Monday, November 28, 2016

A Matter Of Conscience

 The Vatican II sect exalts "conscience" above all else. When I attended a Vatican II high school (having converted to the True Church in 1981, at the beginning of my junior year), an ex-nun was head of the religion department. She would invite Episcopalian "priestesses" to explain why the Church was "misogynistic," and we were told we must always "follow your conscience." Engage in premarital sex? Need an abortion? Do "what your conscience tells you." (As a result, at least two girls with whom I graduated became pregnant and murdered their unborn child.) Divorce and "remarriage" by a justice of the peace was likewise OK if your conscience told you so, and you'd remain a "good Catholic." (Remember, this was in 1981, way before Frankie officially opened the door to the reception of "communion" by adulterers). There was one problem: the apostates talked about "conscience" without ever offering an explanation of what it really was and the correct principles behind it. As there seems to be very few correct explanations on the Internet, I will expound on the correct teaching regarding conscience and its use.

 What is Conscience?

Conscience is a judgement of practical reason on the moral goodness or sinfulness of an action. It applies natural law/ Divine Law/ecclesiastical law to concrete cases. It may be divided according to several concepts:

  • True and false conscience. A true conscience judges an action to be good and commanded by law when it is actually good and commanded by Divine or human law. A false conscience judges to be lawful what is unlawful and vice-versa. Ex. A man is allowed to use money at his disposal in any manner that he wishes as long as it is not for an evil purpose. If a man decided he had no right to use money which he found either (a) because he mistakenly thinks it is not at his disposal because it belongs to another, or (b) he was mistaken as to the moral principle, or (c) if he drew an incorrect inference, the man has a false conscience. (See also St. John 16: 2, "The hour cometh that whosoever kills you will think that he does a service to God"). 
  • Good and bad conscience. When conscience is viewed as a guide to behavior from the point of view of the intellect, we call it true or false as above. When viewed from the point of view of the will, it is either good or bad. A person  has a good conscience if it proceeds from a well-meaning intention and a right disposition to one's end and duties; a bad conscience does not so proceed. Ex. If the man in the hypothetical above decided that money that he found was truly his and at his disposal because he wished to know the truth and investigated to the best of his ability, he has a good conscience. If he decided this without sufficient investigation (due diligence), and only because he was prejudiced in his own favor, he has a bad conscience. 
There are other divisions, but these two are most pertinent. 

The Authority of Conscience

 Conscience must be obeyed. You must do what it commands you to do and refrain from that which it forbids. It acts, in a sense, as "the Voice of God." "...all that is not from conscience is sin." (See Romans 14: 23). Furthermore, conscience obliges from the nature of things because apart from revelation, there is no other way of learning what God wishes one to do here and now. However, the authority of conscience is not unlimited. 

  • Conscience is not independent of external law and authority. It is not autonomous morality for the individual. It does not function to establish law or pass judgement on it, but to apply the law as expounded by the Church to a present case. it must always strive to agree with and express the objective teaching of the Church. Hence, the heretic Martin Luther was not an example of following his conscience when he stated, "Here I am, I can do no other." He was told of the errors of his ways by a true pope and exalted his own law over God's Law. Luther is without excuse.
  • Conscience is not independent of the righteousness of the will. The will must be disposed towards the true end of life--the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven.
  • Conscience is not independent of the certainty of the intellect. Judgement must not be formed by sentiment, emotion, or one's own wishes, but by evidence and firm conviction that yields unhesitating assent. 
This was not intended to be an exhausted treatment on the subject of conscience, but merely to give a general overview. I have taken and condensed all the information above from theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, Volume 1, and theologian Jone, Moral Theology

False Ideas of Conscience and Vatican II

The heretical Vatican II "Pastoral Constitution On The Church In The Modern World"(Gaudium et Spes), states in para. # 16:

 "In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more that a correct conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality." 

Problems abound in this declaration. "...are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth." What "truth" is being invoked? Truth in matters of Faith and Morals. Wouldn't truth have to come from the infallible teaching of the Church? Replacing the sure possession of the truth established by the Magisterium, the Robber Council substitutes an "inquiry into the truth" as a general criterion of a general truth, which is something indeterminate. Hence, my former (thankfully defunct) "Catholic" high school, in imitation of Luther, would instruct you to "search for the truth," and tell you that it is permissible to follow your conscience even if it leads you to have sex outside of marriage or to murder your unborn child. Any "Catholic" who needs to "search for truth," has either lost their Faith or their marbles--probably both.

