Monday, May 25, 2015

The Supreme Perversion

 On Friday, May 22, 2015, the formerly Roman Catholic Republic of Ireland became the first country to legalize sodomite "marriage" by national referendum. The constitutional amendment states, "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."  According to Reuters, the number of Irish citizens who identify as Catholic has slowly declined to around 84 percent, and the number of people who actively practice is even lower; Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin estimated that only 18 percent of his parishioners attended "mass" any given week. Welcome to the brave new world that is Vatican II.

 More disturbing is the number of Vatican II sect "priests" who supported the amendment. According to the Washington Post, "For the Rev. Pádraig Standún, a Catholic priest in western Ireland, voting 'yes' is a matter of what’s right. To another Irish priest, the Rev. Iggy O’Donovan, it’s about creating an inclusive state.To the Rev. Martin Dolan, Ireland’s upcoming referendum on same-sex marriage is deeply personal.'I’m gay myself,' he announced to his Dublin congregation in January. It was a surprise ending to Dolan’s homily, in which he urged his congregation to vote 'yes' on the referendum. But his parishioners took it in stride — they gave him a standing ovation."
"In a phone interview with The Washington Post, Standún said he had no qualms going public with his vote, and he doesn’t expect to face any repercussions from Church (sic) leadership, who have for the most part expressed their opposition to the amendment in measured terms. 'They haven’t really said anything besides ‘think carefully,’ which I did,' Standún said. 'It’s a free country and it’s a political choice.'"

 Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to declare sodomite marriage a "constitutional right" in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Two justices, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, have both presided over such "marriages" and it is generally believed that Kagan is a lesbian herself. Will either one recuse herself from the case? Title 28, section 455 of the US Code states, "Any Justice or judge of the U.S. shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." It's quite obvious that Kagan and Bader-Ginsberg are NOT impartial, yet have not recused themselves. What will be done? Nothing.

 Imagine if one of those "priests" had come out in favor of restoring the pre-Vatican II Mass and ending the Novus Bogus "mass." They would have been immediately suspended by the "bishop" and probably excommunicated by Mr. Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis). Imagine if there were a case involving abortion before the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia had participated in the March for Life---the media, Obama, and the majority of the public would be screaming that he either recuse himself or be impeached. George Orwell's 1984 has arrived 31 years late, so be careful what you say.

 Assessing the Roots of the Problem

  1. Separation of Church and State
  "79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism." (CONDEMNED Proposition in the Syllabus of Errors, promulgated by Pope Pius IX--1864)

With the Vatican II sect promoting this very error in Dignitatis Humanae, formerly Catholic countries allowed for all perverse sects to spread their multiple and manifest errors. This leads people to question the Truth of the Catholic Faith, and to believe that "one religion is as good as another." If one religion is as good as the next, and each have different teachings, then.....

     2. Morality is Relative

 Just as beliefs differ, so do morals. No one set of morals is superior to another.What's right for you may not be right for me. This leads to....

     3. A Warped Notion of Justice

  Justice doesn't mean every person gets the same, it means every one gets what they deserve according to their nature. Justice doesn't require distribution of wealth as in Socialism and Communism. It does require that innocent people not be put to death (abortion is prohibited because the fetus is a pre-born human by nature). Here in New York, on December 2, 2013, Steven Wise, president of the "Nonhuman Rights Project," filed suit asking the court to declare Tommy, a 26-year old chimpanzee, "a cognitively complex autonomous legal person with a fundamental legal right not to be imprisoned." He argues chimps "possess complex cognitive abilities that are so strictly protected when they're found in human beings....There's no reason why they should not be protected when they're found in chimpanzees." (See Bernard Vaughan and Daniel Wiessner "New York Lawsuit Seeks 'Legal' Personhood for Chimpanzees" Reuters, 12/02/13). Since chimps don't have free will, it is OK for people to rule over them if they are not abused. Society seeks personhood for monkeys while we kill unborn babies. This leads to....

     4. The Current State of Society

   Government must be neutral on matters of religion. Faith is personal and must not have any role in society beyond what it means for the individual. The government must do what the majority of citizens feel is correct. Anything can (and should) be considered moral as long as you don't hurt anyone. To "hurt" someone means only physically and/or materially because the idea of "sin" is both religious and disputed. Homosexuals don't hurt anyone and they have the right to love any person they choose. It is unjust for the government not to recognize "gay marriage" and deny them the justice of equal rights.

The Consequences 

  •  The Government Fails To Protect Its Citizens
   The government makes us wear seat belts and even regulates what we get to drink. Here in NYC, it is illegal to sell extra large sugary drinks because people can become obese and succumb to diabetes. Cigarettes are taxed at enormous rates to discourage smoking. All of this is done to "protect the people"--ostensibly from the inability to make the proper choices for themselves. However, in the case of "gay marriage" and "gay rights," the government promotes a deadly choice.

