beings in the future ... We have two streams today, a great materialistic one which fills the earth, and the small spiritual stream which is restricted to but few human beings  ... All materialistically thinking souls work on the production of evil race-formations ... Just as older conditions which have degenerated to the ape species seem grotesque to us today, so do materialistic races remain at the standpoint of evil, and will people the earth as evil races. It will lie entirely with humanity as to whether a soul will remain in the bad race or will ascend by spiritual culture to a good race." (See Steiner, Rosicrucian Wisdom , Rudolf Steiner Press, [2000] pg. 150). There was a poem read aloud in one school (called "Steiner Schools" in England) which said,  "The little boy had so much chocolate on his mouth he looked like a n***er." The interracial parents of one child in the class complained, but no action was taken against the teacher for using such language with approval. (See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/steiner-schools-have-some-questionable-lessons-for-todays-children-a7402911.html; N-word censored by me). 

 In 1899 Steiner experienced what he described as a life-transforming inner encounter with the "being of Christ." Being a Mason, he hated Christ, but thereafter, his relationship to Christianity remained entirely founded upon this personal experience, and he envisioned it as non-denominational and different from Catholicism, or any other sect which professed Christianity. (See, e.g., Faivre and Needleman, Modern Esoteric Spirituality, pg. 288). Steiner taught that human beings evolve upward as they gain "knowledge of higher worlds" — that is, knowledge of the "spiritual worlds above the ordinary plane of existence." To gain this knowledge firsthand, people must develop clairvoyance. Clairvoyance is the alleged supernatural ability to perceive events in the future or beyond normal sensory contact. Preparation for clairvoyance involves such things as heightened imagination and dream consciousness.

Waldorf schools aim to assist children on the path toward knowledge of the spirit world. To this end, Waldorf teachers serve as "missionaries" or "priests and priestesses." However, they generally do so secretively, believing that they possess "mystery wisdom" that other people cannot appreciate. According to Steiner, "outsiders" who should be told as little as possible include the parents of Waldorf students. It's little wonder given the strange ideas of Steiner, whose cult of Anthroposophy combines Masonry, Theosophy, astrology, and Gnosticism. It's hard to pin down the wacky beliefs. Here are just a few of Steiner's tenets, and they read more like something you'd expect to see in the National Enquirer:

  • Goblins exist
  • Animals evolved from humans ("reverse evolution")
  • People have twelve senses but only learn to use five
  • Buddha now lives on Mars
(See, e.g., Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophic Press, [1998]). This man should be a patient in a mental institution, and not running schools. 

A Harry Potter-esque Curriculum

Before getting into the teaching practices of these schools, two questions must come to mind: (1) Are these educators evil? and (2) Why aren't these schools considered religious schools instead of non-denominational? I have culled the information for this post from the series of books, Foundations of Waldorf Education published by Anthroposophic Press, all started by Steiner himself. The first school based upon Steiner's ideas was opened in 1919 in response to a request by Emil Molt, the owner and managing director of the Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette Company in Stuttgart, Germany, to serve the children of employees of the factory. Hence the name "Waldorf." Steiner was an occultist who claimed to have precise knowledge of the spirit realm thanks to his "exact clairvoyance." Everything the schools do operate on these principles.

1. Teachers. Waldorf faculties usually acknowledge that their educational approach arises from Anthroposophy, but they usually deny that they teach Anthroposophical doctrines to their students. In a restricted sense, this may be true. However, in a larger sense, it is false. Addressing Waldorf teachers, Steiner said:
You need to make the children aware that they are receiving the objective truth, and if this occasionally appears anthroposophical, it is not anthroposophy that is at fault. Things are that way [in a Waldorf School] because anthroposophy has something to say about objective truth. It is the material that causes what is said to be anthroposophical. We certainly may not go to the other extreme, where people say that anthroposophy may not be brought into the school. Anthroposophy will be in the school when it is objectively justified, that is, when it is called for by the material itself. 


Since Anthroposophists believe that their doctrines are the great, "universal truth"underlying all other knowledge, they think that the presence of Anthroposophy is "justified" at virtually every point in every subject studied. Devout Anthroposophical teachers may be circumspect about it, bringing their beliefs into Waldorf classrooms subtly, and covertly, but the beliefs will be brought in. Not all Waldorf teachers are committed to Steiner's occult beliefs, but Steiner said they should be:

As teachers in the Waldorf School, you will need to find your way more deeply into the insight of the spirit and to find a way of putting all compromises aside ... As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling.

Also: The position of teacher becomes a kind of priestly office, a ritual performed at the altar of universal human life. Waldorf teachers must be immersed in this baloney for three years before they can teach at a Waldorf School.  The goals of Waldorf schooling are inseparable from the goals of Anthroposophy, although Waldorf teachers generally deny this, for fear of a public backlash.

