Monday, January 14, 2019

The Science Of Life

 On January 22, 2019, it will be 46 years since seven members of the United States Supreme Court made murdering unborn babies legal in America with the decision in Roe v. Wade. Here in New York State (America's answer to Sodom and Gomorrah), our apostate, adulterous governor, Andrew Cuomo, has made one of his gubernatorial priorities enshrining abortion as a "right" in the NYS Constitution should Roe be overturned. Moreover, he is seeking to get a law passed in the meantime, the so-called "Reproductive Health Act" which will codify Roe, and make abortion legal by NY law during all nine months of pregnancy.

With the Democrats having taken control of the State Senate last November (and already having control over the State Assembly), it will surely pass.  If you think the Vatican II sect "bishops" have excommunicated Cuomo, or refused him "communion," guess again. Bergoglio has said and done nothing, just like when Ireland was trying to take its Constitutional protection away from the unborn last year. The formerly Catholic country declared war on unborn babies by passing a repeal of the Constitutional protection afforded pre-born children with 67% of the vote.

I have been involved with the pro-life movement since my conversion to Traditionalism in 1981. I know the ins and outs of the issue. All pro-abortionists call themselves "pro-choice" because they don't want to be called "anti-life." Everyone knows it's wrong to take an innocent human life. No sane person would even try to defend the morality of torturing an innocent baby to death. The whole case for abortion collapses if the zygote, embryo, fetus are recognized as the names designating different stages in the development of a human being, just like an infant, teenager, and senior citizen are different names for human development on "the other side of the womb." If the unborn are human beings, abortion is murder--and even the infamous Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe majority opinion, conceded the point. Those who advocate the "right to choose an abortion" must deny the humanity of the subject of their choice, just as the Confederates had to deny the humanity of African-Americans to justify their "right" to "choose owning a slave."

The abortionists began undermining the human status of the unborn by asking a simple question, "When do you think life begins?" It made it seem like the question was a subjective matter of opinion. You would receive numerous responses to that query, such as:

  • Life begins at conception
  • Life begins at viability
  • Life begins at birth
  • Life begins when there is social interaction
  • That is a matter of religious belief, no one knows the exact moment when life begins
All of these answers are wrong. Surprised? Thought the answer was "life begins at conception"? In this post, I will demonstrate that the question asked is ambiguous and improper, and that secular science proves beyond any reasonable doubt the humanity of the unborn. God's design, which can be known through the scientific method to which even atheists subscribe, compels one to acknowledge abortion as the taking of an innocent human life, i.e., murder.

A Trick Question and a Definitive Answer
"When do you think life begins?" is properly rephrased as "In human reproduction there is a point in time when life begins. When do you think that point occurs?" There is a false underlying assumption that no one knows the answer, but we can all agree that a newborn is human, so abortion on demand at any point in pregnancy should be allowed. If anyone believes life to begin at a certain point prior to birth, then that is just a religious belief, and we live in a pluralistic society. You can't impose your religious beliefs on others (thanks to Vatican II and the Masonic "separation of Church and State" God is effectively rendered irrelevant). 

Since Vatican II, and now with the advent of the Internet, we have a rise in ultracrepidarians,i.e.,those who express definitive statements and give opinions on topics clearly outside their scope of expertise. We see this in Traditionalists who think they can read Magisterial documents and fully comprehend them apart from the teaching of the Church's approved theologians. In daily life, we see people attempting to "diagnose themselves" on Web MD, and "give legal advice" based on something they read on a lawyer's website. We shouldn't have lawyers (judges) pontificating on matters of defining human life. The Church has been banned from the public forum in the United States, and virtually all other countries since Vatican II, so an appeal to theologians or Church authority gets you no place fast. 

Given this state of affairs, who is qualified to answer questions about human life? The study of life is known as biology (literally "the study of life"). Biologists are uniquely qualified to answer this question, and their findings are not based on theological teachings.  My sources in biology date from before the time of Roe, to just after, demonstrating that these facts were known back then and before. They are not recent developments in the field.

The answer to "when do you think life begins?" when analysed and properly rephrased as above is simple: In human reproduction, biological life does not begin---it is continuous. There is no period when life stops and then starts up again. Cells can only come from other living cells. If the ovum were not alive and mature, it could not be fertilized. If the sperm were not alive it couldn't reach the ovum, let alone fertilize it. According to biology professor Dr. Garrett Hardin, "But when does life really begin? The true answer is simple: Never. Life ends, often, but it never begins. It is just passed on from one cell to another. All biologists...are in agreement on that answer. (See Psychology Today 8: No. 6, 42, November 1974; Emphasis in original).

There is no point between fertilization to birth where the human offspring is not alive. All biologists accept this fact, and it holds true regardless of religious belief.

Another Trick Question and Another Definitive Answer

 Undaunted, the abortionist will now complain, "That's not what I'm talking about. OK, the cells are living, but when does it become human life?" 

The Answer: Human life, like cellular life, is transmitted. At fertilization, the zygote is a complete (though not completed) human being. It is a unique human organism having 46 human chromosomes with DNA different from every other human, including his/her own mother and father. It has an information content equivalent to 1,000 volumes of a hard copy encyclopedia. All the cells, tissues, and stages that arise from the zygote are human. None of them can ever be characterized as belonging to any other species. According to biologist Dr. Leo Schneider, "You are composed of trillions of cells now, but at one time in your life you were just a single cell." (See You and Your Cells, Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc. [1963], p. 205; Emphasis in original).  Even the notorious baby-killers, Planned Parenthood had this to say in 1963: "An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of the baby after it has begun." (See Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness [pamphlet]).  These facts are not matters of religion, opinion, conjecture, or theory. They are expressions of reality as determined by scientific observation and analysis. A unique human individual is present from fertilization onward.

How do the abortionists respond? The only way they can: it's not enough to be a unique biological individual, you need to be a "person." In other words, they will add additional qualifications to be considered human, besides the biological necessities. You now need to acquire "personhood." There are myriad problems with that as we shall discover.

A Person is Simply a Biological Human

 The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868) says the following:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If the unborn are not "persons" then they can be deprived of life without due process of law. What, precisely, is meant by the term "person"? Under Federal law, corporations are considered "persons" but unborn babies are not! This "person" is a legal fiction, and it simply makes things more nebulous. Questions arise, such as: Do you have rights because you are a person, or are you a person because you are given rights? Is the term "person" one that corresponds with objective reality, or is it a term in search of a subjective definition? 

A "human person" is nothing more than a biological human individual. Does anyone really think (or have any evidence to support) that the Founding Fathers of the 18th century understood a "person" as being anything more? Personhood=Biological identity as a human. Anything else (like a corporation) is a legal fiction. While personhood may indeed have a theological or philosophical definition, the biological definition is the one upon which all must agree, and secures the right to life--even in a pluralistic society. 

