Monday, November 12, 2018

Don't Bet On It

It was the summer of 1978, and very hot here in New York City. It was a Saturday and I was having a catch in the street with my dad, when our neighbor "Ed" (not his real name) came over and walked up to my father. I grew up in a very poor section of the city, and New York was going through a tough financial crisis. Ed (about 50 years old at the time) took out a twenty dollar and a five dollar bill from his pocket. To put things in perspective, when adjusted for inflation, $25 in 1978 equals just over $100 in 2018. Ed worked for a company that constructed asphalt roofs, and he made the equivalent of about $17,000 in today's economy. He had a wife and three teens, and they barely made enough to survive. His company, like many of the time, had no pension or provision for their employees to retire. Ed worked long and laborious days for little money. Less than ten years later, the job would claim his life, as he contracted lung cancer from breathing in the carcinogens associated with hot asphalt fumes.

He showed the money to my father and told him, "Today is the day I finally get to retire. I've saved up for weeks to buy lots of lottery tickets and I'm going to win!" (His words as I best remember them). My father wished him luck. Poor Ed was depressed at the end of the week when the only thing he got was $25 less money when he lost. In 2018, there are plenty more like Ed who believe their economic salvation rests with gambling in one form or another. Many others struggle with gambling addictions. The purpose of this post is to lay out the teaching of the Church on gambling, and to offer my reasons why I believe gambling (in all its forms) should be avoided. Please note that Church teaching must be followed, not my opinions. I have no Magisterial authority, and I have never claimed to be a theologian or canonist. Follow what the Church teaches, but my opinion is just that--a layman's opinion, with which you may agree or not.

The Teaching of the Church on Gambling

The eminent Dominican theologian, Fr. Dominic Prummer, distinguishes two types of gambling, betting and gaming. 

1. Betting. This is defined as a contract in which two or more persons disputing the truth of some event lay down a sum of money to be given to the person who was right. Theologian Prummer sets out two conditions that must be met in order for bets to be moral. First, they must be made for a morally good purpose, and second, the bet must be made on something that is both lawful and uncertain for both parties.

2. Gaming. This is defined as an aleatory contract [i.e., a contract where an uncertain event determines the parties' rights and obligations] whereby a reward is given to the winner of a contest undertaken as a pastime.
There are three kinds of gaming: (a) Games of Skill are those in which the result of the game depends largely on the skill of the players themselves [e.g. football or horse racing]; (b) Games of Chance which depend purely on random acts requiring no skill [e.g., rolling dice or "craps"]; (c) Games of Mixed Character which depend partly on skill and partly on chance [e.g., poker]. (Prummer lists the lottery under gaming).

In order for games that are played for stakes to be moral, five conditions must all be met:

  • The players must be free to dispose of the stakes for which they gamble
  • The gamble is undertaken with full knowledge and consent
  •  The players must have a morally equal chance of winning
  • All fraud must be excluded
  • Gain must not be the chief motive of the game, neither must it be sought after too eagerly
(See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pgs. 163-164)

One can easily see that while the old Bingo games played pre-Vatican II can easily meet the five criteria, modern casinos and lotteries are much different. Hence, theologian Prummer warned as far back as 1957, "Since games played for stakes are most dangerous because of the serious orders that often ensue, the confessor should prudently censor them." (Ibid, pg. 164). Likewise, "Civil laws today [1957], as a result of the many abuses which can easily arise, prohibit betting completely or partially or declare it void...These statutes seem to be legitimate and, ordinarily speaking, may be followed in conscience." (Ibid, pg. 164). 

Banning gambling seemed legitimate in 1957, and I can only wonder what Fr. Prummer would say today. The fourth and the fifth criteria above seem the hardest to ensure, and there are other evils that go in tandem with gambling---all of which will be considered next.  

The Many Serious Problems With Gambling

1. It can become addictive. The American Psychiatric Association (APA's) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fifth edition (DSM-5), includes gambling addiction as a psychological disorder. No one starts out with compulsions/addictions, they are brought on by people's choices, just like the choice to use drugs leads to drug addiction. Problem gambling is harmful to psychological and physical health. People who live with this addiction may experience depression, migraine, distress, intestinal disorders, and other anxiety-related problems. As with other addictions, the consequences of gambling can lead to feelings of despondency and helplessness. In some cases, this can lead to attempts at suicide. The rate of problem gambling has risen globally over the last few years. In the United States in 2012, around 5.77 million people had a gambling disorder that needed treatment. (See

2. Gambling leads to materialism. A new paper in the Journal of Gambling Studies takes this angle. As the authors write, "gambling has never been studied from a materialism perspective."

In other words, for a behavior that involves trying to win money, there’s a surprising lack of research on whether materialistic attitudes are a factor in gambling. To address this gap, the researchers surveyed 65 problem gamblers and 65 non-problem gamblers, administering surveys about their gambling behavior, financial attitudes and self-esteem.

The researchers found that problem gamblers were distinguished from non-problem gamblers by having higher levels of materialism on average. The link between materialism and problem gambling was especially true for those who believe that happiness depends on having material possessions. 
(See; Emphasis mine). One can legitimately ask if the materialism causes problem gambling, or problem gambling causes you to become materialistic. I argue that the materialistic mindset is inherent in gambling, whether the person is a compulsive gambler or not. What is the purpose of gambling? To make money for doing nothing productive. It's all about getting money and not having to work.

Christ tells us, "...Take heed and beware of all covetousness; for a man's life doth not consist in the abundance of things which he possesseth." (St. Luke 12:15). Scripture also warns us that "Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.This too is meaningless." (Ecclesiastes 5:10). 

3. It exploits the poor. If gambling was a good way to get rich, you would see millionaires, billionaires and upper class professionals playing it, and thanking the government for allowing them to get rich this way. Last month, I went to get gas and thought I'd have to wait on a long line. The line was for "Mega-Millions" with working class poor people ( I saw their cars and clothes) spending their money hoping to "retire" like Ed. Gambling is akin to a tax on the poor and people who can't do math. This is is a mathematical, and statistical fact. Americans spent more than $80 billion on lottery tickets in 2016 -- more than they spent on books, movie tickets, music, video games, and sports tickets -- combined.  The odds of winning the "Powerball" or "Mega-Millions" grand prize are, respectively, 1 in 292,201,338 and 1 in 302,575,350. The odds of getting struck by lightening are one in a million. So in 292,000,000, approximately 292 will be struck by lightening, but only one will win "Powerball." Studies also show that the zip codes that spend four times what anyone else does on lottery tickets are those in lower-income parts of cities.

According to a 2008 study reported by Business Insider, households with incomes under $13,000 per year spend 9 percent of that on lottery tickets. As it also pointed out, "you are 17 times more likely to get hit by falling airplane parts than you are to win the lottery." (See

4.  Casinos attract crime. Just over ten years ago, in Bangor, Maine, a 41-year-old housekeeper forged $40,000 in checks belonging to elderly people in the assisted-living home where she worked, then gambled it away at Hollywood Slots, a cavernous 1,000-slot-machine establishment. She pleaded guilty, blaming an addiction to gambling, and in 2008 received a three-year prison term. "Casinos, Crime, and Community Costs," published in 2006 in The Review of Economics and Statistics, a prestigious academic journal produced by Harvard and MIT, examined crime rates in every county in the nation covering a period of 20 years – from 1977, just before the first casinos outside Nevada were built in Atlantic City, to 1996. It concluded that opening a casino led to local crime increases averaging eight percent.