 Next, this "search for the truth" ought to be done in union "with the rest of men" and thus also (and above all) with non-Catholics, i.e.,  with those who deny all or almost all of the truths taught by the Church. How can this type of "search" arrive at positive results, in as much as it must also be applied to "moral problems" which are part of "numerous problems" as stated in the heretical text? Henceforth, members of the Vatican II sect ought to resolve these "moral problems" ecumenically through dialogue, and not by applying the principles transmitted by the True Church in matters of faith and morality. 

Finally, the conciliar text specifies that, when "correct conscience" leads them, humanity moves away from "blind choice." However,  in order to resist the "blind choice" of the passions and temptations, people must be aided by Grace. Vatican II never mentions God's indispensable Grace.  "Conformity" to "objective norms" of the moral law, placed in our hearts by God, now exclusively depends, for the Vatican II sect, on "correct" conscience, and therefore on the individual being plunged into his "search for the truth" along with everyone else. 


 A correct conscience, fully and properly informed by Church teaching, is the surest guide to help us get to Heaven. If you don't have one, you get the secular world's bastardized rule, "Let your conscience be your guide." These words were popularized by the Disney character Jiminy Cricket, a character from the movie Pinocchio, whose name is a minced oath/blasphemy  for the Most Holy Name of Our Lord and Savior, "Jesus Christ." (It was also used by Judy Garland in the occult-themed movie The Wizard of Oz, when she exclaims, "Jiminy Crickets!" upon being startled by the Wizard's lights and smoke charade). Always seek the guidance of the True Church, or a phony "conscience" will lead you to an all too real Hell. 

Monday, November 21, 2016


To express that "the world is in a sad state of affairs," is to state the obvious. Society is breaking down distinctions between real marriage and "solemnized sodomy." Moreover, just two years ago, Facebook began allowing people to choose between fifty-eight (yes, 58) "gender options," including (but not limited to): genderqueer, genderfluid, neutrois, agender, and two-spirit. The world rebels against God's Law that he created humans male and female --Period. The world creates perverse distinctions in the name of the Masonic idea of "equality." Sins against nature are now both sanctioned and encouraged. In so doing, men and women, as well as true marriage, are all degraded.

 Likewise, in the supernatural order, God created men and women equal in importance, but different in their roles. The Vatican II sect destroyed that distinction in roles. While many in the sect still clamor for "women priests," most people don't realize that the roles already assigned to females in the sect prove that it cannot be the True Catholic Church. This evil inflicted will be the subject I will explore.

Altar (sic) Servers (sic)

 In the Vatican II sect there is no altar, just a Protestant table. The altar boys are now joined by girls known collectively by the gender neutral term "altar servers." In the Traditionalist Church, altar boys are literally the right arms of priests acting in the Person of Christ (in persona Christi)  in the symbolism of Our Lord as Bridegroom. The Church is divided by the altar rail, separating the sanctuary where Christ offers His sacrifice in an unbloody manner to His Heavenly Father, and the congregation which represents the Church Militant. The reason why females can’t serve at the altar as do boys is linked to the the reason why they can't be priests. Only males represent fathers, sons, kings, princes, lords, and bridegrooms. 

 Christ chose twelve all-male Apostles to be the first bishops of His Church. Nowhere in the Gospel do we find evidence of Jesus giving "orders" to women to baptize, to give the Last Rites, to offer Mass and confect the Holy Eucharist, or to forgive sins as He did to the Apostles. This was not due to "cultural bias" as some wrongly claim, because Christ was God and would not simply respect human customs if they were in conflict with His design. Even His enemies stated, "Teacher, we know you are a truthful man and teach God's way sincerely. You court no one's favor and do not act of human respect." (St. Matthew 22:16). The altar boys are connected in helping the priest in the sacrificial act, and must likewise be males. Women serving the altar is ultimately a sign of rebellion against the law of God.

In 1980, "St" John Paul the Great Apostate approved the declaration Inaestimabile Donum denying the women could be "altar girls" but claiming they could do other prohibited acts:

"18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers." Just 14 years later, in 1994, the Vatican II sect Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments announced an "authentic interpretation" (confirmed by John Paul II ) from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. This "authentic interpretation" said that Canon 230 section 2 of the 1983 Code permits service at the altar by women, but the local bishop may decide whether to allow them in his diocese.