Objections Answered
1. Death is the permanent cessation of all vital functions, such as a beating heart, brain waves, respiration, etc. even though cellular life continues. Why should cellular life without these functions be considered life? 
Answer: The absence of these functions at early stages of development is neither permanent, nor irreversible. All the cells are alive and functioning in their own way. The vital functions in the early stages of life are merely different, not absent. The vital functions of the zygote are metabolism and cleavage. You are no more justified in asserting the zygote isn't alive because it doesn't have a beating heart, than in asserting that an infant isn't alive because it can't chew, crawl, reason or procreate.

2. The zygote, embryo, fetus, are all dependent upon the mother for life. It's part of the mother's body to do with as she pleases.
Answer: Wrong. Unlike a tooth or an appendix, the zygote has its own unique DNA code, marking it different from all other humans, including his/her own parents. As far as dependency is concerned, are newborn babies not human because they also depend on the mother for sustenance? Does a man who needs an iron lung to live cease to be human, and now is "part of the machine" because he cannot live independently from it?   If a mother refuses to feed her baby, or the hospital turns off the iron lung, is that not murder? 

3. There is no person until the unborn has a soul. Religions differ on when this occurs. No one knows when life begins.
Answer: As stated before, human life is a continuum. In a pluralistic society, we are using biology, not theology to determine human life, and that can be accepted by all. Even if, ad arguendo, "no one can know" when life begins, this demands the same result as the biological definition. If someone goes hunting and isn't sure if what he sees moving in the bushes is a deer or a human, shouldn't you refrain from shooting because it could be human and you must err on the side of caution? 

As the fight against abortion continues, we must make the case that it is biology, not any other discipline, that compels us to protect the unborn. Biology and true theology are both from God and can't contradict each other. This is a perfect case in point. In the early 1980s there was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that we should all remember and work towards. It perfectly protects all human life from the twin evils of abortion and euthanasia. It stated, "The paramount right to life is vested in each and every human being from the first moment of biological fertilization until a natural death." May God hasten the day this becomes reality for all countries. 

Monday, January 7, 2019

Singing For Satan---Part 18

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.

Hall and Oates
Daryl Hall (b. Daryl Hohl in 1946) and John Oates (b. 1948) were two aspiring musicians who attended Temple University in Philadelphia. In 1967, when Hall was a senior and Oates was a junior, they were in a "battle of the bands" competition. Hall was with a band called The Temptones, and Oates was with a band called The Masters. When a fight broke out among band members, the two of them tried to stop it, only to have the angry participants turn on them both. They ran into a service elevator together and escaped. Exchanging phone numbers, they became friends and roommates, as they enjoyed the same type of music. They decided to form a "pop-rock" duo, and when the building super put a sticker on their mailbox labeled "Hall & Oates," the appellation became their professional moniker.

 The two landed a recording contract with Atlantic Records and released three albums beginning in 1972. They were not very successful. In 1975, the duo was picked up by RCA Records, and they released their fourth album entitled  Daryl Hall and John Oates, which was moderately successful with a ballad called Sara Smile, written by Hall for his then-girlfriend Sara Allen. With their 1976 album Bigger Than Both of Us, Hall & Oates scored their first mega-hit, Rich Girl, which became ubiquitous on radio stations across the United States in 1977.  The song was the first major hit to feature an uncensored vulgarity--b*tch. Their hits continued at a rapid pace, and by the mid-1980s, they were a household name.

Hall and Oates have sold an estimated 40 million records, making them the best selling music duo in history. Billboard magazine named them the most successful duo of the rock era, surpassing Simon & Garfunkel and The Everly Brothers. In 2014, Hall & Oates were inducted into The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. 

Satanic? Are You Joking?
As I've stated before, my research on rock, pop, and rap artists was restricted to those groups and artists generally thought of as being "tame" or "innocuous." It doesn't take much to see that bands like AC/DC and artists like Ozzy Osbourne are overtly Satanic. However, when I call Hall & Oates the most duplicitous group singing for Satan, even some of my friends have raised their eyebrows, and gave me the look that says, "You're pulling my leg, right?" The generally clean-cut image portrayed by the duo, and the sappy love songs they mostly sing, makes it extremely hard to imagine them as "Satanic."

Yet, this is exactly what Satan wants you to believe. We must not judge their music based on their looks or some of the love songs that are unobjectionable. We must judge them based on their lifestyle and lyrics taken as a whole. A small dose of poison in an otherwise good drink can kill you. Remember also, the words of Sacred Scripture, "For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:10-14).

The devil and his demons do their best work when they come in the guise of something good, or at least something considered harmless. I ask you to read the rest of this post with an open mind and then discern for yourself if Daryl Hall and John Oates are benevolent (or harmless) singers, or if there is something deceptive and nefarious going on with them. Obviously, I have come to the conclusion that the manifest weight of the credible evidence shows the latter, and their music should be shunned.

Daryl Hall: Pervert and Occultist
On the cover of their fourth album Daryl Hall and John Oates, the duo look like effeminate drag queens, complete with blush. Many people thought them to be sodomite lovers, despite protests to the contrary from them at the time. Hall once remarked, "I was looking like the girl I always wanted to go out with."
Daryl Hall and John Oates, when dressed properly, were considered handsome men, and many women in their 20s and 30s were smitten by them. In actuality, Hall is bi-sexual, and promiscuous. In Rolling Stone magazine, 4/21/77, pg. 15, Hall said in an interview, "The idea of sex with a man doesn't turn me off...but I don't express it. I satisfied my curiosity about that years ago. I had lots of sex between the ages of three or four and the time I was fourteen or fifteen. Strange experiences with older boys. But men don't particularly turn me on. And, no, John and I have never been lovers. He's not my type. Too short and dark." (Emphasis mine).  John Oates is quoted as saying, "Rock music is 99% sex." Hall chimed in, "I wish you were allowed to use more raw language.You should be able to say 'f**k' in a song without being banned." (Expletive censored by me).

Sex certainly is one of the main subjects of their songs. The hit Maneater is about a prostitute:

She'll only come out at night
The lean and hungry type
Nothing is new, I've seen her here before
Watching and waiting
Ooh, she's sitting with you but her eyes are on the door
So many have paid to see
What you think you're getting for free
The woman is wild, a she-cat tamed by the purr of a Jaguar
Money's the matter
If you're in it for love
You ain't gonna get too far
Watch out boy she'll chew you up
(Oh here she comes)
She's a maneater
(Oh here she comes)
Watch out boy she'll chew you up
(Oh here she comes)
She's a maneater
I wouldn't if I were you
I know what she can do
She's deadly man, she could really rip your world apart
Mind over matter
Ooh, the beauty is there but a beast is in the heart  (Emphasis mine)

Their song Family Man is also about a prostitute. She wants a married man to be with her so she lowers her price for sex. Defenders of Hall & Oates will say that the song is good because the married man says no to her. The last line of the song actually tells a different tale:

She had sulky smile
She took her standard pose as she presented herself
She had sultry eyes
She made it perfectly plain that she was his for a price

But he said, leave me alone, I'm a family man
And my bark is much worse than my bite
He said, leave me alone, I'm a family man
If you push me too far I just might

She wore hurt surprise
As she rechecked her make up to protect herself
Dropped her price and pride
She made it totally clear that she was his for a night

But he said, leave me alone, I'm a family man
And my bark is much worse than my bite
He said, leave me alone, I'm a family man
If you push me too far I just might

She gave him her look
It would have worked on any other man around
He looked her up and down
She knew he couldn't decide if he should hold his ground

But he said, leave me alone, I'm a family man
And my bark is much worse than my bite
He said, leave me alone, I'm a family man
If you push me too far I just might

She turned, tossed her head
Unlike her opening move, her final exit line
He waited much too long
But by the time he got his courage up she was gone

And he screamed, leave me alone, I'm a family man
And my bark is much worse than my bite
He said, leave me alone, I'm a family man
If you push me too far I just might...
He said, leave me alone, I'm a family man
Don't leave me alone 'cause I got to go hungry (Emphasis mine)

The "family man" got his "courage" up to pay her for sex, but she had already left. The last line tells us he does not want to be left alone because he's "got to go hungry" (slang for "not having sex"--ostensibly with his wife--so he wants the prostitute).