5. Gambling is linked to alcoholism. Some people find there is a connection between the effects of alcohol and what happens when they gamble. This may mean they:
  • Drink more
  • Spend more money gambling
  • Stay at the venue for longer than intended (See

While gambling may moral, as outlined by theologian Prummer, five factors must be taken into consideration. Can we honestly say that fraud is excluded and financial gain is not the main motive? Here's what gambling does:
  • Denigrates the dignity of labor; working for money
  • Gives "get rich quick" ideas to the poor, who should be saving their money and not gambling
  • Materialistic attitudes are created and/or exacerbated, leading to addiction
  • Attracts crime where casinos are built
  • Increases depression and drunkenness (leading to alcoholism in many cases)
Is this something in which a Traditionalist should participate? In my opinion, no. Donate the money to your Chapel or Church and have the Holy Sacrifice offered for your intentions or for someone's soul instead. If your Church or chapel has Bingo or a raffle, that's fine. Government sponsored gambling is bad news. Several years ago, the state of California was pushing its citizens to buy more Powerball tickets. You saw ping pong balls falling from the sky while the song California Dreamin' played. The message was "Believe in Something Bigger." Unfortunately, they did not mean God. Need any more be said? 

Monday, November 5, 2018

Singing For Satan---Part 16

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.

Sting and The Police

 Formed in London, England, in 1977, the rock group The Police consisted of three musicians, Sting (b. Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner in 1951), Andrew James Somers (b. 1942), and Stewart Armstrong Copeland (b. 1952). Sumner was a teacher who played in bands on the weekends. From his early days he was given the moniker "Sting" because of the black and yellow striped sweater he would wear, which made him look like a bee. He met Somers while playing a gig, and was solicited to join him in forming a new band. They added drummer Copeland to the line-up, thus completing the power trio. Originally, they were to be called Police Brutality, to show their contempt for authority, but decided to give the group a softer image and settled on The Police. 

 Sting's song about a French whore, Roxanne, was so catchy, A&M Records offered them a record deal; however the song was not placed on the BBC's playlist because of the controversial content. A&M consequently promoted the single with posters claiming "Banned by the BBC," and The Police became an overnight sensation with their first album Outlandos d'Amour released in November 1978. They were part of the so-called "Second British Invasion" of English musicians (circa 1982-1986) making it big in the United States because of MTV. The group would disband in 1986, but Sting would go on to have an incredible solo career (he is still performing as of this writing). In their nine years together, The Police would release five albums, four of which would make Rolling Stone's list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time," and they are listed as #70 on the magazine's list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time." The band has sold over 75 million albums worldwide, and they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003. 

The band is not only anti-authoritarian and promotes promiscuity, but they are seeped in the occult. They are led by Sting--an apostate Catholic with a traditional Catholic education.

Feeling the Sting of Satan
The album "Ghost in the Machine" is named after the corrupt philosophy of Descartes who likened the soul to a "ghost" that inhabits the "machine" of our body. Atheists and pagans use the phrase as a derogatory term for the Christian belief in the soul. The album looks innocuous with some strange dysfunctional computer display. Turn the album backwards and it is the "666" for Antichrist (see picture below)

Sting was raised a true Catholic in the 1950s, but has since rejected his childhood Faith and embarked on a religious journey through Eastern paganism and occultism. Most of the songs by The Police were written by Sting and exhibit pagan/occult themes. The album Synchronicity (1983) was inspired by the book The Roots of Coincidence  (1972) by Arthur Koestler, which is an introduction to theories of parapsychology, including extrasensory perception ["ESP"] and psychokinesis. It was also a theory developed by occultist and psychotherapist Carl Jung. According to "Carl Jung Resources:"

Synchronicity, as an explicative theory, applies to phenomena from the area of parapsychology, prevision and premonition, to I Ching (the specific method of consulting the Oracle of Changes), to astrology and many other borderline fields. It is also present in psychotherapy, as we have already shown, but also in situations where patients find information about their psychotherapists by extrasensory ways, information that was not public, or vice versa, when psychotherapists get information about their patients. The latter case is attested by Jung in his accounts. (See 

The album, the fifth and final by The Police, contains songs of pure evil. The hit song Every Breath You Take is about a stalker obsessed with his female victim and determined to get her to "love" him.

Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you
Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you
Oh can't you see
You belong to me
My poor heart aches
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I'll be watching you
Since you've gone I been lost without a trace
I dream at night I can only see your face
I look around but it's you I can't replace
I feel so cold and I long for your embrace
I keep crying baby, baby, please
Oh can't you see
You belong to me
My poor heart aches
With every step you take

The song King of Pain is about the hopelessness of life and how Sting realizes that the human being is "King of Pain" because he can reflect on the absurdity of life.

There's a little black spot on the sun today
It's the same old thing as yesterday
There's a black hat caught in the high tree top
There's a flag pole rag and the wind won't stop
I have stood here before inside the pouring rain
With the world turning circles running 'round my brain
I guess I'm always hoping that you'll end this reign
But it's my destiny to be the king of pain
There's a little black spot on the sun today, that's my soul up there
It's the same old thing as yesterday, that's my soul up there
There's a black hat caught in a high tree top, that's my soul up there
There's a flag pole rag and the wind won't stop, that's my soul up there
I have stood here before inside the pouring rain
With the world turning circles running 'round my brain

The song Wrapped Around Your Finger is described by Sting himself as:
...vaguely alchemical and probably about a friend of mine, a professional psychic and my tutor in tarot, with bits of Doctor Faustus and 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' thrown into the pot for good measure. (See; Emphasis mine)

Sting admits he is a practitioner of the occult (psychics and tarot cards), and he is "wrapped around the finger"of his evil master from Hell. 

You consider me the young apprentice
Caught between the Scylla and Charibdes
Hypnotized by you if I should linger
Staring at the ring around your finger
I have only come here seeking knowledge
Things they would not teach me of in college
I can see the destiny you sold turned into a shining band of gold
I'll be wrapped around your finger
I'll be wrapped around your finger
Mephistopheles is not your name
I know what you're up to just the same
I will listen hard to your intuition
You will see it come to its fruition
I'll be wrapped around your finger
I'll be wrapped around your finger (Emphasis mine)
In Greek mythology, Scylla and Charybdis were a pair of monsters who lived on opposite ends of the Strait of Messina between Italy and Sicily. To be "caught between Scylla and Charibdes" is an idiom meaning "having to choose between two evils." In the German legend of Faust, the title character is bored with life and sells his soul to Satan in return for knowledge and worldly pleasures. Mephistopheles is Satan's demon-messenger. The song says, "Mephistopheles is not your name," because Sting appears to be dealing with the devil himself.

Sting has said, "I would not consider myself a Christian any longer. My beliefs are much wider than that. I don’t believe God is necessarily a Catholic or Islamic or anything else…it’s a much larger concept than that."
He also said in his early career, "In a sense I am more of a Hindu … I like the Hindu religion more than anything else at the moment." Although he currently claims agnosticism, in 2009, he reported seeing a "ghost:"

Rocker STING and his wife TRUDIE STYLER were left spooked one night, when they both saw a ghost in their bedroom.
The former Police frontman never believed in a ghostly afterlife until he and Styler spotted a spectre in a home they used to own. He says, "I would never have said I believe in ghosts, until I saw one – and I’ve seen a ghost with my own eyes. I woke up at three in the morning, bolt upright, looked into the corner of the room and thought I saw Trudie standing there with a child – our child – in her arms, staring at me.

"And I thought, ‘Well, that’s strange – why is she standing in a corner, staring at me?’ And I then reached next to me and there was Trudie, and I suddenly got this terrible chill. And she woke up and said ‘Gosh, who is that?’ and she saw this woman and a child in the corner of the room. A lot of things happened in that house, a lot of flying objects and voices and strange, strange things happened.