Women Speaking In Church and In Positions of Authority

The "priesthood of the faithful," that Protestant heresy imposed by the "conscious and active participation" enunciated in Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium ("Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people'(1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism." para #14) has given a Modernist interpretation to "active participation." True participation at Mass does not mean bantering back and forth around a table presided over by a "president of the assembly" (formerly "priest"). Nor does baptism make such impious activity some sort of "right." 

In the Novus Bogus, the "lector" (male or female) "proclaims the readings" (whatever that means).  
According to the National Pastoral Life Center (NPLC), today there are more lay ministers than priests (sic) working in Catholic (sic) parishes: that is, 31,000 lay ministers to 29,000 diocesan priests. It notes that this "revolution in ministry" has meant a "stronger lay, feminine dimension" in the Church. (See National Pastoral Life Center. Lay and Religious Parish Ministry: A Study Conducted for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1991). By the end of Wotyla's (JP II) false pontificate (2005), women were 21 % of Vatican personnel.

The Teaching of the True Church
  • The Church is Infallible in Her universal Disciplinary Laws.  "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." (See theologian  Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, ,1908,  1: 258). These liturgical aberrations involving women are universal insofar as they  involve a universal law, because a liturgical law that involves the whole Latin rite qualifies as such. However, the Church cannot infallibly allow that which was already solemnly CONDEMNED AS ERROR. 
  • The Church cannot give incentives to impiety. The Council of Trent infallibly declared: "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema " (D. 954). It is impious to have the laity, especially women, doing those functions reserved to the priest as an alter Christus ("another Christ").  Further, Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, para. # 9 (1832) stated: “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the 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 Church and her ministers are embraced."
  • Use of women in Church ceremonies is strictly condemned. 
  1. Council of Laodica (4th century):   Canon 44: Women may not go to the altar. (This canon is found in all collections of canons in the Church both East and West.)
  2. Pope Gelasius 494 A.D. "We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender."
  3. Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755 Allatae Sunt: "Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: 'Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.' We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21."
  4. 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 813, section 2: "The minister serving at mass should not be a woman unless, in absence of a man, for just cause, it is so arranged that the woman respond from afar and by no means approach the altar."
  5. The Holy Bible: "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith." (1 Cor. 14: 34). "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2: 12). 
  6. 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia "Women ministering at the altar, even in a subordinate capacity, is likewise forbidden. A decree says: 'It is prohibited to any woman to presume to approach the altar or minister to the priest' (cap. Inhibendum, 1 de cohab.); for if a woman should keep silence in church, much more should she abstain from the ministry of the altar, conclude the canonists."
Summary and Conclusion
  • The Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary laws. Such laws exclude women at the altar. 
  • The Church has condemned women in sacred ceremonies at Church as "evil." They also are not to have authority over men.
  • The Vatican II sect has officially approved "altar girls," female "lectors," "Eucharistic (sic) ministers," and women in positions of ecclesiastical authority over men.  They have given formerly sacred functions to laymen and laywomen in keeping with the heretical belief of "the priesthood of all believers." These men and women are de facto "priests."
  • The Vatican II sect cannot, therefore, be the True Roman Catholic Church.
 In eliminating the distinction in the supernatural order between women and men, not only does the Vatican II sect trample on the Divine Law, they give an erroneous idea of what the role of men and women was designed to be by God. With a false idea of "being equal," men can "marry" men, women can "marry" women, and women can be "priests" in all but name (and that may change soon, too). One can almost hear the Masonic chant as we move closer to a One World Church: Equality, liberty, fraternity. 