Hall was raised Methodist. He converted to Judaism for his first wife. He speaks about it in an interview and admits there are spiritual themes/messages in his songs.

[Interviewer] I never spotted religious themes in your lyrics before.

[Hall] Well, religion has always been a part of my life, and yeah, there are inadvertent references to religion. I grew up singing in the church, but when I moved to Philadelphia, I got heavily involved in West Philadelphia. I married a Jewish girl and converted to Judaism in 1969, or 1970. Something like that. But now I’m not a member of any organized religion.

[Interviewer] So you converted for a girl? No way.

[Hall] Yeah, that's the power of the West Philadelphia Jewish community. I spent almost a year under its tutelage. It became a part of my life. I wasn't married to her very long, but Judaism still gives me an understanding of life. I do feel more akin to Judaism than Methodism, that’s for sure. And not to be stereotypical, being Jewish gave me more of an insight into the music business.
(See; Emphasis mine).

Hall, ever interested in the occult, is rumored to have been into the Kabbalah. The word "Kabbalah" means "to receive," and refers to "divine revelation" allegedly given to the Jews and passed on to succeeding generations through oral tradition. At first it was used by the mainstream of Judaism, but eventually it became identified with those who believed that the Kabbalah was an esoteric, occultic tradition that explained the true meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was kept hidden from the masses and only made known to those who were spiritually ready to receive it--it's the Jewish counterpart of Gnosticism, if you will. Kabbalah is extremely evil, blasphemous, and anti-Christian.

Hall admits to being a student of Aleister Crowley (1875-1947), the English Satanist, who was dubbed, "The Wickedest Man in the World" by the press. Interestingly, Hall & Oates didn't become popular until 1977. In 1974, Hall became involved with both Satanism and the occultist George Gurdjieff (a Russian Occultist, d.1949) and then his career took off.  Hall had this to say:

[Interviewer] You also at the time were interested in mysticism, and reading up on things like Aleister Crowley--

[Hall]: ...A lot of people go through that kind of thing. And I went through it, and I retained a lot of it, and I discarded a lot of it. My life was unbalanced at the time, when I was doing that.

Despite Hall's claims that he "discarded" a lot of the occult, he claims to be a witch (practitioner of Wicca), in a long line of witches. In that same interview, he said:

[Interviewer] There's a quote I found from '84 that really interested me. You said, "In my uncle's time, you were a minister. Two generations before that you were a warlock. Now you're me." Is that how you sum up being the frontman, the singer?

[Hall]: [laughs] Yeah. I always look at it as being a continuum. That's true, by the way-- I come from a family of ministers. And my great-grandfather was what they used to call in Pennsylvania a "pow-wow man," which is basically a male witch. It goes back to the old Germanic and English things-- it's like the evil eye, keeping the crops from getting the blight, and the cows from getting sick, and all that stuff. It's just old, old folky things. He was a healer, he used to heal people's warts and give them all kinds of potions and all that kind of stuff. He also had an evil side. And I heard some stories about him. [laughs] I never knew him, but I heard lots of stories about him.

That's how that filtered into that statement. But I see what musicians do, especially singers, as a primal thing. It comes from howling around the campfire. Everybody was sitting around whatever, in the earliest of early times-- pre-literate times, how's that? Pre-conscious times. And pre-sentient times. And somebody would be the guy that would start the howling. And that's what I do. 
(See; Emphasis mine).

The song Adult Education is about a high school girl who wants an "adult education" in sex because the boys are not as experienced as they pretend to be. The video to this song is full of occult imagery and has nothing to do with the perverted lyrics. In the video, while the duo sing, they are in what appears to be a pagan temple. There's a man with a baseball cap on, giving "blessings" with idols. It ends with what appears to be the ritual human sacrifice of a young man and young woman. Yet, the video ends with the boy standing behind the idols' altar and the girl sitting on the stone slab in front of it, as Hall & Oates and their band continue to sing, dance and play instruments in the background. The final shots of the video are of hieroglyphs and ceremonial items scattered around the structure. The video can be seen here:

Music to Kill For?

Hall's 1980 solo album, Sacred Songs, explores his view of the supernatural and his interest in supernatural topics. For example, the lyrics discuss occult "magick" and hint at Hall’s personal philosophy. Notably, the song, Without Tears alludes to Aleister Crowley’s book Magick without Tears. Crowley taught, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." That would include murder.

The hit song Rich Girl, which catapulted Hall & Oates to fame and fortune, came out after Hall's deep involvement in Satanism and the occult. I was 12 years old when the tune went to the top of the music charts in 1977. From 1976 to August 10, 1977, New York City was terrorized by serial killer David Berkowitz (b. Richard David Falco in 1953). He was also known as "The Son of Sam" because his neighbor's dog, "Sam" had "told him" to start killing people. He was also known to the police as "The .44 Caliber Killer" due to the weapon he used. Berkowitz claimed, after he was imprisoned, that he was part of a Satanic coven. Personally, I believe he did not act alone and did indeed have help. At one point, Berkowitz asked the controversial Jesuit and author, Malachi Martin, to help him write a book. Martin declined, and Berkowitz then converted to "born-again" Protestantism.

Berkowitz once claimed that he would "pump himself up" for murder by listening to Rich Girl. (See, e.g., Hall wrote the song Diddy Doo Wop (I Hear the Voices) in response. The pertinent part of the lyrics are as follows:

Diddy doo wop, oh oh oh oh oh
Diddy doo wop, oh oh oh
Well, it's the voice that I hear at the subway stop
Keep singing, diddy doo wop

Diddy doo wop, oh oh oh oh oh
Diddy doo wop, oh oh oh
Well, it starts in my head and it ends when I stop
Keep singing, diddy doo wop

Charlie liked the Beatles (ahh)
Sam, he liked Rich Girl (b*tch girl)
But I'm still hung up on the Duke of Earl (duke, duke, duke of earl, duke, duke, duke of earl)
Reaching for the handle
I'm slicing through the air "swish, swish"
Oh, the doo wop voices everywhere
And oh, the Duke is singing (Emphasis and censorship of vulgarity mine)

"Charlie" is a reference to Charles Manson and The Beatles, "Sam" is a reference to Berkowitz and the Hall & Oates song. Someone claims your song helped motivate them to murder and you put that claim in another song? A lighthearted satire in response to something so serious, is in my opinion, seriously wrong! If the song was written by Hall when under demonic inspiration, could the song somehow entice other demonically influenced people to do even more evil acts? I think it's entirely possible. I don't know if it's backward masked messages, or something else, but it seems plausible, especially given the surrounding circumstances.