"When you live in old houses you get this energy there. Intellectually, no I don’t believe in them (ghosts), but I’ve experienced them on an emotional level." (See; Emphasis in original). It seems Mr. Sumner has experienced many strange encounters from Hell having immersed himself in paganism and the occult, despite protests of currently being an agnostic. Like all who serve Satan, he lies.

Cranking Out More Evil Lyrics
The cover for the single Can't Stand Losing You (1978) depicts a man committing suicide by hanging. He stands on a block of ice while a heater melts it until he slowly strangles to death. It was banned in the UK for promotion of suicide.

Sting admits to having written one of his most infamous songs--All This Time (1990)--- about a boy who wants to bury his father at sea over the objections of two priests. In the song he blasphemes Christ:

I looked out across the river today.
Saw a city in the fog and an old church town where the seagulls play.
Saw the sad shire horses walking home in the sodium light,
Two priests on the ferry.
October geese on a cold winter's night.
All this time the river flowed endlessly to the sea.
Two priests came 'round our house tonight,
One young, one old, to offer prayers for the dying to serve the final rite.
One to learn, one to teach which way the cold wind blows.
And fussing and flapping in priestly black like a murder of crows.
All this time the river flowed endlessly to the sea.
If I had my way, take a boat from the river and I'd bury the old man.
I'd bury him at sea.
Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the earth.
Better to be poor than a fat man in the eye of the needle.
As these words were spoken I swear I hear the old man laughing.
What good is a used up world and how could it be worth having?
All this time the river flowed endlessly like a silent tear.
All this time the river flowed.
Father, if Jesus exists then how come he never lives here?
Yeah yeah. Yeah yeah. Yeah yeah. (Emphasis mine)

The Police song Murder By Numbers is about having the right to kill your family and anyone else who insults you:
Once that you've decided on a killing
First you make a stone of your heart
And if you find that your hands are still willing
Then you can turn a murder into art
There really isn't any need for bloodshed
You just do it with a little more finesse
If you can slip a tablet into someone's coffee
Then it avoids an awful lot of mess
It's murder by numbers, one, two, three
It's as easy to learn as your ABC's
It's murder by numbers, one, two, three
It's as easy to learn as your ABC's
Now if you have a taste for this experience
If you're flushed with your very first success
Then you must try a twosome or a threesome
You'll find your conscience bothers you much less
Because murder is like anything you take to
It's a habit-forming need for more and more
You can bump off every member of your family
And anybody else you find a bore (Emphasis mine)

Be My Girl Sally is about a rubber sex doll:

There was somehow
Something wrong somewhere 
And each day 
Seemed grey and dead
The seeds of desperation 
Were growing in my head
I needed inspiration
A brand new start in life
Somewhere to place affection
But I didn't want a wife

And then by lucky chance 
I saw in a special magazine
An ad that was unusual
The like I'd never seen
"Experience something different 
With our new imported toy
She's loving, warm, inflatable 
And a guarantee of joy."

She came all wrapped in cardboard
All pink and shriveled down
A breath of air was all she needed 
To make her lose that frown
I took her to the bedroom 
And pumped her with some life
And later in a moment 
That girl became my wife (Emphasis mine)

The song Don't Stand So Close To Me is about pedophilia between a teacher and an underage student. (Even more disturbing when you realize Sting was a teacher for two years before embarking on his musical career). There is a reference in the song to "Nabakov." Vladimir Nabokov is a Russian novelist who penned the morally reprehensible novel Lolita in 1955, which tells the tale of a middle-aged literature professor obsessed with a 12 year-old girl whom he rapes repeatedly after becoming her stepfather.

 Young teacher the subject
Of schoolgirl fantasy
She wants him so badly
Knows what she wants to be
Inside her there's no room
This girl's an open page
Book marking she's so close now
This girl is half his age
Don't stand so close to me
Her friends are so jealous
You know how bad girls get
Sometimes it's not so easy
To be the teacher's pet
Temptation, frustration
So bad it makes him cry
Wet bus stop, she's waiting
His car is warm and dry
Don't stand so close to me
Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staff room
The accusations fly
It's no use
He sees her
He starts to shake he starts to cough
Just like the old man in
That famous book by Nabakov
Don't stand so close to me (Emphasis mine)

Sting and The Police were seen as relatively "tame" compared to the overtly demonic bands of the time like AC/DC and Judas Priest. I remember the parents of my friends not objecting to The Police, and thinking how they looked like "nice young men." As the evidence shows, they were anything but "nice." Gordon Sumner is an apostate Catholic who has promoted murder, suicide, pedophilia/perverse sex, and the occult. He even has contacts with the demonic. If you're ever going through a spiritual emergency, don't turn to The Police, call on Christ and His Blessed Mother instead. 

Monday, October 29, 2018

"Islamophobia" Or Misogyny?

 There is a veritable gallimaufry of internal contradictions that occupy the thoughts of the left-wing. Gender is not something innate, it's something that you choose; yet we must fight for women's rights. You must be able to marry "anyone you love," yet polygamy is outlawed. Morality is relative, yet Donald Trump is objectively evil. Guns should be outlawed because people can get hurt, but abortion must be legal. The Law of Non-Contradiction in logic has no place in the liberal mindset. We often hear in the media, and in the Vatican II sect, that Islam is a "religion of peace" and to deny them open access to our boarders is "Islamophobia." Notice how the left comes up with neologisms for anyone who opposes their ideas. You don't agree that Islam is wonderful? You must be crazy; you have a "phobia" which, of course, is a neurosis---a mental disorder. Likewise, to reject the sodomite lifestyle makes you "homophobic."

 To show the sheer lunacy of the idea that "Islam is a religion of peace," ask your Modernist Vatican II sect friend if he/she believes in "equality for women"--such as female "priests" and other feminist tenets such as the  use of artificial contraception so woman can work free from "the burden" of children. In 99.9% of all cases, the reply will be that they do. Below, this post will set out to prove that those two ideas are mutually exclusive. Not only are Mohammedans anti-feminist (which is not a bad thing), they are misogynists who mistreat and demean woman as part of their false and evil religion.

Islam's Inherent Contempt for Women

 Islam gets its teachings from the perverse and wicked man, Mohammed. His teachings are contained in the Koran, believed to be revelations given to him by the god "Allah." Next to the Koran, most Mohammedans accept the teachings of the Hadith, a book which purports to be a record of the words, actions, and the silent approval, of their "prophet," Mohammad. The Tabari is a collection of Koran verses and Hadith quotes, and is illustrative of how "Allah" allows women to be abused, to the point of likening them to animals and sex objects. 

"Allah permits you to shut them [women] in separate rooms and beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Koran." (Tabari IX:113; Emphasis mine)

One of the worst practices in Islam is female genital mutilation (known as "FMG"). Young girls have their clitoris removed (most times without anesthesia) to eliminate their sexual drive ensuring they will not be attracted to boys and become "prime property" on the "marriage market" as a virgin. 

Men are allowed to be wife beaters. The Koran 4:34, "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], beat them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." (Emphasis mine). 

Here is a brief run down of the status of women in the Koran and Hadith. Women:
  • Can be shut in separate rooms
  • Should be beaten if disobedient
  • Are to be treated like domestic animals
  • Have deficient minds
  • Make up the majority of damned souls in Hell

Islam: Condones Pedophilia and Murders Sex Crime Victims

 The pervert Mohammed was betrothed to his friend's daughter when he was forty-nine (49), and the girl Aisha was six (6). He consummated "marriage" with her three years later when the girl was nine (9) and he was fifty-two (52). Decent people will realize this is pedophilia. Mohammedans see nothing wrong with it and many Moslem countries, while having marriage ages in accord with acceptable standards, turn a blind eye to such "marriages" with middle-aged perverts and girls as young as nine. I'm wondering how long before sodomites, pro-pedophilia NAMBLA, and the ACLU use this practice to argue that statutory rape laws are unconstitutional and "ageist." (You must be "free to marry whom you love" after all, right?). 

