Our Mother The Church

 

To My Readers: This week my guest poster, Dominic Caggeso, reminds us of how the Church is truly our Holy Mother, in fact, not merely as a pious title. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Our Mother The Church

By Dominic Caggeso

Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit (Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8, Response 2). “Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it.” Another way to interpret this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas is with the phrase, “Grace builds upon nature.” Essentially, God’s grace perfects our natural temperaments and dispositions in our pursuit of holiness. Throughout Catholic history, saints have pursued holiness and perfection, each manifesting these virtues uniquely due to their individual characteristics and the diverse natural environments in which they lived. The natural world served as their starting point, but God’s grace elevated their natural traits towards heavenly goals and aspirations.

In a broader sense, the natural world provides a foundation for understanding the supernatural world. By using comparison and metaphor, we can build upon our understanding of the natural world to grasp supernatural realities. In this way, the expression “grace builds upon nature” applies not only to individuals but also to various aspects of the wider world.

In the Gospels, Our Lord often uses natural realities to illustrate supernatural truths. For example, the parables of the mustard seed, the sower, and the pearl of great price are metaphors from the natural world that help us understand the Kingdom of Heaven. 

By employing this method of analogy, frequently used to deepen our understanding of Faith, we can draw some striking comparisons to the natural realities of family and childbirth. These comparisons offer a way to view Our Heavenly Father, Our Mother the Church, and our birth into Eternal Life. 

The New Adam and New Eve

Our Lord is known as the “New Adam.” While the old Adam disobeyed God by eating from the tree, the New Adam gave His life in submission and obedience to God by being hung on a tree. The old Adam brought sin and death into the world, whereas the New Adam brought forgiveness of sin and eternal life.

Similarly, Our Lady is known as the “New Eve.” Just as Eve, through her disobedience, brought about the fall from grace, Our Lady, through her obedience, brought about our redemption. By saying “yes” to God’s plan at the Annunciation, She became the Mother of God.

Moreover, Our Lady is also considered a type of the Church, as she exemplifies the Church’s mission and identity. As Our Lady nurtured and brought forth Christ, the Church nurtures and brings forth “other Christs”. To illustrate this, let me quote St. Augustine:

“Come on now, friends, think of how the Church, which is plain enough, is the bride of Christ; what’s more difficult to understand, but is true all the same, is that she is the mother of Christ. The Virgin Mary came first as a representative figure of the Church. How, I ask you, can Mary be the mother of Christ except by giving birth to the limbs and organs of Christ? You people, to whom I’m speaking, you are the limbs and organs, the members, of Christ. Who gave you birth? I hear you answering to yourselves, “Mother Church.” This holy and honorable mother is like Mary in that she both gives birth and is a virgin. That she gives birth I can prove by pointing to you; you were born of her; she gives birth to Christ, because you are the members of Christ.”  (Sermons of St. Augustine 72a para. 8)

Thus, if Our Lady is a model for the Church, can we also say that the Church is a New Eve? Allow me to draw some analogies with the old Adam and Eve.

The first Adam was created by God before Eve was created. Adam was put into a deep sleep, and God opened his side to remove a rib, which He made into Eve. Eve was bone of Adam’s bone and flesh of his flesh. Similarly, Our Lord preexisted the Church, His Bride. When Our Lord died on the Cross, His side was opened, and from it flowed blood and water, which is what the Church was formed from. St. Bonaventure illustrates this by saying:

“It was a divine decree that permitted one of the soldiers to open his sacred side with a lance. This was done so that the Church might be formed from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death on the cross”

Thus, Adam was put in a deep sleep during which his side was opened. God formed Eve from his rib. Likewise, during the sleep of death, Our Lord’s side was opened from which was formed the Church. Both Adam and Our Lord went on to “wake up” to meet their brides. 

With the establishment of the Church as Our Mother, we can now draw comparisons between natural motherhood and the supernatural motherhood of the Church.

In the Womb of Our Mother

A natural mother carries her child in her womb, nourishing the baby through the umbilical cord. This nourishment, provided by the mother, fundamentally comes from her husband, the father of the child. The husband sustains the mother, who in turn, through her body, nourishes the child in utero.

Similarly, Catholics are carried in the bosom of our mother, the Church. We are nourished through the Sacraments, which sustain us spiritually and help us grow in grace and virtue. These Sacraments, provided by the Church, are fundamentally given by God. The graces from God come through the Sacraments, just as a baby’s nourishment comes from the father through the intermediary of the mother’s body.

A natural child in the womb intimately knows its mother. The child hears her voice directly, feels her touch, and is comforted by her heartbeat, which forms the background of life in utero. In contrast, the father’s voice is muffled and obscure. The child is familiar with the loving father’s voice but not as intimately as the mother’s. The child hears the mother’s interactions with the father’s voice, understanding their love, but it is the mother whom the child knows through firsthand experience.

Likewise, Catholics intimately know our mother, the Church. We hear sermons, smell incense, and ponder the heavenly wisdom spoken through the Church’s words and writings. We can touch the Church and, in a manner of speaking, know its heartbeat. However, the voice of our Heavenly Father is more challenging to discern directly. We know the Church and Our Lord love each other, and we witness the Church’s response to our Heavenly Father.

Born into a New World

In the womb, a child is content with its familiar environment, seeing no reason to leave the only life it has ever known. If one could communicate with a child in the womb, it would be impossible to describe the outside world. One might tell the child about the wonders and experiences awaiting outside the womb—walking, tasting food, breathing, speaking, meeting people, and smelling flowers. However, the child would have no way to understand or conceptualize any of this.

Similarly, Catholics are content in the womb of our mother, the Church. The thought of leaving this world can be frightening, as it is all we have ever known. If someone from Heaven tried to communicate the joys of Heaven to us, we would not be able to comprehend them. This is most eloquently expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:9

“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.”

As the mother begins the process of giving birth, the child’s life in the womb changes dramatically. The womb contracts, causing distress for the child. The only home it has ever known starts to shrink around it. Signs of trauma are evident as the child’s heartbeat increases and its body is flushed with adrenaline. Pushed by the contractions, fearful and crying, the child is born into the world.

Similarly, on our deathbed, we may fear the unknown. Our bodies begin to shut down, pushing us toward death, much like contractions. We are forcibly removed from our life on earth, the only life we have ever known. Finally, we die and are born into the new world of eternal life.