Daryl Hall and John Oates appear to be harmless singers who perform innocent love songs. A closer examination of the facts proves otherwise. I'm reminded of Our Lord's condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees who liked to appear holy: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness." (St. Matthew 23: 25-28).

A note to my readers: I'm interested in whether or not you find this series of posts on music worthwhile. If you find it beneficial and would like it to continue, could you please comment and let me know why? If not, and you think it should end, please comment and let me know that too. It's a lot of work to pull up my old notes and update/publish it. Yet, I will gladly continue if people find the series to be useful. Many thanks to those who will let me know!---Introibo

Monday, December 31, 2018

Going To Pot

 Governor Andrew Cuomo (b.1957) of New York State, is a pro-baby killing, pro-sodomite, adulterous apostate. Those are his good qualities.The egotistical bully is the son of notorious former NY Governor Mario Cuomo (1983-1995), infamous for his insistence that as a "Catholic" he was "personally opposed" to abortion, but he "wouldn't impose his views on others." He was also against the death penalty for reasons of conscience. When a reporter brought this internal inconsistency to his attention he responded that "capital punishment is taking a life, but abortion is giving you a choice."

The fact that pseudo-educated dolts like the Cuomo family can hold high positions in the government makes me fear for our future. Mario Cuomo was actually considered for an appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton, and Andrew's name has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 2020. Let it be known that the Vatican II sect, allowed both father and son to receive "communion." Andrew doesn't even pretend to have an "annulment" from his wife (he never even applied for one), yet he and his concubine are both given the Novus Bogus "mass" cracker.

Now, Mr. Cuomo has made one of his priorities the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in New York. As of this writing, ten states have legalized the use of so-called "recreational pot." The first states to do so were Colorado and Washington in 2012. They were followed by Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia ("Washington DC"). We are told by advocates of legalized marijuana that it is no different from drinking alcohol, it's hard to enforce laws against pot, and legal marijuana will bring economic benefits. The purpose of this post is to give the Church's teaching on the use of so-called recreational drugs, and to demonstrate why the legalization of marijuana is so insidious; what the powers-that-be don't want you to know and why. This issue has serious theological implications which will be discussed below.

The Teaching of the Church

 According to theologian Jone, "Since morphine, opium, chloroform and similar drugs can also deprive one of the use of his reason temporarily, that which was said of intoxicating drinks holds also for narcotics. To use narcotics in small quantities and only occasionally, is a venial sin if done without a sufficient reason. Any proportionately good reason justifies their use, e.g., to calm the nerves, dispel insomnia, etc. Such use becomes gravely sinful if it creates an habitual craving for 'dope' which is more difficult to overcome than dipsomania and more injurious to health. To use drugs in greater quantities so as to lose the use of one's reason is itself a mortal sin; but for a good reason it is permissible. Such a good reason is had in case of an operation, i.e., that the patient be rendered insensible to intense pain, or that one might remain calm under the knife. In like manner one may administer opiates to one who is suffering greatly in order to alleviate his pain." (See Moral Theology, Newman Press, [1961], pgs. 57-58; Emphasis mine). 

Since narcotics are under the same general rule as alcohol, here's what moral theologian O'Connell has to say about the loss of reason: "It is not requisite...[to] be rendered utterly stupid and helpless...[rather] that one would do things inordinate which otherwise he would not do...The malice of drunkenness consists in the fact that, without a sufficient reason, a person in a violent way deprives himself of the use of the noblest of his faculties." (See Outlines of Moral Theology, CUA [1958], pg. 168; Emphasis mine).

As you keep in mind these principles of Church teaching, also consider that we know so much more about the effects of drugs today than when theologians O'Connell and Jone were writing in the late 1950s-early 1960s. Then came the Great Apostasy and the drug culture of the late 1960s. I can only imagine how Church teaching would have further developed on this issue in light of all we now understand. Marijuana, or cannabis, will have enormously deleterious effects upon the human brain, the family and society.

Cannabis and the Family
We now know that the legalization of recreational marijuana promotes the drug’s usage among the very young, where it causes the greatest harm. After recreational cannabis was legalized in Colorado, their youth’s past-month cannabis usage 2013-2014 "was 74 percent higher than the national average." According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

"Coloradoans of all age groups (12-17, 18-25, 26 and older) rank first in the nation for past-month marijuana use. Before legalization they ranked fourth, third and seventh, respectively."(See

Think about that for a moment. Twelve year olds will have ready access to legalized cannabis. Since 2016, a mere four years after Colorado legalized it, cannabis became easy to obtain. With sophisticated ways to take it such as vaping, it makes it harder to detect. Vaping refers to the inhalation of an aerosol produced by heating a liquid/oil or substance in a compact electronic portable vaporizer. Youth can vaporize marijuana – either the ground plant itself, waxes often referred to as dabs, or THC and CBD oils. (THC is the drug in cannabis that produces the effect of getting high).

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), cannabis use may have long-lasting or permanent effects on the developing adolescent brain. Negative effects include:

  • Difficulty with critical thinking skills like attention, problem solving and memory
  • Impaired reaction time and coordination, especially as it relates to driving
  • Decline in school performance
  • Increased risk of mental health issues including depression or anxiety and in some cases, psychosis where there is a family history of it
  • Research also shows that about one in six teens who repeatedly use marijuana can become addicted, as compared to one in nine adults
How easy would it be for 18 year olds to supply young kids with cannabis and vaping paraphernalia? One out of every three Denver high school juniors and seniors surveyed identified as cannabis users; demonstrating a sharp increase of 20 percent from 2013 to 2015. (See According to former "Drug Czar" William J. Bennett, "We know we have a problem, and we have not managed to keep those things from kids. Colorado was supposed to eliminate the marijuana black market, but it did not." (See 

Candi CdeBaca, an education and community activist who lives next to a commercial marijuana growing operation in Elyria-Swansea, CO., told Politico Magazine:

"One of the things that we thought was going to happen when [recreational] marijuana was legalized was that drugs would be taken out of our community. What happened was that the drugs stayed—and the drug dealers changed." (See 

What we see here is the spirit of rebellion against authority. It's hard enough to raise kids in these perilous times without pressure (and the ability) to use a substance that will make them do poorly in school, open the doorway to other drugs, make them sin against God, and less likely to understand right from wrong (or the precepts of the Church) with the acquired impaired critical thinking skills.

Cannabis and Society

 Several studies have also concluded that driving while intoxicated with both pot and alcohol is far worse than driving drunk. Since millions of people get high with both alcohol and marijuana, the synergistic effect of these two drugs will prove to be a dangerous devil’s brew for drivers. The Democratic governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, said that legalizing marijuana in Colorado was "reckless." In 2014, the left-wing rag, the Washington Post published an op-ed by pro-marijuana author Radley Balko headlined, "Since Marijuana Legalization, Highway Fatalities in Colorado Are at Near-Historic Lows."