Monday, November 14, 2016

It's Not A Joke

 "Have you been baptized in the Holy Spirit?" This is no longer a question asked only by Protestant Pentecostal ministers. You will hear it spoken by members of the Vatican II sect involved in the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement (hereinafter CCM). When Vatican II's "new springtime" of apostasy came in, so did every form of moral and doctrinal aberration.  This CCM is found in nearly every diocese of the Vatican II sect, including the Archdiocese of New York. According to "Fr" Harold Cohen, SJ of the Archdiocese Catholic (sic) Charismatic Renewal, " What can we expect when we are 'baptized with the Holy Spirit'? We can expect an immediate or gradual experience of deeper union with God, our loving Father and with Jesus, our Lord and Friend; a fresh appreciation of Scripture; a greater love for others and a desire for Christian fellowship; the fuller presence in our lives of the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience and
more (see Galatians 5:22-23); the receptions of one or more of the Charismatic gifts of the Spirit such as discernment, service, prophecy, praying in tongues, healing (see 1 Corinthians 12-14). This gift of a new fullness of the Holy Spirit is, I believe, the grace of our age. "Ask and it will be given to you!" (See

 What is this "eighth sacrament" being peddled by the CCM? Can the people who receive it pray in tongues, heal themselves and others; even become prophets? The origins and evils of the CCM will be exposed in this post.

Heretical Origins

The CCM can trace its origin to the Pentecostal sect of the 19th century. According to William Whalen's book, Minority Religions in America, "The reappearance of glossolaly (speaking in tongues) was reported in 1901. Charles F. Parham, a Holiness preacher, was dismayed by the aridity of his own spiritual life. He rented a white elephant mansion in Topeka, Kansas, and started a Bible school with about 40 students. Together they set out on an intensive study of scriptures and came to the conclusion that speaking in tongues was the one sign that a Christian had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At 7 p.m., on New Year’s Eve in 1900, one of the students, Miss Agnes N. Ozmen, startled the assembled group when she began to pray in tongues. Within a few days, many more followed suit. Parham spent the next five years as an itinerant preacher before opening another Bible school, this time in Houston. One of his students, a negro minister named W.J. Seymore, carried the 'full-gospel' message to Los Angeles. A three-year-long revival in that California city attracted people from all over the country, and these people planted Pentecostalism in most of the major cities in the US, as well as in many European nations. The old Holiness churches refused to give emphasis to tongue-speaking, but dozens of independent Pentecostal Churches were soon organized." (Staten Island: Alba House, 1971, pg. 179). 

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 importance of this action cannot be overestimated. These former Catholics of the new Vatican II sect submitted themselves to a non-Catholic pseudo-sacramental rite (a mockery of Confirmation) and the emotional thrill brought about by this sin convinced them of the holiness of the entire experience. They came away as "Catholic" Charismatics, and their influence spread quickly throughout the Vatican II sect. The CCM fits in perfectly with the ecumenism of Vatican II. 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?).

Do Supernatural Gifts Still Happen Today?
 The CCM denigrates the sacramental system of the Church. A sacrament is a "visible sign of an invisible grace instituted by the historical Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of the human race, although every sacrament is not necessary for each member of the Church." They would have these sacramental gifts replaced by speaking in tongues, prophesy, and other such visible manifestations. Some, imitating certain Protestant sects, roll around on the floor and then handle poisonous snakes to show "God's protection." It is a fact, recorded in the Bible, that the Apostles and some early Christians did indeed speak in tongues and heal people. So why did it stop? 

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."

Some saints were given miraculous gifts, but the CCM would have the extraordinary become the norm. Likewise, these alleged gifts are now offered as "proof" of being in God's favor, yet the Council of Trent infallibly declared, "For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God." (See Decree on Justification). 

Errors Abound
The CCM promotes false teachings not only on grace and the continued necessity of charismata, but they foster other serious errors as well. Chief among them:
  • Anti-clericalism. The role of the hierarchy is downplayed. They 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. 
  • Denial of the necessity of the Magisterium. You will hear CCM members say that "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. 
  • De Facto denial of the Church's Indefectibility. By wanting to return to the ways of the early Church, CCM claims that an integral part of the Church (charismata) was absent for centuries. This is impossible if the Church is Indefectible. Remember the condemnation of Pope Pius XII regarding those who wish to return to early Church practices, thereby suggesting the Church was not led towards the Truth but away from it. "The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table, to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer." (See Encyclical Mediator Dei; Emphasis mine). 
Unholy Gifts
Those who seek after such false gifts open themselves up to dire consequences:

1. Risk of Self-Deception: "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) 

2. Possession by demons: "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)

Becoming More Bizarre
 A new "charismata" known as "Holy Laughter" is also present at many CCM meetings. The person who is most responsible for this phenomenon is Rodney Howard-Browne, a South African Protestant evangelist who was born in 1961. It has been picked up by many in the movement. Rodney Howard-Browne reported: "One night I was preaching on Hell, and laughter just hit the whole place. The more I told the people what Hell was like, the more they laughed." "The Holy Ghost...might have you do something that no one's ever done before, and he might have you do something that's totally unique. But don't question, and don't argue, and don't ask, and don't try to devise and to plan it out but just follow the prompting of the leading of the Spirit of God and, oh, great and wonderful things shall be done, for God will move in diverse ways and with diverse anointing in these last days." Laughing about Hell? How does any of this help anyone?