Furthermore, if a woman is raped in an Islamic country, she is guilty of "adultery" if married, and in transgression of the "chastity laws" if single. Take the outrageous case of Iranian girl Atefeh Rajabi Sahaaleh, who was executed by hanging on August 15, 2004 at the age of 16. Atefeh was arrested after being raped by a 51-year-old man. According to Iranian law, she was convicted for "crimes against chastity." She was tortured by the police until she admitted she was raped by a fifty-one year old cab driver named Ali Darabi, who was married with children. She was found guilty of adultery (since the rapist was married!) and crimes against chastity. (See, e.g., documentary

Finally, we have "honor killings," which is when a woman of any age is under any suspicion of having brought shame to her family. At that point, the family of the girl/woman have not only a right but a duty to murder her and "restore honor" to the family. Lest anyone think this barbaric practice only occurs in "extremist" Islamic states, it has happened right here in the United States by those "peace loving" Mohammedans. 

Atlanta, Georgia--January 2009. Twenty-five year old Sandeela Kanwal was strangled to death by her father for wanting to obtain a divorce from a marriage arranged by her father. According to the CNN news report, "'Honor killings' -- the slaying by family members of a woman or girl thought to be bringing them shame -- are usually kept quiet, making it difficult to determine how frequently they occur. The United Nations Population Fund estimated in September 2000 that as many as 5,000 women and girls fall victim to such killings each year." (See 

Turkey---September 2008. A 16 year old girl was buried alive after her family agreed that she had brought shame upon them. Her crime? Talking to boys in public. "Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an "honor" killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys. The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-meter hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman. Police made the discovery in December after a tip-off from an informant, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on its website. The girl had previously been reported missing. The informant told the police she had been killed following a family 'council' meeting...More than 200 such killings take place each year, said the piece, 'accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.' According to Eurostat, Turkey's yearly murder rate averaged 6.1 per 100,000 population between 2005 and 2007 (the ­latest figures), meaning that the 200 are actually set against an annual total of about 4,400." (See

Pakistan---2016. "Parveen Rafiq closed her hands around the neck of her youngest daughter, Zeenat, and squeezed and squeezed until the girl was almost dead. Then, in the tiny apartment where the family lived, she doused the 18-year-old with kerosene and set her on fire. Neighbors saw the smoke and rushed to the home. Someone inside, apparently one of Rafiq's daughters-in-law, was screaming, 'Help her! Help!'

But the door was bolted from within. Moments later, they heard Rafiq scream from her rooftop: 'I have killed my daughter. I have saved my honor. She will never shame me again.'  Her macabre death on June 8 in the eastern city of Lahore was the latest in a series of increasingly gruesome 'honor killings' in Pakistan, a country with one of the highest rates of such killings in the world. In one case, a mother slit the throat of her pregnant daughter who had married a man she loved. In yet another, a jilted suitor doused a teenage girl with kerosene and set her on fire. In the city of Abbottabad, a teenage girl was tortured, injected with poison and then strapped to the seat of a vehicle, doused with gasoline and set on fire. Her crime was helping a friend elope." (See 


 Ask your Vatican II sect friend after being presented with these facts, "Do you still think Islam is a religion of peace?" Does any of the above sound "peaceful"? The fact remains that Islam is barbaric to the core. The Catholic Church is derided by the Modernist occupiers of the formerly Catholic buildings as "oppressive to women" for not ordaining women as "priests," yet they will never condemn the real oppression of the Mohammedans. If I condemn this evil religion for what it teaches and does against women, am I "Islamophobic"? If I refuse to condemn Islam, am I a misogynist? A real Modernist conundrum. 

On a final note, the disturbing picture at the beginning of this post is of then eighteen-year-old Bibi Aisha in 2010. She was married at fourteen and was routinely beaten by her husband. At 18 she fled the abuse but was caught by police, jailed for five months, and returned to her family. Her father returned her to her husband's family. To take revenge on her escape, her father-in-law, husband, and three other family members took Aisha into the mountains, cut off her nose and her ears, and left her to die. She was rescued by some workers. Her picture made the cover of Time magazine. Doctors from the United States volunteered to give her plastic surgery. She has since had reconstructive surgery and is twenty-five years old, residing in Maryland. A victim of that "peaceful religion." 

Let us pray the full and unedited version of the prayer for the "Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ" composed by Pope Pius XI, and keep the words redacted by "St" Roncalli (John XXIII) in 1959, namely-- "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism; refuse not to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God."

Monday, October 22, 2018

A False Martyr

 On October 14, 2018, Traditionalists the world over shook their heads in disbelief as Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) "canonized" his equally false predecessor, Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) a "saint." This act requires no commentary from me. Montini was a practicing sodomite, a Freemason, and the person who "promulgated" all the heretical documents of the Second Vatican (Robber) Council, which form the basis of the man-made Vatican II sect religion. As real canonizations are infallible acts, everyone is faced with the choice of either accepting Montini as a saint worthy of emulation by the faithful, or rejecting the papal pretender who dared to list his odious name among the great saints of the Church. Yet, the "recognize and resist" crowd, and others immune to logic and reason, will somehow try to justify this act or convince themselves canonizations are not really infallible. They "forget" the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church, which means the Church cannot give that which is erroneous or evil--and giving Montini to the world as a "role model" is evil. Therefore, it could not have come from a true pope.

With most of the notoriety centered on Montini, less has been written about the second big name to be "canonized" the same day: "Archbishop" Oscar Romero of El Salvador. He was "martyred" on March 24, 1980. Romero was no martyr and no saint. As I will demonstrate in this post, Bergoglio has eviscerated the Catholic theology of martyrdom, and given the world a heretical notion in its place. To make an analogy, Romero is to martyr as Bergoglio is to pope.

Romero's Life in Brief
Oscar Romero was born on the Feast of Our Lady's Assumption in 1917. He had little formal schooling, but was very intelligent. At the age of 13, he wanted to become a priest, and was formally educated at the seminary in El Salvador, before completing his studies in Rome, graduating from the prestigious Gregorian University. He was ordained to the priesthood on April 4, 1942. Back in El Salvador, he worked as a parish priest and in several ministries. In January of 1966 he complained of exhaustion, and he was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and the priests who counseled him said he suffered from scrupulosity. (See Oscar Romero: Love Must Win Out, Liturgical Press, [2014], pg. 45). 

Fr. Romero had no problems with the changes of Vatican II and embraced them. In 1970 he was invalidly "consecrated" as auxiliary "bishop" for the Archdiocese of San Salvador. In February of 1977, Romero was appointed "Archbishop" of that See by Montini. He held to nuanced version of the heretical Liberation Theology, (a form of Marxism) and denounced the government on the radio and from the pulpit every chance he had.  On March 24, 1980, while performing the Novus Bogus bread and wine service, a right wing death squad entered the church, and shot Romero in the heart, killing him at once. The perpetrators were never apprehended. In 1983, Wojtyla (John Paul II) prayed at Romero's tomb. The cause for his "sainthood" was opened in 1990. In 2000, Wojtyla declared Romero "that great witness of the Gospel." He was "beatified" in 2015, and "canonized" in 2018 by Bergoglio.