In typical Communist propaganda style, the article leaves the reader with the impression that legalizing marijuana might have something to do with less traffic fatalities in Colorado. Balko admits that the fatality figures "don’t suggest that pot had anything to do with" the lower numbers, but then says that if fatalities were going up, "supporters [of making pot illegal again] would be blaming it on legal marijuana." According to one author, "Colorado traffic fatalities have gone down since 2007, but they went up in 2012. More to the point, Colorado traffic fatalities between 2007 and 2012 involving operators testing positive for marijuana use increased 100 percent over that period—from 39 in 2007 up to 78 in 2012." (See 

According to The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 2006-2013; CDOT, 2014, cannabis-related emergency room visits increased from 8,197 in 2011 to 18,255 in 2014 and the percentage of Colorado vehicle operators who were found positive for marijuana increased from 7.88 percent in 2006 to 24.03 percent in 2014. Furthermore, we are promoting other drug usage, as cannabis is a "gateway drug."

According to a peer-reviewed study: "Exposing adolescent rats to THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) can lead to molecular and behavioral alterations in the next generation of offspring, even though progeny were not directly exposed to the drug. Male offspring showed stronger motivation to self-administer heroin during their adulthood. Damage in the glutamate pathway, which regulates synaptic plasticity, has been linked to disturbances in goal-directed behavior and habit formation." (See Henrietta Szutorisz, PhD, et al., Neurophychopharmacology, January 2014--- 

Society will become more drugged-out, leading to fatalities, and fostering addicts to stronger drugs, thereby driving up the crime rate.

Cannabis and the Human Brain
 Drug expert Dr. CC. Nuckols stated, "The marijuana we have today is so much more potent, we’re seeing a new range of psychiatric problems and psychotic episodes. It’s really a new game." (See The Oxford Treatment Center goes on to state, "At double-digit percentages, the standard THC content in marijuana today many times what it was in the 1960s." This results in lower IQs and an inability to function in society.

According to Drs. Ruby Grewal and Tony P. George, "Reports have shown a staggering increase in cannabis-related emergency department (ED) visits in recent years. In 2011, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) estimated a total of 1.25 million illicit-drug–related ED visits across the US, of which 455,668 were marijuana related. A similar report published in 2015 by the Washington Poison Center Toxic Trends Report showed a dramatic increase in cannabis-related ED visits. In states with recent legalization of recreational cannabis, similar trends were seen.

States with medicinal marijuana have also shown a dramatic rise in cannabis-related ED visits. Moreover, states where marijuana is still illegal also showed increases. This widespread increase is postulated to be in part due to the easy accessibility of the drug, which contributes to over-intoxication and subsequent symptoms. Overall, from 2005 to 2011, there has been a dramatic rise in cannabis-related ED visits among all age groups and genders." (Emphasis mine). 

Cannabis and the End Times?
Drugs, cannabis being no exception, put people into an altered state of consciousness. Those of you who read my ongoing series of posts called "Singing For Satan," (based on my research on rock, pop, and rap music) know that almost all of the musicians were drug users, and most claimed contact/inspiration from "spirits"--Eminem, The Eagles, etc. They used drugs and entered into an altered state of consciousness which makes one susceptible (like hypnosis) to demonic forces. So-called "shamans" (pagan "witch-doctors") take drugs for this very reason; it enables them to make "contact with the spirits."

In the Apocalypse 22:15, we read, "Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying." According to theologian Haydock, "the dogs" refer to unbelievers (See The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, reprint from 1859, pg. 1656), and "sorcerers" comes from the Greek word pharmakeia from which we get the word "pharmacy." The word does not only mean the sorcery that comes from idolatry, but can also refer to the use or administration of drugs. We see that pagans often used drugs to call on their "gods" (demons), so it's not surprising that Holy Scripture seems to link the two.

Aldous Huxley (d. 1963), the famous author of Brave New World, and philosopher, was known to experiment with LSD and mescaline. He was deeply involved in the occult. On his deathbed, he asked his wife to shoot him up with LSD so he could "trip" into the afterlife. She complied, and I cannot imagine what horrors he found that never end, unless he somehow repented by a miracle of grace. In a speech he delivered to a California medical school, two years before his death, he made the following chilling prediction:

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." (Emphasis mine).

Recreational marijuana, or cannabis, is yet another step towards the final breakdown of Christian civilization as it once was on Earth. The forces of evil are peddling it, and people are going for it. According to The Pew Research Center, as of October 2018, 62% of Americans support legalized cannabis. (See

The facts show that it will damage families, and the upbringing of children. It will have harmful effects upon society, with more deaths from auto accidents and people having psychotic episodes--even as it induces people to take more dangerous drugs. It causes such psychotic episodes even in adults and lowers IQs, making one more gullible (and therefore more dependent upon) the government. Finally, it opens users up to demonic influences. A One World Church and a One World Government. Could legalized cannabis be taking us there faster? It seems so. Time will tell. 

Monday, December 24, 2018

Speaking With Forked Tongues

 On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception 2018, false pope Jorge Bergoglio announced the formation of "CHARIS," or "Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service." This new body within the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life will replace the two existing services known as the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Service and the Catholic Fraternity. (See The so-called "Charismatic Movement" celebrated fifty years of its existence in 2017. The movement is heretical to the core, and has its origin in the Pentecostal Protestant sect of the 19th century. The Pentecostal sect revived what they believed to be glossolaly or "speaking in tongues." Such gifts, with rare exceptions, ended in early Apostolic times, as the True Church no longer needed them to show Her Divine origin.

The charismata or "special gifts" of the Holy Ghost such as prophecies, healings, miracles, etc., were given to prove the claims of the Church and to foster conversions. With the achievement of the Church’s moral universality, the need for such phenomena ceased because of the presence in the Church of people of every nationality and because of the Church’s proven record as the One True Religion. Likewise, speaking in tongues was given so that all could hear and understand the preaching of the Gospel. None of these gifts were given for the personal sanctification of the individuals who received them. St. Augustine, Tract. xxxii, states, "Whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks in the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost."

In 1967, during the nascent Vatican II sect turmoil of ecumenical frenzy and near universal apostasy, students at Pittsburgh’s Duquesne University began exposing themselves to Pentecostal influences because of "spiritual aridity." They were envious of the "changed lives" among many Protestant friends and decided to pray for similar "graces." A weekend "retreat"gave them what they wanted. Various people approached Protestant ministers, laity, and prayer groups. All received "Baptism in the Spirit" after having heretical hands laid on them in prayer. The movement began to grow in leaps and bounds. Today, they even call themselves "Charismatics" instead of Catholics, showing their disdain for even the name of the sect posing as the True Church. They despise anything associated--even remotely--with the beliefs and practices of authentic Catholicism.