Just after birth, the father is traditionally invited to cut the umbilical cord, as the baby no longer needs nourishment from it, having entered the world.

Similarly, the Sacraments of the Church are available to us only on Earth, while we are in the womb of Holy Mother Church. Once we are born into Eternal Life, we will no longer need the Sacraments.

Meeting Our Father Face to Face

The voice of the father, often heard obscurely while in the womb, will now be heard clearly and distinctly by the child. The child will finally see his father’s face, be held by him, and live in his house.

Likewise, once we are born into the eternal life of Heaven, we will see Our Heavenly Father’s face for the first time. We will live in the house He has prepared for us and experience the bliss of His loving care for all eternity. St. Paul indicated this in 1 Corinthians 13:12:

“We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.”

Conclusion

God has blessed me with a wife and children. Though it has been a long time, I still remember the exhilaration and anticipation of my wife’s first pregnancy. As young parents, we followed the stages of our child’s development in utero, speaking and singing to him, and preparing our home for his arrival. The experience of childbirth is unforgettable—witnessing the actual birth and holding the child for the first time. What a grace God bestows on us to participate in the creation of a new soul that will exist for all eternity.

As great as this experience is, it is but a shadow of our supernatural end in Heaven. A nine-month pregnancy might seem long, especially for the mother, but it is just a brief moment in the child’s entire natural life on earth. Likewise, our time in this world might seem long, but compared to an eternity in Heaven, it is absolutely short. Therefore, let us focus on Eternal Life and not on this world.

Destroying Children Body And Soul: "Gay Adoption"

 

As I've stated many times in my writings here, I believe that the two greatest threats we face in the time of the Great Apostasy, ushered in by Vatican II, are the occult and sodomite "rights." (By "sodomite" I wish to indicate the sin of Sodom--which is homosexuality. Additionally, due to the pagan times in which we live, I'm using it to designate not only all forms of sexual perversion but the mental illness of being "transgender"---Introibo).The homosexuals' continued acceptance and normalization in society requires recruitment of the young, now more than ever, as they continue to reshape what's left of "Christian civilization." 

Since sodomites cannot reproduce normally ("breeders" is the pejorative term they use for heterosexuals), they need to indoctrinate children directly or indirectly into either acceptance or joining in their sin. They do this primarily through "gay adoption."  To ignore the gender component of marriage is to violate God's design of marriage. While it is true the Church has always allowed those who are sterile (through no fault of their own) and the elderly to marry, the fact they cannot procreate does not change the gender component of what a marriage must be like. They still reflect God's design and some can adopt children providing them a father and mother; something sodomites cannot do. 

"Alternative families" is the made-up term for perverts making a mockery of God's design for humanity. When children grow up thinking having two women or two men as parents is "normal," they will embrace the sodomite lifestyle as something good. The brainwashing began in the late 1980s. Heather Has Two Mommies, a children's book originally published in 1989, was written by Leslea Newman and tells a story about a young girl who has lesbian "mothers." At Heather's playgroup, her family situation is discussed simply and positively, as are those of other children in normal families. Of course, sodomites can only have children by adopting from an agency, by a sperm donor for sapphists, or by a surrogate for men. Artificial insemination, contrary to both Natural and Divine Positive Law, is looked upon as a "gift." When artificial means are used, at least one person in the relationship is not biologically connected, but an "adoptive parent."

To be clear, artificial insemination is the evil and opposite practice of artificial contraception. God ordained that procreation should take place through natural intercourse in a valid marriage. Artificial contraception removes procreation from the sex act, and artificial insemination removes the act of sex from procreation. This idea must be seen as "good" if sodomites are to gain control of society. Next came Daddy's Roommate is another children's book written by Michael Willhoite and published in 1990, tells the tale of a young boy whose divorced father now lives with his sodomite lover. When the boy asks his mother about his father and his "roommate," the mother explains that they are "gay" and it's just "another wonderful form of love." 

It's apparent that children are being brainwashed into accepting unnatural vice, ungodly "families," and the asinine "LGBTQIA+" slogan that "love is love." That idiotic slogan is manifestly false and sick. I love my wife, I loved my parents, I love my best friend, and I love God. The love I have for each is both felt and expressed very differently. If you apply romantic love to your parents, it's not "love is love," it's called "incest" and is morally wrong and mentally sick. Applied to animals, romantic love is beastiality. Applied to children it's pedophilia (which the clergy of the Vatican II sect know all too well--both those in and out of jail). Applied to persons of the same sex, it's homosexuality; which is just as morally depraved, unnatural, sinful, and sick as the other perversions. 

A few months back, a new potential client came in to my law firm. He brought his ten year-old son with him. A polite, nice young boy, he seemed rather effeminate in his speech and mannerisms, not at all like his father. The boy went outside my office for some refreshments by the office help, while I interviewed the father. As I opened the door, walking out with the man at the end of our conversation, the boy ran to hug him. "Let's go home, daddy!" I asked him, "Do you want to be an engineer, like your dad, when you grow up?" He responded, "My dad is an architect; my daddy is an engineer!"  The man turned to me and said, "He calls me "daddy" and my husband "dad." I nodded my head, and said I had to go. I went straight to the managing partner and told him to give my case to someone else, which he did. It was the first time I had personally met a child being raised by sodomites, and my heart went out to that poor kid. 

The damage being done to children and society as a whole is inestimable. The time has come to speak out against "gay adoption" in all its evil forms. Write your legislators about a Constitutional amendment to ban it. God will not ask if we succeeded, only if we sincerely tried. 

There are several major talking points; "gay adoption" is to be rejected because :

• same-sex parents have inherently worse relationships than normal parents 
• pedophilia significantly increases
• they have problems that make them unfit per se

Each will be examined in turn. 

The Unstable Relationships of Unstable People

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. The sodomites claimed a great victory when they prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II -- its listing of psychological disorders. However, here are the facts regarding homosexual "relationships/marriages." They are both short-lived and full of promiscuity. Even in 2003, studies showed this to be the case:

A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex “marriages.”

The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.

Same-sex “marriage” has gained new attention since a Supreme Court decision last month struck down state laws against homosexual behavior. Conservative activists say they expect the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts to rule this weekend on whether to recognize homosexual “marriages.”

The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.

Earlier studies also indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships. In “The Male Couple,” published in 1984, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting anywhere from one to 37 years, all couples with relationships more than five years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity.

“Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other,” the authors said. “Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others.”

Such findings show how recognition of same-sex unions would “erode the ideal” of traditional marriage, Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute.

“They’re redefining what it means to be monogamous,” Mr. LaBarbara said. “It’s just preposterous to claim that these relationships even approximate normal, steady relationships.”

(See washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r). 

More alarming facts:

• 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners:  "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." 

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• 79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309."  

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354."  

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Does anyone with any sense of decency want a child living with such a "couple"? 

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

• Over 90% of child molesters are male

• 25-40% of molestations are same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals

• 43% of sex between teachers and pupils is homosexual

• 50% of sex between foster parents and foster children is homosexual

• In a study of 21 "group home" sex scandals — 71% were homosexual

• Of those who commit incest: Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%

(See Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study." Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43). 

In the U.S. and Canada, the North American Man-Boy Love Association marches proudly in many "gay pride parades" with the stated goal of removing the barriers to man-boy sex. Note the phrases they use are removal of “oppression towards pedophilia” and gaining the “liberation of pedophilia.” It is clear that those who advocate the legalization of sex between adults and children intend to argue that such conduct is a “civil right,” deserving of the same legal protections afforded to racial and ethnic minorities. The Vatican II sect is complicit in this goal, and covers up the obvious connection between homosexuality and molestation.

Even as I write this post, "transgenders" are breaking down the last rationale society holds for rejecting pedophilia, i.e., the child cannot consent. However, children who think they are members of the opposite sex are now being allowed by parents to dress, act, and even mutilate themselves with drugs and surgery to become "who they really are" because it's allegedly "in their best interests." So who needs consent? We make children eat healthy food and get vaccinated without consent, so if my child feels attracted to a man at 7 or 8 years old, it might be in his "best interest" to have a sexual relationship with that man; even if the man is "dad" or "daddy" in a sodomite relationship. 

God help us. 

Homosexuality and Mental/Physical Problems

Sodomites have a multitude of mental and physically problems that are disproportionately higher than any other group. 

Even the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) has noted these problems. For example, among men who identify as homosexual:

• Problems with body image are more common among gay men, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa.

• Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger cities. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines.

• Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. . . Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide . . .

• Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies.

(See Robert J. Winn, “Ten Things Gay Men Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider,” GLMA, May 2012). 

The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has reported the following distressing facts concerning women who identify themselves as practicing lesbians:

• Among adults, a study that examined the risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals with same-sex partners found that, during the previous 12 months, women with same-sex partners experienced more mental health disorders—such as major depression, phobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder—than did women with opposite sex partners

• Another study “found that lesbian and bisexual women who were ‘out’ experienced more emotional stress as teenagers and were 2 to 2.5 times more likely to experience suicidal ideation in the past 12 months than heterosexual women. Meanwhile, lesbian and bisexual women who were not ‘out’ were more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual women.”

• “Studies have found that lesbians are between 1.5 and 2 times more likely to smoke than heterosexual women.”

• “A number of studies have also suggested that lesbians are significantly more likely to drink heavily than heterosexual women.”

(See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Top Health Issues for LGBT Populations Information & Resource Kit. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4684. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012, C1-2). 

Homosexuality and the Mortality Rate:

A study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657).

 Pro-sodomite researchers actually tried to debunk the assertion that homosexuality is infested with disease and shortens the life expectancy of both male sodomites and lesbians. Despite their attempts to downplay the practical consequences of their research, it is difficult to ignore that the study concluded with the statement that "under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871." Much to their chagrin, the study revealed "life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men." 

In addition to all these problems, what sodomites do in private is so contrary to nature, there can be no doubt they are seriously mentally disturbed and should never be left alone with children. 

Warning! The following section contains graphic descriptions of perverted behavior, and may be found too disturbing for some to read. Reader discretion is strongly advised. 

Homosexual Practices:

• Anal sex (sodomy properly so-called) is practiced by 80% of homosexuals. Tearing or bruising of the anal wall is common, and opens the body to reception of germs through the rectum.  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

• Rimming is the practice of licking and stimulating the anus of another. The amount of fecal matter consumed, and exposure to disease is significant over time 

• Golden showers is the practice of urinating on the other person. About 20% of sodomites regularly drink and bathe in their partner's urine

• Fisting is the practice of inserting the hand (and sometimes the arm up to the elbow, or further) into the partner's rectum. Many sodomites have the sphincter muscles so weakened they soil themselves. (See Darling cited above)

• Scat Sports involves ingesting your partner's feces and/or rubbing it all over the face and body

• Toys is the term used for inserting objects into the rectum. Most commonly used are gerbils, placed in plastic and inserted in the rectum until the animal suffocates and dies. The thrashing of the poor creature gives the sodomite his perverse pleasure. 

Normal behavior? Not prone to hurt others (or themselves)? Think again. Can you imagine a child walking in on his adoptive parents performing one of these acts? Lord, have mercy. 

Objections

Pro-sodomite adoption advocates point to certain studies that seem to justify letting homosexuals be adoptive parents. Cornell University has this published:

Overview: We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group, researchers regard such studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment, and do not view large, representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Since all four took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks, these studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the well-being of LGB-headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children. (See whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents. Emphasis mine).

As one can see, I put this nonsense in the same category as the lies about COVID and the alleged efficacy about COVID vaccines. What genuine researchers/scientists do not consider "...large, representative samples as essential"?  On this basis we are supposed to consider "children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children"? 

Many governments of the world have condemned human cloning, by comparison, because of, among other things, potentially detrimental emotional and psychological consequences for those who would be cloned. If we can prohibit cloning with no prior studies conducted on clone subjects, based simply on common sense and fear of what might happen, how much more should we refrain from experimenting on our children, for fear of similar consequences? No run of inadequate studies will make up for the lives that would be damaged if we are wrong.

Some people may raise the objection that because the tests are inconclusive, reliable studies need to be conducted as soon as possible. One then can counter by inquiring as to whose children we are to use as guinea pigs. We are dealing with a group in which gross promiscuity, pedophilia, AIDS, suicide, and instability are known factors. The suggestion appears to be one more likely entertained in a barbarous rather than a civilized culture.