Liberation Theology
In the wake of Vatican II, Marxist ideals made inroads with the clergy and were openly embraced, particularly in South America. A Dominican priest, Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez (b. 1928, ordained 1959) wrote a book entitled A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll Press, NY: Orbis, [1971]) which gave the movement both its name and impetus. As a young man, Gutierrez studied to become a doctor, only to change course and study for the priesthood. He was taught by the most Modernist theologians of the day, Frs. Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Marie Dominique Chenu. De Lubac was removed from his teaching position in 1950 on suspicion of Modernism, Congar was prevented from teaching and publishing in 1954, and had one of his major works censured in 1952. Chenu had a book, Une école de théologie placed on the Vatican's Index of Forbidden Books in 1942 because of its heretical ideas about the role of historical studies in theology. He was subsequently removed from his teaching post. All three were rehabilitated by Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI), becoming perti (theological experts) at Vatican II. De Lubac and Congar would be made "cardinals" and heroes of the Vatican II sect. Gutierrez credits heretic Chenu as his biggest influence. 

With this background, its not hard to see that "Liberation Theology" is heretical from its very inception. It is basically Communism dressed up in religious garb. Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains unchanging for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.Theology is about actions to help the poor and oppressed using Jesus Christ as the "model of liberation." Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed. From what are they to be liberated? Not sin, but poverty and capitalism. Just like Modernists, they give traditional Catholic teachings new meanings while retaining the same verbiage. 

Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez's, "liberation theologians" interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. Gutierrez explains in his book that "sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men." (pg. 72). Those who are oppressed can and do sin by acquiescing to their bondage. To go along passively with oppression rather than resisting and attempting to overthrow it (by violent means if necessary) is a sin. The use of violence has been one of the most controversial aspects of liberation theology. Such violence is not considered sinful if it is used for resisting oppression. Indeed, certain liberation theologians in some cases regard a particular action (e.g., killing) as the sin of murder only if it is committed by an "oppressor" (usually meaning any capitalist government), but not if it is committed by "the oppressed" in the struggle to remove inequities.

Salvation. Salvation is viewed not primarily in terms of life after death for the individual, but in terms of bringing about the kingdom of God: a new social order where there will be equality for all.

Jesus Christ. While liberation theologians do not outright deny Christ's Divinity, there is no unambiguous confession that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. The "significance" of Jesus Christ lies in His example of struggling to help the poor and the outcast. The Incarnation is reinterpreted to represent God's total immersion into man's history of conflict and oppression. Christ, they tell us, was about liberating the poor. They conveniently ignore He said, "For the poor thou hast always with thee: but Me thou hast not always." (St. Matthew 26: 11).  

The Church. Gutierrez and other liberation theologians say the Church's mission is no longer one of a "quantitative" notion of saving numbers of souls. Instead, the Church's Great Commission is about improving the "quality of life" on Earth; thereby siding with the poor and the oppressed.

Despite all this heresy, Gutierrez was never excommunicated or censured by Wojtyla, the "anti-Communist" who condemned Liberation Theology, yet did nothing to stop it. It is claimed that Romero disavowed violence, and was not a "liberation theologian" but a "Transfiguration theologian" who rejected Marxism. What is "Transfiguration theology"? It is an ecumenical, watered down socialism. Romero did indeed denounce violence. However, he stated:
"Pope Paul VI who continually enlightens my thinking in these matters...also encouraged ecumenism as a spiritual and pastoral need. With joy I am able to tell you that we have spoken with our evangelical sisters and brothers and very soon we will meet to plan and work together in an authentic ecumenical sense." (See

 Montini, the apostate sodomite and Freemason, was Romero's "enlightenment." His work is based on ecumenism from Vatican II, and has its roots in Liberation Theology properly so-called. Furthermore, "Cardinal" Gerhard Muller claimed to have read through "six volumes on Oscar Romero" and at the end of this exhaustive study found nothing that would prevent him from being recognized as a saint. This is not very reassuring considering that Muller, the former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (sic), is himself a heretic who denies the dogma of Transubstantiation. (See the excellent analysis of Novus Ordo Watch at:

The next section will explain why Romero was so keen on ecumenism.

Romero and Opus Dei
According to, Opus Dei’s founder, Saint (sic) Josemaría Escriva, and Archbishop Romero had known each other since 1955. In 1974 Romero came to Rome and had several conversations with the future saint. Escriva was concerned that the Archbishop should have the opportunity to rest during his stay in Rome, because he realized the tense situation he faced back in El Salvador.

After Escriva's death, Romero was one of the first bishops to write a letter to the Holy See asking for his canonization. In this letter he said that he was grateful for having known Msgr Escriva personally "and for having received from him encouragement and strength to be faithful to the unchangeable doctrine of Christ and to serve the Holy Roman Church with apostolic zeal."

And he [Romero--Introibo] continued: "Personally, I owe deep gratitude to the priests involved with the Work [Opus Dei], to whom I have entrusted with much satisfaction the spiritual direction of my own life and that of other priests."

Cardinal Rosa Chavez, auxiliary bishop of San Salvador and a close friend of Romero, says that the martyr’s spirituality was nourished by the spirituality of Josemaría Escriva and that he often read his book The Way."

Opus Dei (Latin: "The Work of God") is organized like a religious order, comprised overall of priests and laity. Entering "the Opus" is considered to be a vocation and there are both rules and vows, although married members take different vows than clerics. It is a personal prelature, meaning that, there is a prelate, clergy and laity under the direction of the Congregation of Bishops. As opposed to a diocese, people are bound to the prelature by membership as opposed to geographical area.

Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?

 In a word: NO.

  • It was the first institution to take in non-Catholics and even non-Christians
  • For Escriva and his organization, freedom of conscience comes before Truth. Hence he said, "[Religious] Pluralism is not to be feared but loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom."
  • Escriva had Protestant, schismatic, Jewish, Moslem and even pagan benefactors who were very good financial brokers for Opus Dei; it was already an active force for "political ecumenism." In Spain, the group refused to take a stand against abortion, not wanting to violate the "conscience" of the non-Catholics
  • Montini (Paul VI) used the work of Escriva for his personal meditations
  • The Opus Dei member ultimately learns not only to respect, but to love, religious pluralism

This was the garbage spirituality and theology of Romero. He used a version of liberation theology based on Vatican II ecumenism and made enemies based on this heretical theology as well as for denouncing the government.

Can Romero Be a True "Martyr"?

Bergoglio believes in an "ecumenism of blood;" that members of false sects can be "martyrs." He stated on Vatican Radio, February 16, 2015:
"The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard,” said the Pope.  "It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ."

This is so far removed from Catholic teaching, it can't be denounced strongly enough. Time for a reality check. The following points I condensed from Fr. Ronald Knox's wonderful treatise The Theology of Martyrdom (B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, (1929)).

1. The word "martyr" means "witness." It means you give witness to the True Faith by your death. Martyrdom implies, not simply losing your life, but giving up your life. Your life is prematurely cut short in the interests of something greater than yourself. Neither suffering by itself, nor suffering followed by death is martyrdom properly so called.

2. The Church does not bestow the title of martyr upon those heroic priests, nuns, and layman who have persistently attended to the suffering in times of pestilence. St. Aloysius, whose death was brought on by such a labor was not canonized a martyr. These deaths were not the result of the assertion of religious truth against the enemies of religious truth. They laid down their lives for Christ's sake, but not for Christ's quarrel. 

3. The faith one dies for can only be the unadulterated, Integral Catholic Faith; the One True Religion. To those who object that non-Catholics can receive Baptism of Desire, and it is therefore hypocritical to deny Protestants who, in good faith, die for a false belief the title of martyrs, it can be demonstrated their argument is without merit.  Baptism of Desire does not deny the objectivity of Truth, as this argument presupposes. The world tells us "Be good and you will go to Heaven, if such a place exists." A martyr is not someone who dies for what they believe, it is someone who dies for the Truth. Thomas Crammer died because he disbelieved in the papacy. St. Thomas More died because he believed in the papacy. Both cannot be true, so to make martyrs of both means either objective truth doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

4. As an adult, you must have the intention to die as a witness for the Truth. If a Traditionalist is killed in his sleep (unaware he was in any danger) by someone who is an enemy of the Faith, he does not qualify as a martyr. The Church means, by martyrdom, death undergone at the hands of those who hate the True Catholic Faith, for the sake of the True Catholic Faith; and undergone, in the case of adults, deliberately. Infants, killed for the sake of the True Faith, by those who hate the True Faith, die as martyrs without any intention necessary. They receive Baptism of Blood (if unbaptized) and their salvation is assured. (e.g. The Holy Innocents).