For the 50th anniversary of the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement in June 2017, Francis asked the Charismatics to organize the celebration at the Circus Maximus in Rome. On this occasion, Bergoglio quoted the late Belgian "Cardinal" Leo Suenens, the strongest episcopal promoter of the movement in its early days, who called it "a current of grace, a renewing breath of the Spirit for all the members of the Church." (Ibid)  This post will focus on one of the Church's greatest enemies, the infamous Leo "Cardinal" Suenens, and the evil he unleashed in the world.

The Charismatic Cardinal
  Leo Suenens was born in 1904 of a pious Belgian family. Belgium was one of the most Catholic countries in the world, with numerous vocations and large families. Suenens' family wanted him to go into economics and manage their large fortune, but he decided to become a priest. Ordained at age 23 in 1927, Suenens would obtain a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, and was consecrated auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Mechelen in 1945 by order of Pope Pius XII. He became the new Archbishop in 1961 under Roncalli, and the archdiocese was renamed Mechelen-Brussels. Suenens received the "cardinal's hat" from false pope John XXIII in 1962. 

At Vatican II, he would reveal himself to be one of the most influential Modernists, hell-bent on destroying the One True Church. Suenens was a close friend of Masonic pervert Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI), and was one of the leaders of the Modernists with Cardinals Alfrink and Frings. It was Suenens who named the first heretical document of Vatican II Lumen Gentium, as he had crafted much of the language in the opening paragraphs, which contained the false ecclesiology of the newly spawned Vatican II sect he helped to create. Here is a very unflattering picture painted of Suenens from his autobiography Memories and Hopes, his work on collegiality Co-Responsibility in the Church, Vatican II Revisited--Reflections by One Who was There, by Bp. Aloysius Wycislo, and Twelve Council Fathers, by W. Abbot.


  • Was inspired by Modernist theologian Edward Schillebeecxk, a Dominican priest who was suspect of Modernism prior to Vatican II. After the Council, Schillebeecxk denied Transubstantiation, and derided the bodily Resurrection of Our Lord as a "crude and naive realism" that has "nothing to do with a corpse."
  • Was motivated by ecumenism in everything he did. He rejected the idea there was only One True Church of Jesus Christ
  • Supported the heretical idea of a "democratic" collegial Church, which destroys both the hierarchical structure of the Church instituted by Christ, and denigrates the pope to an Eastern Schismatic status as "first among equals" 
  • Worked most closely at the Council with periti (theological experts) Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the future "Pope" Benedict XVI--both arch-heretics
  • Had a meeting with four Anglican "bishops." He knelt before them and asked for their "blessing"
  • Gave the opening address at the second session of Vatican II, blasphemously comparing Roncalli to St. John the Baptist, with the speech entitled There Was a Man Sent by God Named John
  • Asked Montini (Paul VI) to reject the traditional teaching condemning artificial contraception and was furious when his former friend didn't. Montini was told by Cardinal Ottaviani that he would lose all credibility if he did so, and he listened to him instead, issuing Humanae Vitae. Too bad Cardinal Ottaviani did not reject Montini's false "papacy"
  •   Did all he could to undermine Church teaching on contraception which earned him praise from Planned Parenthood
  • Spoke in favor of a "new understanding of marriage" at Vatican II whereby the sexual union of the spouses could be considered legitimate without any reference to procreation
  • Rejected unchanging Catholic moral standards when he said, "Morality is first and foremost alive, a dynamism of life, and therefore subject to interior growth that rejects any kind of fixity." (Emphasis mine)
  • Trimuphantly proclaimed, "Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church..."
We see a despicable Judas, but why was he so intent on promoting the "Catholic" Charismatic Movement at every opportunity? In a word: ecumenism. 

Leading the People into a One World Religion

There are four major problems with the Charismatic Movement:

1. It implicitly denies there is only One True Church. 
If these "gifts" of the Holy Ghost (allegedly speaking in tongues, "healings," etc.) are true in the "Catholic" Church and they also happen in various Protestant denominations, then it stands to reason that there are "elements of truth and sanctification" outside the True Church by which people can achieve holiness and salvation. (Sound familiar?).

2. It replaces the hierarchy with an alleged direct contact with God, and denies the Indefectibility of the Church.
Priests are seen as "one of the guys." Being able to roll on the ground "speaking in tongues" is more important than the ability to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Charismatics will also say things like, "God has put it on my heart that I should..." Or, "God told me..." If you have direct contact with God, why do we need the Church and Her hierarchy as intermediaries between God and people? If the Church teaches one thing, but God has supposedly told you something different, guess which one will be obeyed. The charismatics also deny Indefectibility by claiming that an integral part of the Church (charismata) was absent for centuries, so the Church was somehow deficient. This is impossible if the Church is Indefectible.

3. It denies traditional Catholic spirituality and leads to deception (and even possession) by evil spirits.
Say goodbye to the Rosary, novenas, and The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. St. John of the Cross, one of the greatest masters of the spiritual life had this to say:
  • "And I greatly fear what is happening in these times of ours: If any soul whatever after a bit of meditation has in its recollection one of these locutions, it will immediately baptize all as coming from God and with such a supposition say, 'God told me,' 'God answered me.'  Yet this is not so, but, as we pointed out, these persons themselves are more often the origin of their locution."  (See St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 29) 
  • "Through the desire of accepting them one opens the door to the devil.  The devil can then deceive one by other communications expertly feigned and disguised as genuine.  In the words of the Apostle, he can transform himself into an 'angel of light' (II Cor. XI:14). (...)  Regardless of the cause of these apprehensions, it is always good for a man to reject them with closed eyes.  If he fails to do so, he will make room for those having a diabolical origin and empower the devil to impose his communications.  Not only this, but the diabolical representations will multiply while those from God will gradually cease, so that eventually all will come from the devil and none at all from God.  This has occurred with many incautious and uninstructed people."  (See St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 11)
4. It has the same goal as Modernism and Masonry: A One World Church Without Catholicism
Charismaticism is pan-denominational, with an alien and non-Catholic theological idea of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" as if you come into direct contact with God. It vitiates the need for the Mass and Sacraments. It is also rooted in the Modernist ideal of experience over reason. Charismatics cannot give a reasoned theological explanation of how jumping, dancing, rolling on the floor, laughing uncontrollably, and (allegedly) speaking in tongues brings one closer to God or even why God would manifest Himself in behaviors usually associated with mental patients. Finally, your beliefs don't matter. As long as you profess belief in some vague form of "Christianity" (The Great Architect of the Universe, perhaps), you are all part of "the Church" and can have an "experience of God." 

My spiritual father, the late, great canonist Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, showed me a picture taken at Vatican II with himself standing between Bishop Blaise Kurz and "Cardinal" Suenens. Father was one of the theological experts (a peritus) at Vatican II who helped Bp. Kurz and the other traditional prelates who fought the Modernists. Fr. DePauw was heartbroken that a fellow Belgian would work to destroy the very Church he loved so much and served so well. He and Bp. Kurz spoke in private with Cardinal Suenens in a long meeting during which they implored him to repent of his Modernism and return to the Catholic Faith. Suenens turned a deaf ear and showed them the door, asking that they never come back to talk to him. 