Conclusion

When discussing "gays" having children by artificial means or adopting a child outright, it is important to recognize that the highest good, or the child’s best interest, is not necessarily having parents, but having well-being itself. The two do not necessarily amount to the same thing. We would be loathe, for example, to grant a child to a known pedophile simply for the sake of supplying a parent figure. In light of the aforementioned data, we must face the very real possibility that having children growing up in same-sex homes will lead to incalculable harm both to the children and society. 

The governments of the world must ban sodomites from adopting or raising children conceived by unnatural means. It may already be too late, as those who commit the vilest sins against God and nature have begun raising the next generation. Pity those children who will grow up mentally, physically, and spiritually damaged having been turned against God from the beginning of their lives, and will bring down what's left of Christian society even faster.

Modern Psychology And The Church

 

There are situations that get to all of us. I had a friend from work who went through more than most people ever will. The poor woman was diagnosed with breast cancer at 38 years old. It was very aggressive and at 40 things were not looking good for her. Her sorry excuse for a husband abruptly abandoned her at this point. Three months after he left her, an electrical fire burned her home to the ground, and she (along with her then 12 year old daughter) had to move into her mother's basement. She went to Judgement less than a year later. Is there anyone who wouldn't be depressed at such a turn of events in their life? Thank God there were psychiatrists to give anti-depressants, and a good therapist (specializing in depression) with whom to talk. Of course getting spiritual help is paramount while getting other forms of  assistance. 

No one should feel ashamed to seek help if they need therapy. If you break a leg, you see a doctor; there's no shame in that, and there should be no shame in seeking out psychological help when needed. A great Traditionalist I knew was a psychologist who attended the Ave Maria Chapel of Fr. DePauw for many years. However, just as there are bad doctors, there are bad therapists and bad psychological methodologies. Many are anti-theistic and seek, not to help, but to weaken or destroy belief in God.

Although few like to state it, sinful living is the source of many ills that plague us. Few therapists believe that, let alone proclaim it. More and more, psychology is less about mental health, and mostly about pushing ideological agendas, like the "transgender" insanity. The dependence upon therapy is also out of control. According to one source, in 2002, around 27.2 million adults in the United States received treatment or counseling for their mental health within the past year as compared to 55.8 million in 2022. That's more than double in only twenty years. 

(See statista.com/statistics/794027/mental-health-treatment-counseling-past-year-us-adults). 

In the Vatican II sect, the "priests" are little more than glorified social workers, promoting a gospel of self-love and acceptance, and from which all traditional Catholic teaching on sin and the need for grace has been removed. It would be wrong and potentially tragic for individuals who need serious counseling to forsake it because they feel “all psychology is worthless.” That is not the case, nor is it the message of my post. 

In this post, it will be demonstrated that much of modern psychology:

• has inherent anti-Christian bias
• has many hidden dangers
• has occult influences

Hopefully, after reading this post, you'll be equipped to avoid the pitfalls of much of modern psychology, and receive real help should such ever be necessary. Such is possible. Besides the psychologist who was a Traditionalist, I have another psychologist friend ("conservative" Vatican II sect) who is very ethical. With this in mind, let the exposing of modern psychology begin.

An Inherent Anti-Christian Bias

While there is an almost universal rejection Sigmund Freud's (the so-called "father of psychotherapy") diabolic theories, there are some of his ideas that have remained and infected the practice of psychology. True psychology should seek behavior modification, drug therapies, and help deal with trauma to overcome phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders, etc. False psychology has pushed the following ideas:

• There is no sin. God is either denied or considered some vague "higher power."  No one needs forgiveness from God, they just suffer from an "addiction." Adulterers are merely "sex addicts." Those who bully others are "power addicts." Vatican II sect "priests" no longer offer sacrifice to God or forgive sin. They are more or less social workers using occasional religious verbiage. The confessional is not about doing penance, but discussing your "problems" that don't need supernatural remedies.

• Normalize the deviant. In 1973 the American Psychological Association (APA), removed homosexuality from its second edition of the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This is the book which lists mental problems. Since then, sodomites are considered "normal," they were no longer to be considered sick and/or immoral. Now gender dysphoria, along with sodomy, is celebrated. A man who wants to be a woman, or vice-versa, is "healthy and normal" as opposed to sinful or sick. 

• Make deviant the normal. People who reject "sodomite rights" for religious and/or ethical reasons are "homophobic." In other words there's something wrong with you in opposing sins against nature that (literally) "Scream to Heaven for Vengeance." If a man wants to "identify as a woman" we are expected to believe he is actually a woman. This is delusional and divorced from reality. Yet, YOU will be labeled as having a mental disorder---"transphobia." Ironically, those afflicted with anorexia and see themselves as morbidly obese when they are dangerously underweight, are rightfully treated as being mentally ill. How long before we must accept them as overweight or be labeled "transweight-phobic"? If you tell the truth that the statement "I identify as..." really means "I pretend to be..." you will be demonized and could lose your job in many cases. 

• Everything is ethical as long as you "don't hurt anyone" and there is "consent." Adultery is only wrong if your husband or wife doesn't consent. Having an "open marriage" where one or both can sleep around is ethical. Murder is wrong because someone gets hurt against their will. Euthanasia is ethical because the person consents to be killed. This concept of "consent" is out of control. I once told someone who was making anti-Christian remarks at a legal conference I attended, that I would not listen to his offensive garbage. As I got up to leave, I said, "You must be battling some horrible demons affecting you. I'll be praying for you." Enraged, he shouted "Don't you dare! I didn't consent to your prayers! And I don't believe in demons!" At this point, I turned around with a silent room watching. I calmly but forcefully stated, "Luckily, I don't need your consent to pray for you or anyone else I so choose. Just because you don't believe in demons doesn't make them any less real. If your understanding of the law is as poor as what I've heard today, I pity your clients. I'll double my prayers for you tonight." He stood red-faced with anger as I then exited. 

The Cult (and Dangers) of Unqualified "Self-Love and Acceptance"

There are two fundamental principles at work in modern psychology; you must love yourself and accept who you are. It sounds both innocent and benevolent, but it is neither. It is a huge departure from Church teaching. 

1. Self love. "If you don't love yourself first, no one else will." How often have you heard this slogan? Psychology will play off this notion and make you believe, "I won't be good to others if I'm not good to myself." Next thing you do is send your three-year old off to daycare forty hours per week, or dip into family funds to drink and gamble.