5. On the part of the enemies of Christ, a certain odium fidei ("hatred of the Faith") is necessary. A wholesale abandonment of the Faith, or hatred of all beliefs, is not necessary. To hate any article of True Faith/Morals because it is taught by the Church will suffice. Therefore, Henry VIII did not have to abandon every belief of the Church. Denying divorce and remarriage is adultery and hating that belief because the Church teaches it as true, was sufficient without more, to establish an odium fidei.

6. A soldier who takes up arms to fight a just war is not to be considered a martyr if he dies. Hence, the one who dies must not be guilty of provocation---that he died because he didn't kill the other man first. The exception is with captured soldiers who, now unarmed, are given the option of death or apostasy.

7. Notice how different this is from the Moslem conception of committing suicide while killing others (e.g. 9/11 attacks) as "martyrdom"!

Romero was killed because of a heretical theology and his political activity. Therefore, he did not die for the One True Church and--on that basis alone--cannot be a martyr. His murderer(s) did not truly have the "hatred of the faith"--only hatred for Romero's politics and false theology which supported his politics. Romero is neither a saint nor a martyr, unless you jettison all Catholic teaching on martyrdom by replacing it with an "ecumenism of blood" as professed by Bergoglio.


On October 14, 2018, Jorge Bergoglio held up as "saints" a false pope and a false martyr. Montini (Paul VI) did more to destroy the Faith and drive the Church underground than anyone else. Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio were just speeding up the process he began.  Oscar Romero was a revolutionary who offered an ecumenical form of socialism under the guise of Christianity. His theology and spirituality were formed by (and praised by) heretics of the worst kind. He does not meet even the minimum standards to be considered a martyr according to the teaching of the One True Church. 

Meanwhile, real pope-saints, such as Pope St. Pius V, and Pope St. Pius X are obscured (at best) or derided as irrelevant in "today's world" because they were not ecumenical. Now, we have real saints and martyrs, like St. Isaac Jogues, St. Maria Goretti, and St. Thomas More being replaced in the Vatican II sect by the likes of Oscar Romero, a socialist and heretic, who didn't die for the Faith. "Pope" Francis does not want held up for emulation someone who died to convert the Native Americans from paganism (they were "noble savages"), or who died for defending her virginal purity (not sensitive to promiscuous sodomites), or who died defending the true doctrine on the papacy (not sensitive to Siscoe, Salza, and the SSPX who want to join Francis). 

No, Bergoglio wants the world to emulate someone who embodies the "spirit of Vatican II" and spouts the Communist "Social(ist) Gospel." As the world crumbles around us with Faith and Morals disappearing more and more, the day may not be too far off when many of us who profess the Integral Catholic Faith may be targeted and become true martyrs. May God then give us strength. 

Monday, October 15, 2018

Know Thy Enemy

 The Vatican II sect is a man-made religion created in the wake of the death of Pope Pius XII. It is founded on the heresy of Modernism, which is so evil, Pope St. Pius X called it the "synthesis of all heresies." While many people rightly "know it when they see it," there is no shortage of those who don't fully understand what it is, how it developed, and the remedies against it. Pope St. Pius X wrote two very strong Magisterial documents against Modernism: The encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), and a syllabus of Modernist errors, Lamentabili Sane (1907). These decrees are a perfect dissection of the problem, however, they are written for those well-versed in both philosophy and theology. Luckily, in 1907, a very holy and learned priest, Father J.B. Lemius, wrote a 155 page booklet entitled A Catechism of Modernism. His goal was to make the teaching of Pascendi accessible to all people in a "question and answer" catechism-type of format.

 The booklet was endorsed by no less than Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, the staunch Anti-Modernist theologian and saintly adviser to Pope St. Pius X. Fr. Lemius' work was reprinted by TAN Books in 1981. In this week's post, I will seek to condense the Anti-Modernist catechism so that all may better understand the greatest enemy of humanity, the Modernist Vatican II sect, which apes the One True Church and leads millions to their eternal damnation. I take no credit for what is written. It was all put together by Pope St. Pius X, and masterfully broken down into a more reader-friendly format by Fr. Lemius. I merely try to make an even more truncated version, with the hope of not sacrificing too much material for the sake of brevity. The section on "Modernism and the Vatican II sect," contains but a few of countless examples, culled by me from various sources, which demonstrate the Modernist doctrine that fuels the sect.

What is Modernism?

  •  It is an amalgamation of errors. It begins with agnosticism.  According to this teaching, human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, which means things that appear to the senses, and it has no power to overstep these limits. Since we cannot know (or even infer) to the existence of things outside the scope of phenomena, the human intellect is incapable of knowing the existence of God.
  • As a result, Modernism denies the supernatural as an object of certain knowledge. The Modernists who challenge all rational proof of the existence of God as the First Cause of everything in existence, both material and spiritual, fall victims to a "scientific agnosticism." For these, God is something which comes forth from man's subconscious. Religion is therefore essentially about feelings, specifically what makes you feel good; if Christianity, or any other religion, is what makes you feel good and more in touch with the Divine, then it is true for you. Religion has never consisted of creeds or objective truth but of feelings. This doctrine is known as vital immanence. Religion is a feeling or sentiment that comes from a subconscious need for the Divine.
  • Modernists regard Divine Revelation as a purely natural emergence of religious knowledge from a natural sense known as the "religious sense." There is no "One True Church" and no Deposit of Revelation that needs to be guarded.  
  •  The Modernist God is not transcendent; He is not "out there" but "totally within." As St. Pius X explained in Pascendi, the Modernist God was no more than a symbol and that "the personality of God will become a matter of doubt and the gate will be opened to pantheism." Do you notice how much of the Vatican II sect is infested with Eastern religion and philosophy, such as yoga and reiki? Have you seen in Nostra Aetate, how the Second Vatican (Robber) Council acknowledged "the good" that is in Hinduism and Buddhism? It comes from this erroneous idea of a "God within us all."
  • Since God is unknowable (as are miracles), the Bible cannot be held as historically accurate. We cannot consider Christ as God, or give credence to miracles. 
  • Dogmas are taught to be subject to evolution from one meaning to another. As man's religious feelings evolve, so must dogma.  Dogma evolves into whatever accommodates the needs of the current culture. 
  • "Same name, different meaning." When Modernists talk about Traditional doctrine, they affirm it with a different meaning so they sound orthodox while remaining heretics. When they profess, for example, "Our faith is based upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ;" it could mean His physical and historical Resurrection as the Church teaches, or simply a symbolic story which was invented by the first Christians to promote faith in Christ who rose only in the mind of His believers.
  • Catholic dogma is but a common consciousness of the believers. Thus, prompted by this "common consciousness," the believers came together in a society [Church] to formulate and systematize its beliefs. This (according to the Modernists) is how the Magisterium of the Church began.
How Did Modernism Originate?