Today, as a result of Vatican II and the Charismatic movement, the percentage of Belgians who claim to be Catholic (V2 sect) is less than 60%. Only 5% attend the Novus Bogus "mass" on Sundays, and nearly one-third of Belgians declare themselves atheists or agnostics. The ravages of the Charismatic movement are not limited to Belgium. What Suenens started and Bergoglio is promoting enthusiastically, is nothing less than the rejection of anything even remotely Catholic, and to be replaced by a One World Church of "direct experiences of God." They may profess Christianity, but they will be told by Our Lord:

 "Not everyone that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the Will of My Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in Thy Name, and cast out devils in Thy Name, and done many miracles in Thy Name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity." (St. Matthew 7:21-23). 

Unless they repent and find the True Church, they will find out too late that they were deceived by the disciples of Suenens, who--like the serpent in the Garden of Eden--spoke with a forked tongue. 

Monday, December 17, 2018

When Harry Became Sally

 I once worked with a woman who was a recovering anorexic. She was 5'3" tall and weighed 92 lbs. She could not look at herself in the mirror. Her sister had to pick out her clothes, brush her hair and teeth, and tell her that she looked fine. If this lady looked at herself in the mirror, she perceived her body as being morbidly obese. She had starved herself to the point of having heart problems, yet still thought she was vastly overweight. Thankfully, with years of therapy, she could maintain a weight that wouldn't put her in the hospital, and she could work as a paralegal. 

Getting professional help was the right thing for her to do. Notice what did not happen; she was not told that if she "identified as being morbidly obese" that's fine, and everyone must consider her as such. If you don't recognize her as morbidly obese, there is something wrong with you. You have a mental disorder---an "anorexicphobe" --who is afraid of (and discriminates against) people who identify as a different weight class. You should attend sensitivity training and march in the "Transweight Rights Parade." The scenario seems ludicrous, but it's really analogous to the insanity taking place today with the "Transgender Rights" movement. Traditionally, if someone had a baby, you would ask, "Is it a boy or a girl?" The answer you might get in 2018 to that question is "maybe." Orwell's 1984 has arrived 34 years later.

Gender dysphoria is defined as the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex. It is a mental disorder which we are being asked to accept as normal, while those who oppose it are to be considered bigoted (at best) or having a neurosis or "phobia" (at worst).  I rarely recommend books in my posts, but I highly recommend the erudite book When Harry Became Sally published earlier this year, and authored by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D. Some of the material in the rest of this post is culled from his excellent work, and I give him full credit for his incisive analysis of this latest threat entering our Sodom and Gomorrah society. Dr. Anderson's book title is a humorous spin on the hit 1989 comedy movie When Harry Met Sally starring Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan. The reason for the title lies in the fact that the movie attempted to answer the question, "Is it possible for a man and woman to really be 'just friends'?" Now, we are being asked to consider if it's possible for a woman to be a man and vice-versa. 

Transgenderism is Based on the Heresy of Gnosticism
Gnosticism flourished during the second century and taught that the material world is bad and dominated by evil and ignorance, but the spirit world is good. Since a good God could not have created an evil world, Gnostics taught that the world must have been created by a flawed "God." Yet within this corrupt world remains a spiritual component, fragments of the true and good God.

In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word "create" is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) "emanated" or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshiping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence. (See 

This distorted worldview had a profound impact on how Gnostics perceived the human person. They believed most people possess a "divine spark," a piece of the true God, within them. However, this spark is trapped within a corrupt body, which few people recognize, and as a result, live in ignorance and attachment to the material world. A person can achieve salvation, however, by attaining secret knowledge of his or her true self and eventually leaving the prison of the body at death (If a person fails to become sufficiently enlightened, this spark again becomes imprisoned in another body.)

Some Gnostics were pagan, but many others combined it with Christianity and considered themselves to be higher and more enlightened Catholics. These "Gnostic Catholics" denied the Incarnation of Christ. After all, how could a good God possess an evil body? Instead of salvation coming through Christ's death on the cross, they taught it came through attaining secret spiritual knowledge, or "gnosis." Gnostics, therefore, would agree that what you think and feel is more real and important than your material body, and determines what's "real."

Dr. Deanna Adkins, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015), has stated, "From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity." Does this rule apply to all mammalian species? Why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? If medical science holds that gender identity determines sex in humans, what does this mean for the use of medicinal agents that have different effects on males and females? Does the proper dosage of medicine depend on the patient’s sex or gender identity?

The American Psychological Association (APA) defines "gender identity" as “a person's internal sense of being male, female, or something else." This clearly indicates there is more than just "male and female." There are (literally) bathroom signs which read "Whichever" and show a half-male, half-female body as shown at the top of this post. The APA still classifies Gender Dysphoria (or "GD")---formerly Gender Identity Disorder (or "GID")--- as a mental disorder. Yet they tow the line of the "LGBT" activists and promote it. These LGBT perverts used massive PR and political pressure to have the APA remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. Can the removal of GID/GD as disorders be far behind? We've come a long way---away from sanity, morality, and the One True Faith. 

Transgenderism is Child Abuse

 The American College of Pediatricians issued an incredibly brave statement in 2017. Daring to oppose the new pagans and the PC crowd, they stated the following salient points:

  • The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

  • Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder.

  • No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

  • A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. Gender Dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5). The psycho-dynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.

  •  Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.

  •  According to the DSM-5, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

  • Rates of suicide are nearly twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries.

  • Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

(signed) Dr. Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Transgenderism: Against God and Nature

 As theologian Ott teaches, "The primary purpose of Marriage is the generation and bringing up of offspring." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 462). This Catholic doctrine is also enshrined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1013, section 1. People who are mentally ill and are transgender, see their gender as a "feeling" that is "fluid."  Therefore, the differences between male and female, much like the clothing we wear, are separate from our identity and are constantly in flux. Manhood and womanhood are mere societal constructs used to describe what we see but lack any substantial basis in reality. Transgenderism seeks the destruction of marriage and the proper raising of children, as well as the reality of manhood and womanhood necessary to both.

Don't be surprised to see "Trans-Species" people as the next "victim" group seeking "rights." People with Species Identity Disorder ("SID") consider themselves non-human and are featured at sodomite parades.  The arguments used by the trans-species movement to question their human status are essentially the same as those of the transgender movement. We see the unholy alliance of homosexuality and transgenderism leading us away from God and reason. They seek to eliminate the human race as God created it. 