2. Is Anthroposophy a religion? Yes.Waldorf schools are covert religious institutions. They exist to spread the religion created by Rudolf Steiner: Anthroposophy. They go about this task cautiously, secretively — but they go about it. Sending a child to a Waldorf school means sending her/him to an institution where many, if not all, of the teachers are true-believing Anthroposophists who would like to lead the child and the child's family toward the "true spiritual life" — that is, an occult, polytheistic and Masonic sect. Do not be deceived when Steiner and his followers today refer to "Christ." They do not mean the Son of God worshiped in by Christians--- they mean the "Sun God," the divinity of the Sun known in other faiths by such names as Hu and Apollo. They attempt to mask the religious mission by claiming to be a pedagogic philosophy.


3. Curriculum. One of the main signatures of a Waldorf School is that children do not start to learn to read until much later than other schools; usually around nine years old. Parents are often told there is good research to delay reading. However, the reason for delaying reading is not based on educational evidence but for occult reasons. Steiner believed reading was bad for a child’s soul development and should be delayed as much as possible. The curriculum of Waldorf Schools is designed to help children progress through the stages of "reincarnation" as they grow. Reincarnation does not happen all at once at birth, but develops over seven year cycles. At birth a child is given their "physical" body, at age 7 (or when teeth develop) the child takes on their "etheric" body, at 14 their "astral" body. For Steiner, reincarnation is not just to be reborn after death, it is a continual process through life. What those designations mean, no one knows.
Finally, technology is to be shunned as evil spirits.

What they learn:
Eurythmy is a form of mystical dancing performed by Anthroposophists and by students in Waldorf schools. It is claimed that this corybantic dancing is "visible speech" opening children to the spirit world and advancing their ability to be clairvoyant. Steiner said, "Eurythmy is obligatory.
The children must participate.Those who do not participate in eurythmy will be removed from the school."

Basic math skills are introduced during the lower grades, but only lightly. The same holds for other subjects — they generally enter the classroom tangentially and in romanticized form. The introduction to life sciences, for instance, consists mainly of romanticized nature stories. Exposure to foreign languages may begin in the lower grades, but usually without formal study of vocabulary or grammar. Activities such as water-coloring, knitting, and gardening take up a good deal of time — these are deemed to have esoteric value, although parents are often not informed of this rationale. The teachers strive to provide slow learning so the child can be open to his/her "spiritual evolution." The goal is for them to make contact with the spirit world and evolve to their highest potential. 

Do Waldorf Schools work insofar as getting a sound, basic education ? In 2005, British educational researchers Philip Woods, Martin Ashley and Glenys Woods evaluated Steiner-Waldorf schools for the United Kingdom's Department for Education and Skills. They concluded, "Overall, there is a lack of rigorous research on the impact of Steiner [Waldorf] school education on learning and achievement and little research which systematically compares Steiner and mainstream schools." A 2012 study in the U.S. showed Waldorf schools performing lower than public schools in the lower grades but doing better in the higher grades (8th grade and up). (See Abigail L. Larrison; Alan J. Daly; Carol VanVooren [October 5, 2012], "Twenty Years and Counting: A Look at Waldorf in the Public Sector Using Online Sources". Current Issues in Education. 15 (3)). This delay in learning serves another purpose; parents must keep the children there longer for indoctrination.

The Vatican II Connection
According to Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, there was someone deeply into the teachings of Rudolf Steiner; one Angelo Roncalli, who would become "Pope" John XXIII and convoke the Second Vatican (Robber) Council! Coomaraswamy writes, "Then in 1924, after the death of his beloved bishop [Bp. Tedeschi], he [Roncalli] was called back to Rome and given a minor post in the Association for the Propagation of the Faith. At this time he also became a part time Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, only to be relieved of his post within months "on suspicion of Modernism" and for "teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner" (See The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, World Wisdom Press, 2006, pg. 134 & Footnote 17, pg. 154). Steiner's students (Roncalli is a student in the loose sense of the word) have infiltrated the Church as well as the secular professions. (I thank a friend of mine for pointing out this connection to me. In my primary sources, I was focused on the schools and didn't know this direct connection to Vatican II. My second jaw-drop!---Introibo)

Conclusion
I did not take Joan's case because of religious objections to working with her. However, here is what I learned: There exists covert occult schools training children to be "open to the spirit world" (read: "demons"). They will be getting jobs in all kinds of careers, including the government. The schools prospered, especially after Vatican II. Many teachers and students are members of the Vatican II sect. Steiner said, "We must do all we can to prepare the child’s soul for what should develop later on as the adult faculty of forming sound judgments. In this way we will do far more for the child’s future religious orientation than by presenting religious commandments or fixed articles of faith at an age when children are not yet ready for them. By clothing our subject in images, thus preparing the ground for what in later life will emerge as religious judgment, we prepare our students for the possibility of comprehending through their own spirituality what they are meant to grasp as their own innermost being — that is, their religious orientation.

According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine). By attempting to make contact with "the spirit world" as a type of medium, both teachers and students are engaged in an objectively evil act. Thousands of students thus educated are taking influential positions in society--most come from considerable wealth. The false pope who started the Vatican II sect was a disciple of Steiner. Can you imagine what effects those taught in these schools will have on the rest of the world?

There is a movement to have Waldorf Schools publicly funded, and to introduce "Steiner education methodology" in the public schools. Abraham Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." With the Church driven underground in the Great Apostasy, and these schools educating those that will run the world, I have to wonder if the end may be closer than we think.