  •  It has its roots in the Protestant Revolt ("Reformation"). It made people the sole arbiter of Truth through private interpretation of Scripture. Protestants jettisoned the need for a Magisterium. 
  • It continued through the exaltation of the individual during the so-called "Enlightenment." It exalted the individual and skepticism. 
  • Infected with these false notions, through curiosity and pride (curious to know what is condemned and prideful that they are not like others--they know better than the Church), some theologians began trying to undermine the Church from within. "I hate arrogance and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue." - Proverbs 8:13.
  • These theologians (e.g. Loisy and Tyrrell) had their teachings condemned and were excommunicated. Many others were censured over the years (e.g., Kung, Rahner, Roncalli, etc.). As hard as he tried, Pope St. Pius X drove the Modernists underground, but never extirpated them. 
Remedies Against Modernism
  • Study Scholastic philosophy, especially the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas. All seminarians must be given a sound formation in philosophy, and the approved theologians. Prayer and mortification are necessary. 
  • Exclude from positions of power anyone who does not demonstrate a love of Aquinas and a hatred of novelty. Those sympathetic to Modernism, even if not Modernists themselves, must be purged. 
  • Books and writings that are sympathetic or supportive of Modernism must be banned and refuted.
  • Those suspect of Modernism must be investigated, and if guilty, removed from all authority. 
Modernism and the Vatican II sect

  • Worship. "Mass" is a four letter word not to be used. The "liturgy" or "celebration of the Eucharist (sic)" is not about the worship of God, but the entertainment of the people. The "assembly" must do everything, because there is no supernatural priestly order. Hold hands around a table, sing profane, banal songs, and have a touchy-feely "homily" about how "God loves us no matter what we do." Transubstantiation is a myth. The people stand (usually dressed like slobs or immodestly), while a layman or laywoman ("laytransgenders" can't be far behind) holds up the cracker and says "The Body of Christ." The recipient says "Amen" because it only becomes a symbol of Christ for us by consent of the assembly who memorialize Jesus. The more or less blessed cracker is then placed in unconsecrated hands to be chewed like cud and the tabernacle has been replaced by a hole in the wall.
  • The Sacraments. The sacraments are not visible signs of invisible graces instituted by the historical God-Man, Jesus Christ, but mere "expressions of faith" instituted by the "Christian community." In almost all cases, the primary and secondary effects of the sacraments have been inverted. Baptism is not about the remission of Original Sin and infusion of sanctifying grace. It is about "welcoming someone into the community of the People of God." The Eucharist is a memorial meal, not part of an Unbloody Sacrifice, and not the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Penance or Confession is now "Reconciliation,"where you get counseled by a glorified social worker ("priest") about being more "giving to the community" since offences against God are non-existent. Holy Matrimony is about the happiness of the couple first above all, and procreation is merely secondary (if considered at all). Holy Orders makes a man a "President of the Assembly." He is not in any way special or endowed with supernatural authority and power. Confirmation is having a "mature faith," not being a soldier for Christ. Extreme Unction is no longer to prepare the soul for Judgement (or restore bodily health, should God Will it), it's "Anointing of the Sick" for those who gather in the church with colds, headaches, and other maladies both mental and physical (the spiritual doesn't exist). 
  • Morality. All morality is subjective. If God cannot be proven, and if Revelation is not possible, all moral actions are relative to the community in general, and can be overridden in almost all cases by the "conscience of the individual." Your personal happiness comes first, and whatever you "feel" is permissible is moral. In matters of sexuality, as long as "all parties consent," and "no one gets hurt," everything is allowed. Evils such as (but not limited to) birth control, euthanasia, divorce and remarriage, abortion, and homosexuality can all be condoned by a false notion of  "conscience." Dostoevsky said, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." The same holds true if you hold to agnosticism and eschew the supernatural order. Morality "evolves." Soon, they will adopt Satanist Aleister Crowley's maxim, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." 
  • The Church. All paths lead to God. There is no One True Church, since all religions are the subconscious need for the Divine manifested in various ways. No religion is more true or better than any other.Vatican II teaches, "Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him [Christ], has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man." (See Gaudium et Spes, para. #22; Emphasis mine). Wojtyla (John Paul II) builds on this heresy, "What we have just said must also be applied-although in another way and with the due differences-to activity for coming closer together with the representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we know well, the members of these religions also are not lacking." (See Redemptor Hominis, para. #6; Emphasis mine). This means that Christ is somehow truly "within" all people regardless of whether or not they belong to the Catholic Church. How can anyone be damned if they are "in a certain way" united to Christ? Answer: They can't because Hell and Purgatory do not exist.  Dogmas can and must change with the times. God is within, so we are all connected to Him in some pantheistic way, building even more on the heretical teaching of Vatican II. Eastern philosophy and religions are embraced and extolled. Do yoga, transcendental meditation, and reiki. One can be "absorbed by the Divine," and perhaps even be reincarnated.  
Without exaggeration, Modernism is the cause of all the major problems in our sick world today. With the Church driven underground, morality and truth have been obscured to a degree not seen since the days of Noah. Atheism is the logical and final outcome of Modernism. Atheism is on the rise like never before; and the "New Atheists" are denigrating religion and making disciples. Even the Vatican II sect rag, The National Catholic Register, admits: "Surveys show that atheism is growing at an alarming rate across the globe. In a very short time, countries such as France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Australia will lose their Christian majorities to those who consider themselves atheists or 'religiously unaffiliated." (See 

The total rebellion against God is nearly complete. As Fr. Lemius states on page 119 of his Catechism:
"Q: Describe the gradual descent of the human mind to the denial of all religion?
A. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism." 

Monday, October 8, 2018

Who Do You Think You're Talking To?

 I think everyone in my generation had their mother or father ask, "Who do you think you're talking to?" when you answered them in a tone of voice they didn't like. That quote came to mind, of all places, during a Continuing Legal Education ("CLE") course I had to take.

The Bar Association offered a class on dealing with frustration when interacting with difficult clients. Rather than the usual classes on legal issues, I decided I'd get the credit while obtaining tips for keeping my anger in check (I've always had anger management issues; thankfully, with prayer and trying hard, I've mellowed considerably). I never snapped at a client, but many times I walked away with elevated blood pressure.

The presenter was not a lawyer. He never said what he did for a living other than giving these talks he called "life changing, dynamic experiences." What qualified him for doing such was never stated, and he never answered questions as to his training in dealing with frustration. He was exactly my age, married with two teenagers (one of whom is developmentally disabled), helped many charitable causes, and was a "lector" at his Vatican II sect parish since 1988. I had a bad feeling about this man, and my hunch was quickly proven correct. The first thing he told us was that we needed to become vulnerable, and not to be afraid to cry. He said he cried frequently and uncontrollably and was proud of his "openness." (During two hours, he needed to stop six times to cry openly in front of us and took several minutes to compose himself each time).

What made him cry? It would be easier if you asked me what didn't make him cry. Every story he told us about his life caused him to cry (both happy and sad events), and the (alleged) secret to conquering your frustration was in following some sappy platitudes that sounded like rejected sayings meant to be printed in a Hallmark Greeting Card. "The mind protects, but the heart connects." "Glorify who you are today, do not condemn who you were yesterday, and dream of who you can be tomorrow." At this point, I felt I was in the wrong profession. Cry, spout mawkish claptrap, and get paid over two grand for two hours of nonsense; God Bless America.

Then, he made a statement that made me bolt upright from my slouching, "half-asleep in the chair" position. "Use God to help you. Not the 'small god' of Christians. Catholics think only they can get to Heaven, and evangelical Christians think only they have the truth. In fact, all of us can be saved, if we are open. I take my teachings from Neale Donald Walsch." I'm quite familiar with the teachings of Walsch. It's no wonder I felt I had heard all this before somehow. Neale Donald Walsch is a New Ager, an anti-Catholic bigot, and an occultist. His garbage is apparently still being peddled by members of the Vatican II sect. Lest you be caught unaware, I'm exposing this man and his evil teachings in this post.