When they are "slain in the Spirit," phenomena reported with "Holy Laughter include: shaking, jerking, loss of bodily strength, heavy breathing, eyes fluttering, lips trembling, oil on the body, changes in skin color, weeping, laughing, appearing drunk, staggering, dancing, falling, claiming visions, "hearing audibly into the spirit realm", inspired prophecy, speaking in tongues, violent rolling, screaming, nausea as discernment of evil, smelling or tasting good or evil presences, tingling, pain in body as discernment of illness, feeling heavy weight or lightness, trances--altered physical state while seeing and hearing into the "spiritual world," inability to speak normally, removing some clothing, pawing people and roaring like a lion, walking like a chicken, howling like a wolf, digging the ground with hoofs like a bull while "prophesying," among others. 

This totally insane behavior can only be the result of (a) mental instability/mass hysteria, or (b) demonic influence. St. Thomas Aquinas states that (1) prophesy can come from demons (they can guess at what the future holds given their superior intellect and knowing those who will do their work--they do not know the future as God does but can predict much with an uncanny accuracy); (2) prophets of demons can (in that sense) foretell the truth, and (3) the wicked can work wonders that appear to be miracles.

The CCM is totally heretical, and leads people to Hell. Remember the sobering words of Our Lord, "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) the elect."(St. Matthew 24:24); and again, "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). The people involved with the CCM will soon learn (perhaps too late) that this is no laughing matter. 

Monday, November 7, 2016

The Slippery Slope

 Pop quiz: Who said the following, "Birth control, as popularly understood today and involving the use of contraceptives, is one of the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a 20th century renewal of pagan bankruptcy." Was it (a) Cardinal Ottavianni (b) "Pope" Paul VI (c) Pope Pius XII or (d) none of the above? If you picked (d), you're correct; it was spoken by Dr. Walter A. Maier, a Lutheran minister and theology professor at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Louis, in circa 1939. Most people are unaware of two facts: (1) No sect calling itself "Christian" (i.e., all Protestant and Eastern sects) ever accepted birth control as morally permissible prior to 1930, and (2) the anti-contraceptive laws passed in the 19th century in America were written and supported by an overwhelming Protestant majority in power for a majority Protestant country. So much for contraception being a "Catholic" issue.

 The Revolt Against God as Author of Life

 In 1930, the Anglican sect became the first denomination to allow for artificial contraception. Just ten years earlier, the Anglicans had issued Resolution 28 of the 1920 Lambeth Conference, in which they had stated, "We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of contraception..." Having been increasingly exposed to the errors of nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the 1930 Lambeth Conference broke the moral unanimity existing between Protestant sects and the True Church when they passed resoultion #15, which reads as follows:

"Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience." Voting: For 193; Against 67. 

This is a good example of a "hard case making a bad law." What are these "Christian principles" that justify "avoiding complete abstinence" which were never espoused from 33 AD until 1930? It was the idea of "the totality of the circumstances" which came to be known as "The Fundamental Option Theory" in ethics. This was peddled by arch-heretic Karl Rahner, who taught that one's "fundamental option" was either for or against God. People who are "for God" can commit specific acts that run contrary to that option (sin), but they do not necessarily change the person's fundamental option. What it did was (a) eliminate the seriousness of moral actions, and (b) effectively destroy the  truths of mortal and venial sin. One single act of a serious matter, done with full knowledge of its wrongfulness and consented to by the person, constitutes a mortal sin that (if unrepentant) will send him to Hell. This is mortal sin and it robs the soul of sanctifying grace. This truth of the Faith is denied by the Fundamental Option heresy. Even John Paul the Great Apostate condemned it (sort of) in Veritatis Splendor. 

When Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) set up a commission to "study the question of artificial contraception" the heretic gave the world the wrong idea that the condemnation of contraception was a matter which was open to change. The majority report of the commission in 1967 said contraception could be used "if the marriage was open to procreation in its totality." Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) sided against the majority due to the efforts of Cardinal Ottaviani who convinced him he would lose all moral authority if he were to allow contraception. (I wish Montini had allowed it, as it might have exposed him as the fraud and heretic he was--Ottaviani thought he was doing the world a favor at the time). The minority report rightly concluded that if "general openness to conception" is enough to justify contraception, no single act of sodomy, or mutual masturbation could be considered mortally sinful either.

In 1958, the Anglicans broadened their allowance of contraception, and in 1961, The National Council of Churches adopted the use of artificial birth control. The floodgates were open.

From Contraception to Abortion

Contraception leads to abortion in three ways: (1) certain methods kill the unborn child after fertilization, (2) abortion will be the "back-up plan" when contraception fails, and (3) it de-humanizes life by excluding God as the Author of Life. 

1. Methods that kill the unborn.

 Both the IUD and the "Pill" (to give but two examples) prevent a zygote (unborn baby at its earliest stage) from implanting in the uterus. These are "silent abortions" as life begins at conception. 

2. A Murderous Back Up

When a couple is not open all the time to conception, and birth control fails, abortion becomes the logical (and murderous) consideration. 

3. God is excluded 

Humans, not God, decide when (and if ) life is created. God is banned from the public square. To justify the abortion option, the unborn child must be de-humanized. If the unborn child is not outside the womb, it is considered "part of the woman's body" and her alleged "right to choose."

From Abortion to Euthanasia

 Euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing") can be defined as "the (alleged) painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable or painful disease, or in an irreversible coma." Notice that life is not sacred and suffering has no value. All hope of a comatose patient waking up or a disease being cured (even miraculously) is jettisoned, even though there are such cases. Euthanasia may be either (a) active, when the patient is given something to make them die, or (b) passive, when life support (or in some cases basic needs like food and hydration) are withdrawn. 

The connection between abortion and euthanasia was well made by

"Ask yourself, why does euthanasia bother our consciences?

After all, we have already codified into law that a mother may see to it her own child be murdered (through abortion). Thus, we have accepted the legal and immoral precedent that someone may murder someone else.

Given that our culture has accepted this immoral premise, it has no legal, moral or other argument against euthanasia.

Where the unborn child represents a threat to the mother’s socioeconomic well-being, the terminally-ill patient serves as a drain on finances. Where the unborn child’s right to life is usurped by those older than her, the terminally-ill patient’s right to life is surpassed by those more physically healthy.

Where the unborn is killed for eugenics motivations from having Down Syndrome or other abnormalities, the terminally-ill patient has the plug pulled for becoming a physically- or mentally-unfit inconvenience, as well."

 And what about the elderly? When does the so-called "right to die" become a "duty to die" that may one day be imposed on the elderly and "unfit"? It may affect you or someone you love sooner than you think. Remember in the not too distant past, what was considered repugnant may become the "new normal":

"Not surprisingly, given his core belief in the notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’, Hitler embraced the ideas of ‘conventional’ eugenics, but wanted to take them to an extreme level.  In a propaganda film like ‘Opfer der Vergangenheit’ (Victims of the Past), shown in 1937, the Nazi vision was made clear. Patients in mental asylums were revealed as suffering in their own minds, whilst the commentary made clear the cost to the state of keeping these people in care. The implication was obvious – if these people did not exist then the Nazi state would be much better off.  

The route by which this ideological notion – that it would be better to remove the seriously disabled  – became a practical reality reveals a great deal about how policy could be made in the Nazi state. Sometime early in 1939 the father of a severely disabled child wrote a petition to Hitler asking that his son should be killed – a so called ‘mercy’ killing. The petition landed in the Fuehrer’s Chancellery, controlled by an ambitious Nazi called Philipp Bouhler and staffed by his no less ambitious underlings. The petition was chosen from thousands of others to be seen personally by Hitler. When he saw it he ordered Dr Brandt to consult with the child’s doctors and then, subsequently, the child was killed. Hitler then authorized other children to be dealt with the same way. Eventually, around 8,000 children were killed, mostly by poisonous injections." (See

 All this is possible when humans usurped the right of God alone over human life. Through contraception, and the rejection of Traditionalist Catholic teaching, we move to abortion, then to euthanasia. As Dostoyevsky famously wrote, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted!"