 Should you love yourself? That depends. We should like ourselves when we live in conformity to the Will of God. We should like ourselves for the good we do. However, we should not like ourselves and feel guilt for the evil we do. This is anathema to psychology. Psychologists want us to think of the self-rejecting teenager, trying to be popular. She should just love herself. Really? Even if she's not popular because she spreads rumors and manipulates others? Modern psychology denies Original Sin and the Fall.

Vatican II incorporated this idea into the heretical document Gaudium et Spes para. #13, "For sin has diminished man, blocking his path to fulfillment." It should say that, sin "prevents man from attaining his salvation." The error promotes the belief that man's "fullness" (he's "diminished" and has a blocked path to reaching his "fullness" or "fulfillment") is the principal value and, moreover, is the basic element of the idea of sin. On the contrary, the Church's perennial teaching is that sin is an offense committed against God because of which we merit legitimate punishment, including eternal damnation.

2. Accept yourself because you're not responsible. 

• We are products of our environment. (Blame your parents, poverty, society, but not yourself for anything about yourself you don't like)

• Therefore, we are not responsible or accountable for our actions.(Denial of free will)

• Therefore, we are victims. (No sin, just "addictions." You're a "man trapped inside a woman's body"? You were determined to be that way, so be proud of gender dysphoria, etc.)

Ironically, modern psychology tells us we are responsible for our own happiness. Yet how can we be responsible for anything if we are biologically and/or environmentally determined? (Self-contradiction won't interfere with their teachings!). In the Vatican II sect, many clergy teach that God must love us unconditionally since we can't help the way we are as products of our society. One of my regular readers wrote that she went to "confession" in the Vatican II sect (before finding her way back to the True Church), and for "penance" she was told to sit for a while in the Church and "let God love you" (whatever that means--you can't make this stuff up).

 Vatican II joins modern psychology in the heretical teaching of humanity's "intrinsic self-worth." In Gaudium et Spes, para. 24 states, "...if man is the only creature on earth God has wanted for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself," as if people possesses such value in themselves that it would cause God to create them.  In the Catholic meaning, the self-worth or "dignity of man" cannot be considered as a characteristic in people's very nature that imposes respect for all choices, because this dignity depends on right will turned toward the Good and is therefore a relative and not an absolute value.

On April 8, 2024, the so-called "Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith" (DDF) published the declaration Dignitas infinita (On Human Dignity), approved by Bergoglio. Two glaring errors in the declaration:

• Only God possesses infinite dignity
• Not all humans have equal dignity. A priest has more inherent dignity than a layman. A person who does good works to reach his final end possesses a dignity that is greater the more he seeks this end. Likewise, a person who turns away from his end and does evil forfeits this dignity, and is subject to the death penalty in certain circumstances, which Begoglio heretically rejects in principle

That's how far the Vatican II sect has fallen in line with modern psychology's obsession with "self-worth and acceptance." 

The Occult Teachings in Modern Psychology

 Psychology today is increasingly accepting the occult—so much so that an entire post would be needed to do justice to this topic.  As far back as 1988 psychologist Gary Collins wrote, “There is evidence that occult practices have been accepted by a large and perhaps growing number of psychological professionals.” (See Gary R. Collins, Can You Trust Psychology?, [1988], pg. 104).

 Indeed, their numbers are growing daily. Jungian, humanistic, shamanistic, transpersonal, Hindu, Buddhist, and fringe or esoteric psychologies as well as parapsychology are now fusing psychology and the occult as a means of very powerfully changing people. In a joint quest for self-awareness and personal empowerment, occultists themselves are joining hands with psychologists to blend their respective disciplines into a new discipline more potent than either discipline alone.

Texts such as Ken Wilbur’s The Atman Project and Alta LaDage’s Occult Psychology: A Comparison of Jungian Psychology and the Modern Qabalah, Seymour Boorstein’s (ed.) Transpersonal Psychotherapy, Walsh and Vaughan’s (eds.) Beyond Ego, Charles Tart’s (ed.) Transpersonal Psychologies, and periodicals such as The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology are only a few illustrations from psychologists or occultists which clearly indicate that psychology and psychotherapy have become working partners in the promotion and expansion of occult ideas, influences, and practices in our society. Jungian psychology is especially responsible.

Consider the conferences given by the Association for Humanistic Psychology (AHP). Its influential membership has had a major impact in modern psychology and within twentieth-century American culture. Yet, AHP conferences have included subjects such as past-life regression, Tantric medicine, spiritism and trance channeling, Gestalt astrology, shamanism, aura reading and voodoo. (See Maureen O’Hara, “Science, Pseudoscience, and Myth Mongering” in Robert Basil, ed., Not Necessarily the New Age: Critical Essays, pgs. 147-48, 164).

Today literally thousands of humanistic psychologists are actually open to spirit contact either directly or indirectly, though usually under some other name.

Sigmund Freud: Needing a Therapist and an Exorcist

That psychology began with antagonism towards God cannot be denied. Sigmund Freud ((1856-1939) remains the best known pioneer in the field of psychology. While his ideas are mostly ignored today, they still have had a great impact on society. Freud is portrayed as an atheist who shunned religion because of the "science of psychology" which supposedly proved God was a subconscious projection of the human mind.  Freud's criticism of the belief in God is called The Projection Theory. According to this theory, God is a projection of our own unconscious desires. As Freud wrote in his book The Future of an Illusion, "...the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection...which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fears of the dangers of life."

Freud's Projection Theory commits the genetic fallacy in logic. This occurs when you try to discredit an idea based on its origin. Even if belief in God came from an unconscious desire for a father-figure, this doesn't prove God non-existent. Perhaps the very reason we have such a desire is because Our Creator made it innate within us to seek Him out. But was Freud a man who "had it all together" and was a convinced atheist? Dr. Paul Vitz, a former professor of psychology at New York University, and a former atheist himself, gives us some insight into Freud in his book Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious. [1988]

Here are some interesting facts on the "Father of Psychotherapy:"

• Freud was very interested in occult phenomena such as telepathy and poltergeists

• On Saturday evenings, he would frequently play tarock - a form of a tarot card game associated with the Jewish Kabbala

• In 1937, when he was urged to flee Nazism, he responded that his real enemy was the Roman Catholic Church

• Was a cocaine addict and his excuse was  "I was making frequent use of cocaine to reduce some troublesome nasal swellings." 