Conversations with "God"

Neale Donald Walsch (b. 1943) was baptized and raised in the One True Church. He claims to have studied comparative religions for years, but was never a devout Catholic. In 1992, Walsch, then 49, was angry and despondent over the course his life had taken. His marriage ended in divorce, a fire then destroyed all his belongings, after which he was in a car accident wherein he suffered a broken neck. After he left the hospital, he was alone, broke, and living in a tent. He picked up aluminum cans for the deposit money in order to eat.
It was then he decided to write an angry letter to God asking why He allowed all this to happen to him. As he finished writing the last question, Walsch claims the pen moved on its own and he found himself writing words as though taking dictation (known as "automatic writing"). Walsch states he knew this was "God" dictating the responses, although he does not explain how he knew God was responsible. Later, he would deny automatic writing, and assert he was writing down what "God" told him.

In an interview with Larry King, Walsch claims he heard a voice saying, "Do you really want an answer to all these questions or are you just venting?" (See He turned around he saw no one there, yet Walsch felt answers to his questions filling his mind and decided to write them down as his pen moved. The resulting "dialogue" became the best selling book Conversations With God in 1995. It spent an incredible 135 weeks on the New York Times Bestsellers List. There were eight other books in the series to follow, and Walsch is worth approximately $81 million dollars today.

Walsch's books suffer from several problems which demonstrate conclusively they do not come from God but from the "father of lies." Endemic among those purporting "new revelations" from God, or declaring themselves "spiritual teachers" (e.g., Marianne Williamson, Eckhart Tolle, etc) these days, are the following tenets: (1) sin is non-existent and morality is subjective; (2) God loves you as you are, there is no need to amend your life; (3) experience and feelings are superior to the intellect; (4) there is no True Religion, salvation comes to all; (5) Christ is not God; (6) Eastern pagan ideas such as pantheism and reincarnation are true. You can see the appeal. They tell people what they want to hear, and not the truth. Don't worry about sin, Hell, amending your life, etc. Just feel good and accept yourself. It is very much like modern psychology with religious verbiage thrown in. That's also the reason for the enthusiasts among the Vatican II sect with Bergoglio proclaiming, "There is no Catholic God," and "Who am I to judge?" The elements set forth above will be examined in Walsch's books. As there are a total of nine (9) books in the series, quotes will be culled from more than just the first book, and citations will be given accordingly (For example 3:27, means book 3 page 27 in the series). I obtained copies of originals years ago and the pages might be different from other editions, or pdf versions.

Demonic Dialogue

1. Sin is non-existent and morality is subjective. In his first book, pg. 152, we are treated to this gem: 
There’s nothing "wrong" with anything. "Wrong'" is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call "right." Yet, what is "right"? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are "right" and "wrong" simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?

I'm sure if Mr. Walsch's publisher refused to pay him the royalties on his book, I'm willing to bet he would see something very wrong with that and sue. The danger of this nonsense should be self-evident. We can't be truly objective about murder, lying, stealing, etc being immoral? It gives the green light to sin.

2. God loves you as you are; there is no need to amend your life. 
You must first see your Self as worthy before you can see another as worthy. You must first see your Self as blessed before you can see another as blessed. You must first know your Self to be holy before you can acknowledge holiness in another (1:26)

 Walsch claims "God" taught him Original Sin is a "myth," and we are all holy. Pure heresy.

3. Feelings are superior to the intellect.  
Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it. (1:13)

Notice the phrase "what's true for you"--as if each person can have a "different truth" because there is no objective, unchanging truth. If that's the case, why is Walsch (or "God") asking us to accept what is said in the book as true? Wouldn't that eliminate anything that contradicts it as objectively false? At the beginning of the book we are told by "God" that "Words are really the least effective communicator . . . merely utterances..." If true, why is "God" communicating words to Walsch and why should we believe these "mere utterances"? It's a self-refuting statement.

4. There is no One True Religion. 
No path to God is more direct than any other path. No religion is the "one true religion," no people are "the chosen people," and no prophet is the "greatest prophet." (7:98)

In one sentence, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam are denied. All organized religions are false according to Walsch's "conversations with 'God.'"  Furthermore, there is no Hell, and everyone is assured of eternal happiness. Your happy destiny is unavoidable. You cannot be "saved." There is no hell except not knowing this.-- (1:93).

5. Christ is not God. 
In book 2 of his series, on page 244, we are told The Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus were spacemen. Yes, aliens from another planet! Walsch denigrates Catholicism by claiming "God" said: Wait a minute! This God of yours sent you to Purgatory if you ate meat on Friday? (2:44). In the first book we are told by "God" that drinking is not OK. But Jesus took alcohol! says Walsch. To which "God" replies, So who said Jesus was perfect? (1:192)

6. Promoting Eastern paganism. 
In book 3 of the series, Walsch asks "God" if reincarnation is a false doctrine, "God" replies that it is not. Walsch then asks why some religions do not know the truth about something so basic. In response, "God" says that we must understand that humans have many fear-based religions whose teachings surround the doctrine of a God who is to be worshiped and feared. This teaching means reincarnation is true, and other doctrines are false. Doesn't that contradict what God said earlier about there being only what's true for you? Reincarnation exonerates Hitler of wrongdoing (morality is subjective anyway). From book 2: The mistakes Hitler made did no harm or damage to those whose deaths he caused. Those souls were released from their earthly bondage. (2:42).

In addition to the above, the following are also worthy of mention in these books:
Disturbing features about God. 
"God" is an idiot who doesn't know about religions and needs to be taught by Neal Donald Walsch. "God" rejects Catholicism. Here is a sample of dialogue ("G" is "God" and "W" is Walsch, as supplied by me):

G: What's a "wrong church"?

W: Any church that is not Roman Catholic. You can’t be baptized in the wrong church, you can’t get married in the wrong church— you can’t even attend a wrong church. I know this for a fact because as a young man I wanted to go with my parents to the wedding of a friend—I was actually asked to be in the wedding as an usher—but the nuns told me I should not accept the invitation because it was in the wrong church.

G: Did you obey them?
The nuns? No. I figured God—You—would show up at the other church just as willingly as You showed up at mine, so I went. I stood in the sanctuary in my tuxedo and I felt fine.

G: Good. Well, let’s see now, we have heaven, we have hell, we have purgatory, we have limbo, we have mortal sin, we have venial sin—is there anything else?

Feelings, nothing more than feelings...
From his books:

  • Open your mind, allow your feelings to be expressed, to be pushed out, and your heart will neither break nor burst, but be a free-flowing channel of the life energy in your soul.
  • I do not communicate by words alone. In fact, rarely do I do so. My most common form of communication is through feeling. Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it... Hidden in your deepest feelings is your highest truth.
  • Stop giving your power away and begin to trust that your feelings are in fact expressions of the deepest truths.

Does anyone even know what this gobbledygook means?

Stay away from anything written by Neale Donald Walsch. His conversations are not with God, but demonic forces. What he promotes is New Age pantheism (God and the universe are one) with relativism and an over emphasis on "feelings." This is necessary so the reader won't think critically about how Walsch's god contradicts himself and speaks nonsense. The series reads like a bad episode of the old Kung Fu TV series in the 1970s--unintelligible pagan sentiments that are supposed to be profound. It tells people what they want to hear, and you have Vatican II "lectors" promoting it. Since all Catholic doctrine has been eliminated from their temples, anything except the truth is permitted. I have no problem with men having, and expressing, their feelings. However, to cry at the drop of a hat isn't being "open," but just teaching men to be little more than emasculated dolts placing feelings above reason. Women as well should not think being overly emotional is some kind of "virtue." 

Neale Donald Walsch wants you to believe he's having conversations with God. Anyone who trusts him, has no idea of who he's really talking to, and had better wake up before (God forbid) it's too late.