Bergoglio: Promoting Evil

 Bergoglio knows that he must throw an occasional bone to the "conservative wing" of his sect. However, God's Moral Law and the dogmas of His One True Church never change and must be vigilantly upheld and affirmed. Someone who, for example, states his belief in the Divinity of Christ at one time, and denies it at another time, is no Catholic. The denial of a truth need not be specific and in words. As theologian Merkelbach teaches, heresy consists of dictis vel factis  or more precisely in "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

Here's just some of Bergoglio's promotion of the Gnostic, child abusing, family and humanity destroying transgenderism and "LGBT issues"

  • December 2013: Francis is named "Person of the Year" by both Time and the sodomite rag The Advocate, in large part because of his welcoming tone on so-called LGBT issues
  • January 2015: Francis met at the Vatican with a transgender man from Spain who had been rejected by his local parish after undergoing sex change surgery. Diego Neria Lejarraga reported about his/her/its meeting with the "pope," saying Francis called Lejarraga in response to a letter that had been written, and Francis invited Diego and his "partner" to the Vatican
  • November 28, 2015: While on an apostolic visit to Uganda, a country with strong anti-sodomy laws, Francis called on Christians: "to build a more just society which promotes human dignity, without excluding anyone, defends God’s gift of life, and protects the wonders of nature, his creation, and our common home." Afterwards, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said that the line "without excluding anyone"---"would also include people with homosexual tendencies."
  • October 2, 2016: Referring to a transgender man with whom he met at the Vatican, Francis said, "He that was her but is he." He also suggested church ministers to accompany LGBT people, saying this is "what Jesus would do today."
  • July 10, 2017: Through a letter from a papal aide, Francis sends a congratulatory blessing letter to a Brazilian sodomite couple on the occasion of the baptism of their three adopted children.
  • July 2017: An Argentinian nun who organized an outreach ministry to transgender woman receives a supportive note from Francis for her "innovative work"
  • April 2018: A French "priest" claims that in a private meeting with the Francis, he approved of the priest’s work blessing "same-gender couples"

The above was taken from "New Ways Ministry" a self-described group of Vatican II sect clergy and laity who "Through research, publication and education about sexual orientation and gender identity, we foster dialogue among groups and individuals, identify and combat personal and structural homophobia and transphobia, work for changes in attitudes and promote the acceptance of LGBT people as full and equal members of church and society. New Ways Ministry is a member of "Equally Blessed," a coalition of faithful Catholics (sic) who support full equality for LGBT people both in the Church and in civil society." (See

Transgenderism imposes a perversion of the mind, denying basic reality for Gnostic ideology. Indeed, transgenderism is seeking to eliminate the human race as God created it. Sociologists tell us to qualify as a religion, a group needs to have a creed (beliefs), a code (moral precepts), and a cult (means of worship). 
The whole LGBT rights movement has a Gnostic creed, a code that anything taught by God through His One True Church must be eliminated, and a cult of self-worship and self-deification. A modern day false religion of sorts, spawned from Hell. 

Woe to anyone who opposes them. Persecution through "anti-discrimination" laws will target anyone with decent moral standards. I can't help but think of Pope St. Pius X who (perhaps being given a glimpse of what is happening today) proclaimed: "...the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. [...] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are Traditionalists. (Emphasis mine). 

Monday, December 10, 2018

The Schizophrenic Church Of R & R

 All Traditionalists believe what has been defined and taught by the Church. One of the most basic and ancient expressions of the Faith is the Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and revised with additions by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Recited at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church proclaims, "Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam." (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Do the "recognize and resisters" (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), or Bishop Richard Williamson's St. Marcel Initiative, or their apologists (John Salza, Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, etc.) really believe it?

 Of course they profess it, and would (correctly) state that the denial of such is heresy. However, upon closer inspection, their refusal to acknowledge sedevacantism has lead to a de facto ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) which denies the unity of the Church. They believe in a Schizophrenic "Church" whereby there are two distinct--and even contradictory-- modes of belief and worship, yet they remain mysteriously unified. Don't believe me? Let's examine what the R&R camp says and see if it squares with authentic Church teaching.

The Church Teaching On Unity

 According to theologian Van Noort, "[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity...unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original). 

1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith
"The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church's teaching office." (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, "Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles" (Ibid:128). 

2. Communion
"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession." (Ibid:128)

3. Government
"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority." (Ibid:130)  

Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don't have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order. 

In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)

According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

R&R Ecclesiology
1. There exists "Eternal Rome" and "Modernist Rome," of which the pope is the head of both. When he speaks for Eternal Rome, you obey. When he speaks for Modernist Rome, you resist.
The Society is fond of quoting from a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which seems the starting point for their schizophrenic "Church:"
"We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it."

They put this into practice with disastrous results.

From "Frequently Asked Questions About The SSPX" ("FAQ")
 (available online at 
"We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries." 

How can a true pope "implement a new religion"? It's one thing to say that a pope is not without sin and can do morally evil acts. This is true and in this he is to be resisted (e.g., the pope asks someone to "murder one of my enemies for me"). However, it is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false or evil to Her members, such as imposing a "new religion."

Therefore, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"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… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

Yet the SSPX and the other R&R recognize Bergoglio, a man they claim is "implementing a new religion" (along with the other post-Vatican II "popes" before him), can be pope over both Modernist Rome (new religion) and Eternal Rome (true religion) simultaneously. Moreover, the true and the false religion seem to "subsist" together in the same overarching "Church" (sound familiar?).

2. The Eternal Rome Can Refuse to Have Communion with Modernist Rome
The SSPX: "Now, the Novus Ordo Missae [New "mass"] assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness...If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)." (See FAQ cited above).

According to theologian Szal, to be schismatic, one must meet four requirements:

  • one must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one's actions) from obediance to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatic sect
  • one's withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion
  • the withdrawal must be made in relation to such things by which the unity of the Church is constituted
  • despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff 
(See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2)

The Church is thereby in schism with itself. The SSPX is part of Eternal Rome with Bergoglio as "pope" and yet they cannot participate in public worship with Modernist Rome which also has Bergoglio as "pope" because their "mass" is Modernist and evil. The idea of an evil "mass" given by a real pope would contradict the dogma of Indefectibility as stated above, and in this case, they are refusing communion in worship with members alleged to be Catholic, just as they are. Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome form the same Church, but somehow have different religions and can't have unity in communion with each other.  

3. The Magisterium of Modernist Rome Needs to be Corrected by Eternal Rome 
The teaching authority of BOTH Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome resides in Bergoglio. However, if Bergoglio (or his "bishops") make a decision regarding, e.g. annulments and canonizations, the members of Eternal Rome (SSPX) must "correct" his teaching authority.

 A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article "Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?" in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject.  Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:

"Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act."

Father claims..."it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters."

He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. To assert that canonizations may not be infallible due to some procedural misstep is to admit the possibility that the "saint" might actually be a damned soul held up to be emulated and venerated. That would mean the Church can give evil to its members, which is impossible.  

R&R ecclesiology results in a schizophrenic "church," with two separate faiths lead by the same "pope" in which you must decide for yourself what is good and bad, true and false. Bergoglio's Vatican II ecclesiology just adds to the confusion by "giving jurisdiction" for SSPX priests to hear confessions and perform marriages for members of his sect. They're in "partial communion," after all. The SSPX bishops are also in some strange state with Bergoglio; neither excommunicated, yet without Sees or ordinary jurisdiction. 

All of this cannot be reconciled with authentic Church teaching. How much longer before the SSPX seeks to go into "full communion" with Bergoglio, and end the self-created "church within a church"? How much longer can we assume good faith on the part of R&R clerics and their apologists before we can no longer look upon them as Catholics? The only way out is sedevacantism. Being a true Traditionalist means being in the ONE True Church, not some divided concoction that gives both good and evil with clerics speaking out of both sides of their mouths.