   According to J.R. Daling, et. al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14 (April 9, 1982) the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000% among those who engage in anal intercourse. Anal sex also raises the risk of rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, chlamydia, cryptosporidiosis, genital herpes, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, as well as syphilis. According to Dr. John Diggs in The Health Risks of Gay Sex, the probability of a 20 year-old practicing bisexual or homosexual man living to age 65 was only 38%-- as compared to 78% for heterosexual men. Engaging in activity where you lose an average of 20 years off your lifespan (both lesbians and male homosexuals) isn't considered dangerous enough to be prohibited by the government. Feelings about "the right to love whom you choose" trump health and safety. It's a truism that: "What the law doesn't prohibit, it encourages." What of all the children who will be exposed to this unnatural and dangerous behavior as "normal"? What of those children adopted by homosexuals, who will get confused about their sexuality, and therefore will be more likely to "experiment" with this dangerous perversion? There will be a looming health crisis.

  • Marriage Has No Sacred Character; It's About Sex
CONDEMNED Propositions of the Syllabus of Errors (1864):
   " 65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated."
     "67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority."

With religion banished from the State, marriage is seen as a human institution. Humans can always change things. Divorce must be permitted and not frowned upon or prohibited in any way. "No fault" divorce is best. However, at least until now, the secular State had bestowed certain privileges and rights upon the married because they are capable of procreation which is good for society. Older couples who can't procreate still show what marriage should be and reflect it in their fidelity. No more. It's not about privileges because of procreation (potential or actual), it's about "loving who you want."

 On this basis, there is no logical or legal reason not to allow "group marriage." After all, if four consenting adults all love each other and consent to be with each other, on what basis do you deny them their "rights"? Not on the basis of religion (forbidden), not on morality (subjective), not even on societal benefits, since these are no longer seen as necessary either. Justice Antonin Scalia actually wondered about this very possibility during oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

 Furthermore, why are there no "marital benefits"  bestowed  on two brothers who live together and love each other? It's because they don't commit sodomy? If marriage not about procreation, and all about "love" there's no reason not to give brothers such rights---whether celibate or incestuous.

  • Your Civil Rights are Stripped Away
   In Indiana, a family-owned pizza shop refused to cater a "gay wedding" and had to close temporarily.  They refused to cater the "wedding" (but they will not refuse service to homosexuals themselves) due to their religious beliefs. Indiana tried to remedy this with a Religious Freedom Law and the backlash was so strong, the governor and legislature (all Republican) caved in to the sodomites and weakened the law. How long will it be before churches who preach against homosexuality will be fined for "civil rights' violations?

Who's Really To Blame?

    The answer is easy: The Vatican II sect and the horrors they unleashed on the world. With the supernatural Grace of God from the Mass and the Sacraments replaced with invalid services, and the True Faith and Morals replaced with Modernist heresy, we are now reaping what Vatican II sowed beginning in 1964.  "Pope" Francis claims "who am I to judge" homosexuals while allowing his own clergy to advocate for them without censure. In so doing, he has already judged one of the "Four Sins That Cry to Heaven for Vengeance" to be acceptable. Now he can concentrate on what really matters--climate change! Even I can't help but think, "Can the end be that far off?"


  1. Get ready for fire & brimstone.

  2. Introibo - I searched for the word "cigarettes" and this was the only article I found that touched on the subject. I have been told by certain different "Traditionalists" that I am in Mortal Sin because I smoke cigarettes. I know the protestants believe you cannot go to heaven if you smoke and they doom you to hell for doing so. Can you please tell me what the CHURCH says regarding cigarette smoking? I am having a hard time because I don't WANT to give up cigarettes. Thanks.

    1. Joann,
      The theologians are silent on the issue. When the Great Apostasy took place in the early 1960s, little was known about the dangers of tobacco use. The Fifth Commandment tells us we have a duty to take "reasonable good care" of our bodies. In my opinion (and that's all it is) I believe smoking would be considered sinful with all we now know about it. However, there is no hierarchy to make that call, so no one can say for certain if it's sinful and to what degree.

      As someone who cares, I would urge you to try and give them up (what better time than Lent?). My father was a smoker and died of cancer at age 70. I'm convinced that smoking causes more than just lung cancer given the toxins that get transported throughout the body.


  3. Introibo - Can you tell me what the official Church teaching is on drinking alcohol? I believe, the Bible condemns drunkenness and drunkards.

    1. The Bible condemns drunkenness not moderate drinking. So does the Church. According to theologians McHugh and Callan, drinking is permitted as Christ turned water into wine and used wine at the Last Supper.

      Drunkenness is a venial sin if the person is "tipsy" but retains use of reason. This is called "imperfect drunkenness." "Perfect drunkenness" is when a person is impaired (for example, should not drive even if not stumbling around). Perfect drunkenness is a mortal sin. All forms of drunkenness, as they are sins, are condemned in the Bible and by the Church (See "Moral Theology" 2: 494-499).