• The Catholic psychiatrist Gregory Zilboorg concluded: "Religion was, for Freud, a field of which he knew very little and which moreover seems to have been the very center of his inner conflicts, conflicts that were never resolved."(Emphasis mine). 

Freud was psychologically conflicted, a drug addict, and an occultist. Not a shining example to follow.

(See also The Freudian Fallacy: Freud and Cocaine by E M Thornton [1986]).  

Conclusion

Psychology can be a force for good to help people. Unfortunately, it all too often turns out to be a substitute for religion--and a very poor one at that. The Vatican II sect is all about self-esteem and self-acceptance forgetting that Our Lord told us, "... If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." (St. Matthew 16:24). A proper, Christian understanding of self-esteem and self-acceptance is good; but we must reject our sin-prone nature, deny our wants, and conform ourselves to the Will of God. To do anything less is to resign oneself to sin and Hell.

The Four Temperaments---Sanguine (Part I)

 

To My Readers: I have received several requests for posts on the subject of The Four Temperaments. This week's post is the fourth installment to this most important and interesting topic. I will follow-up with other posts so that by 2025, I will have done some justice to presenting the Four Temperaments. I originally thought I could finish by December of this year, but that won't happen.  

I want to acknowledge that I take no credit for the posts on this topic. My primary sources will be from theologian Schagemann and his work entitled Manual of Self-Knowledge and Christian Perfection (1913).  Also, the work of theologian Hock The Four Temperaments (1934) will be used throughout this series of posts, with various other sources. I take absolutely no credit whatsoever for the content of this post (or the ones on this topic to follow). All I did was condense the material of these theologians into a terse post that hopefully will be advantageous for  those looking for information, but without time to read an entire book or two from the pre-Vatican II era on the subject.

I was going to treat of the phlegmatic temperament, but I have decided to publish that last due to the information being the least. I will combine it with some concluding considerations.  

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Sanguine Temperament---Part I

CHARACTER OF THE SANGUINE TEMPERAMENT 

The sanguine person is quickly aroused and vehemently excited by whatever influences him. The reaction follows immediately, but the impression lasts but a short time. Consequently the remembrance of the impression does not easily cause new excitement. 

FUNDAMENTAL DISPOSITION 

1. Superficiality. The sanguine person does not penetrate the depth, the essence of things; he does not embrace the whole, but is satisfied with the superficial and with a part of the whole. Before he has mastered one subject, his interest relaxes because new impressions have already captured his attention. He loves light work which attracts attention, where there is no need of deep thought, or great effort. To be sure, it is hard to convince a sanguine person that he is superficial; on the contrary, he imagines that he has grasped the subject wholly and perfectly. 

2. Instability. Because the impressions made upon a sanguine person do not last, they are easily followed by others. The consequence is a great instability which must be taken into account by anyone who deals with such persons, if he does not wish to be disappointed. St Peter assured our Lord that he was ready to go with Him, even die for Him, only to deny a few hours later that he did not know "this man." The crowds hailed our Lord with their Hosannas on Palm Sunday but cried: Crucify Him! a few days later. The sanguine is always changing in his moods; he can quickly pass from tears to laughter and vice versa; he is fickle in his views; today he may defend what he vehemently opposed a week ago; he is unstable in his resolutions. 

If a new point of view presents itself he may readily upset the plans which he has made previously. This inconsistency often causes people to think that the sanguine person has no character; that he is not guided by principles. The sanguine naturally denies such charges, because he always finds a reason for his changes. He forgets that it is necessary to consider everything well and to look into and investigate everything carefully beforehand, in order not to be captivated by every new idea or mood. He is also inconsistent at his work or entertainment; he loves variety in everything; he resembles a bee which flies from flower to flower; or the child who soon tires of the new toy.

 3. Tendency to the external. The sanguine does not like to enter into himself, but directs his attention to the external. In this respect he is the very opposite of the melancholic person who is given to introspection, who prefers to be absorbed by deep thoughts and more or less ignores the external. This leaning to the external is shown in the keen interest which the sanguine pays to his own appearance, as well as to that of others; to a beautiful face, to fine and modern clothes, and to good manners. In the sanguine the five senses are especially active, while the choleric uses rather his reason and will and the melancholic his feelings. The sanguine sees everything, hears 16 everything, talks about everything. He is noted for his facility and vivacity of speech, his inexhaustible variety of topics and flow of words which often make him disagreeable to others. The sanguine person in consequence of his vivacity has an eye for details, an advantageous disposition which is more or less lacking in choleric and melancholic persons. 

4. Optimism. The sanguine looks at everything from the bright side. He is optimistic, overlooks difficulties, and is always sure of success. If he fails, he does not worry about it too long but consoles himself easily. His vivacity explains his inclination to poke fun at others, to tease them and to play tricks on them. He takes it for granted. that others are willing to take such things in good humor and he is very much surprised if they are vexed on account of his mockery or improper jokes. 

5. Absence of deep passions. The passions of the sanguine are quickly excited, but they do not make a deep and lasting impression; they may be compared to a straw fire which flares up suddenly, but just as quickly dies down, while the passions of a choleric are to be compared to a raging, all-devouring conflagration. This lack of deep passions is of great advantage to the sanguine in spiritual life, insofar as he is usually spared great interior trials and can serve God as a rule with comparative joy and ease. He seems to remain free of the violent passions of the choleric and the pusillanimity and anxiety of the melancholic. 

BRIGHT SIDES OF THE SANGUINE TEMPERAMENT 

1. The sanguine person has many qualities on account of which he fares well with his fellow men and endears himself to them.

 a) The sanguine is an extrovert; he readily makes acquaintance with other people, is very communicative, loquacious, and associates easily with strangers. 

b) He is friendly in speech and behavior and can pleasantly entertain his fellow men by his interesting narratives and witticisms. 

c) He is very pleasant and willing to oblige. He dispenses his acts of kindness not so coldly as a choleric, not so warmly and touchingly as the melancholic, but at least in such a jovial and pleasant way that they are graciously received. 

d) He is compassionate whenever a mishap befalls his neighbor and is always ready to cheer him by a friendly remark. 

e) He has a remarkable faculty of drawing the attention of his fellow men to their faults without causing immediate and great displeasure. He does not find it hard to correct others. If it is necessary to inform someone of bad news, it is well to assign a person of sanguine temperament for this task. 

f) A sanguine is quickly excited by an offence and may show his anger violently and at times imprudently, but as soon as he has given vent to his wrath, he is again pleasant and bears no grudge. 

2. The sanguine person has many qualities by which he wins the affection of his superiors. 

a) He is pliable and docile. The virtue of obedience, which is generally considered as difficult, is easy for him.

 b) He is candid and can easily make known to his superiors his difficulties, the state of his spiritual life, and even disgraceful sins.

 c) When punished he hardly ever shows resentment; he is not defiant and obstinate. It is easy for a superior to deal with sanguine subjects, but let him be on his guard! Sanguine subjects are prone to flatter the superior and show a servile attitude; thus quite unintentionally endangering the peace of a community. Choleric and especially melancholic persons do not reveal themselves so easily, because of their greater reserve, and should not be scolded or slighted or neglected by the superiors. 

3. The sanguine is not obdurate in evil. He is not stable in doing good things, neither is he consistent in doing evil. Nobody is so easily seduced, but on the other hand, nobody is so easily converted as the sanguine. 

4. The sanguine does not long over unpleasant happenings. Many things which cause a melancholic person a great, deal of anxiety and trouble do not affect the sanguine in the least, because he is an optimist and as such overlooks difficulties and prefers to look at affairs from the sunny side. Even if the sanguine is occasionally exasperated and sad, he soon finds his balance again. His sadness does not last long, but gives way quickly to happiness. This sunny quality of the well trained sanguine person helps him to find community life, for instance, in institutions, seminaries, convents much easier, and to overcome the difficulties of such life more readily than do choleric or melancholic persons. Sanguine persons can get along well even with persons generally difficult to work with. 

No temperament is so well suited as this to make a man a useful member of a community. By nature he is inclined to serve others. It is a pleasure to ask favors of him. He is always ready to give his services. He is forgiving. Though he has been wronged, he is not inclined to harbor an ill will towards the of fender. He will quickly forget the wrong done to him. At the same time he is indulgent to the faults of others. He will not judge harshly nor treat his companions with severity. One trait that especially endears him to his associates is his frankness. All that have intercourse with him are charmed by his cheerful disposition.

Then, too, he is apt to captivate others, because he is a ready speaker. One of the greatest advantages of this temperament is, that, without much difficulty it can accommodate itself to a life of obedience and spirituality.

Conclusion

This concludes the first part of understanding the sanguine temperament. The next installment will discuss the "dark side" of the sanguine, and how those with such temperament should self-train for spiritual advancement. That post will conclude the second temperament under consideration. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 31

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Is Jesus History?

Once again there are rants by so-called "Internet infidels" and other secularists that question Jesus Christ. To be certain, they are not questioning His Divinity. There are atheist scholars who do so, claiming Jesus of Nazareth was a mere Human and myths grew about His Life; it was "mythologized history." Rather, these pseudo-scholars claim that there was no such Person as Jesus of Nazareth; it was "historical myth." 

These historical skeptics speak out of ignorance. My attention was brought to that of one Dr. Steven Novella (b. 1964), a clinical neurologist and associate professor at Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Novella blogs on all things using "science and reason." Of course, he is a self-admitted atheist. Novella has a post (from 2017 and being regurgitated today) where he cites two articles; one in favor of the historicity of Christ, and one opposed. (See https://theness.com/neurologicablog/the-evidence-for-the-history-of-jesus/). Novella finds the skeptic's article more convincing (surprise, surprise), and ends with this conclusion:

In the end we are left with, I think, two main conclusions. The first is that we simply do not know if Jesus was an actual person who existed. The evidence for a historical Jesus is thin, but there is no specific evidence refuting his existence.

The second conclusion, however, is that it doesn’t really matter. Even if a prophet named Jesus lived at that time and some of Christian mythology is based on his life, the core of Christian mythology is not. As Tarico argues, any actual history is muddled by mythology.

So there you have it. We don't know if Jesus Christ existed, and if He did, it was all "muddled mythology" anyway. Why would someone bring this to my attention? Well, Novella is highly educated and intelligent. Although absolutely true, he is an ultracrepidarian, i.e., one who speaks outside the realm of his expertise. In today's world, anyone with an Instagram account can be an "expert." Lest anyone ask how a lawyer blogs about theology, the answer is I wouldn't if the Great Apostasy hadn't happened. We would have the pope and his bishops to guide us. I'm not a theologian, but a simple layman doing the best he can to make his Catholic way through these spiritually dark times. I credit Fr. DePauw, a real canonist, for helping me. In the absence of Magisterial authority, I can defend Church teachings, and see how they can be applied to today's situation.

For Novella, why is he injecting himself into a subject of which he has no expertise? His position gives credibility to what he believes, and he uses this to his advantage. It is telling that he cites very little from Dr. Simon J. Gathercole, Professor at the University of Cambridge and a scholar on the topics of the New Testament and early Christianity. Dr. Gathercole wrote in favor of the historicity of Christ. Instead, Novella cites approvingly and several times from  the authors of the article opposing the historicity of Christ: Valerie Tarico and David Fitzgerald. Who are they, you ask?

• Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and former Protestant turned atheist. She has written books against religion. She is a feminist and advocates for abortion.

• Davis Fitzgerald is described as "an atheist author, public speaker and historical researcher who has been actively investigating the Historical Jesus question for over twenty years, and was an associate member of CSER (the former Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion). " He has written a book called Jesus: Mything in Action.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the problem here. A woman with a doctorate in psychology and wanting to have the "right" to murder innocent unborn babies, assisted by a man whose education is unknown and does his own non-peer reviewed "research" are no more qualified to write on this issue than the man from Roto-Rooter is qualified to give someone a colonoscopy. They are, nevertheless, endorsed by a clinical neurologist ("ooh! Ahh! He must know everything!"). 

I will be the first to admit that even if someone is qualified to speak on a subject, it doesn't necessarily make them correct in what they state, but it's the place from where you must start.  You (hopefully) wouldn't want an attorney to perform surgery, no matter his intelligence. Nor should you give credence to a neurologist when it comes to matters of theological importance. 

To show how bereft of understanding these sciolists really are, read the following from Tarico/Fitzgerald's article:

Either way, as New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman points out, the Testimonium Flavanium merely repeats common Christian beliefs of the late first century, and even if it was 100% genuine would provide no evidence about where those beliefs came from. This same applies to other secular references to Jesus–they definitely attest to the existence of Christians and recount Christian beliefs at the time, but offer no independent record of a historical Jesus.

In sum, while well-established historic figures like Alexander the Great are supported by multiple lines of evidence, in the case of Jesus we have only one line of evidence: the writings of believers involved in spreading the fledgling religion. (See rawstory.com/2017/04/evidence-for-jesus-is-weaker-than-you-might-think; Emphasis mine). 

Bart Ehrman (b. 1955) is indeed a New Testament scholar, whose historical-critical methodology led to his becoming an avowed atheist. Tarico/Fitzgerald cite him in support of their position that the historical Christ never existed. Is that really the case? Do we only have a single line of evidence for Jesus Christ---the writings of believers in early Christianity?

As an attorney, one of the best things that can happen is having a hostile witness testify that something you presented to the court is true. Both judge and jury will accord such great evidentiary weight because the witness does not want your case to prevail. Therefore, anything to which they admit which helps your case is seen as having no confirmation bias, i.e., the witness would not want anything that helps your case to be true. 

The rest of this post will present, in their own words, what atheist Bible scholars have said about the historicity of Christ. Remember, it would be a great benefit to them if they could declare the Person Christianity reveres as God to be a mythical figure and non-historical. 

What Atheist Biblical Scholars Really Teach

Bart Ehrman is one of the most respected New Testament scholars of our day.  He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, and received his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary.

Ehrman says that the proponents of the Christ-myth theory do not define what they mean by “myth” and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.  He discusses leading contemporary mythicists by name in his book Did Jesus Exist?, and dismisses their arguments as “amateurish”, “wrong-headed”, and “outlandish”.  The whole book outlines all of the historical evidence for Jesus, which tearing down the unscholarly view that Jesus is a myth.

Ehrman in his own words:

There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.

And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.. (See huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544; Emphasis mine).

In The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, (2000), he says:

One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. (pg. 162; Emphasis mine).

In addition to Ehrman, here are others who have no love of Christianity; they deny that Jesus is the Son of God, they don’t think Jesus was divine in any way, and they deny that Jesus rose from the dead.  They are just atheistic or agnostic scholars of the ancient world who hold academic positions in fields of study relevant to the history of Jesus of Nazareth.

Gerd Ludemann (d. 2021) – A German New Testament Historian. Professor at the University of Gottinggen as a member of the Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity.  He believes Jesus existed but denies His divinity and the resurrection:

Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable. In The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, (2004), pg 50; Emphasis mine. 

John Dominic Crossan (b. 1934)– An Irish New Testament professor and historian. He was an apostate Catholic priest, ordained in 1957.  He teaches Jesus existed but wasn’t God:

That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus…agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact. – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.  pg. 145; Emphasis mine. 

Michael Grant (d. 2004) – A Classicist, 3 history degrees, former vice-chancellor at Queen’s University of Belfast and former president of the University of Kartoum:

In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (2004) pg. 200.

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Ibid, pgs. 199-200; All emphasis mine. 

Ed Parish Sanders (d. 2022) – A New Testament scholar. Former Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, North Carolina. Two doctorates in theology. One of the most respected New Testament historians.

The Historical Figure of Jesus, pgs. 10-11:

I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.) Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great; he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptized by John the Baptist; he called disciples; he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities); he preached ‘the kingdom of God’; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover; he created a disturbance in the Temple area; he had a final meal with the disciples; he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest; he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

He goes on to say:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism. Ibid.; All emphasis mine

Geza Vermes (d. 2013) – Ph.D. in theology. Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan.  Former professor of Jewish studies at the University of Oxford:

Who was Jesus? Did he exist? Was he God? Is he still relevant? To start with, the existence of Jesus is no longer debatable. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea between AD26 and 36, and was most probably born shortly before the death of Herod the Great in 4BC. Quasi-certainty stops here. (See ebionite.tripod.com/GV.htm; Emphasis mine). 

George Albert Wells (d. 2017)– Atheist and Emeritus professor of German at the University of London. Once believed Jesus was a myth, and one of the best known advocates of the so-called “Christ myth” theory. Wells changed his position to accept the existence of a historical Jesus. In 2003 Wells stated that he now disagrees on the information about Jesus being “all mythical:"

“Nearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus’ historicity as ridiculous.” He adds, “the view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity … is today almost universally rejected.”  “Serious students of the New Testament today regard the existence of Jesus as an unassailable fact” – Did Jesus Exist?, Revised edition (1986), pg. 213. and The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988), pg. 218; Emphasis mine.

Marcus Borg (d. 2015) – Ph.D. Former Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University. He was a Bible scholar and an agnostic who believed Jesus was a Jewish prophet and teacher.

In an interview, Borg is asked “So we have the proposition: “Jesus once walked this earth.” True or false?”. Borg responds: “True.  The reasons for thinking that Jesus was invented by the early Christians are so weak. We have no reason to think that they did...Now if someone wants to say, “Can you prove absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus existed?” one would have to say, “No.” Can one prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Julius Caesar existed, one would have to say, “No.” But again, we’re talking about probability judgments, so that the inability to prove something absolutely, does not mean that its opposite is therefore likely to be true." 

(See blog.homileticsonline.com/interviews/being-christian-in-the-21st-century-interview-with-marcus-borg; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

It is a fact that not a single academic scholar today with a  doctorate in a relevant field of study claims that Jesus did not exist. However, we live in a world where an "Internet influencer" is revered as an ersatz "expert." Is it therefore any wonder that if an atheist psychologist, aided by an atheist "researcher" with no advanced education at all, writes an article that claims Jesus didn't exist, people will be taken in by it? Making it "more impressive" is its endorsement by a neurologist who knows little to nothing of historical research methodology. 

The same reasoning applies in all areas of our lives. You wouldn't take a medication that sat around so long that a professional pharmacist told you it may be poisonous now. You wouldn't let a lawyer perform open heart surgery on you, and you wouldn't want a surgeon defending you in a criminal trail. How much more must people not listen to people like Fred and Bobby Dimond, two men who have no formal ecclesiastical education or training and no secular education beyond high school, yet they will tell you where St. Alphonsus Liguori "made mistakes." Thousands of people follow them into Feeneyite heresy. Likewise, don't be fooled by pseudo-experts in irrelevant fields who try and tell you there was no historical Jesus Christ. "Do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell. " (St. Matthew 10:28).