Off To The Races

 

The subject of race relations is a hot potato. On the one hand, the "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion" (DEI) lunacy is toxic and false, and so is "Critical Race Theory" (CRT) now being taught in many schools/colleges. On the opposite side, you have Hitler Fan Boys/Girls promoting superiority of race even in matters of religion. While most Traditionalists will not subscribe to DEI indoctrination, there are (unfortunately) those who hold to false theories regarding race. 

This week's post will be in two parts. Part One will focus on exposing the evils of CRT (from which DEI springs forth). Part Two will give an insight into true Church teaching regarding race from a pre-Vatican II priest who wrote on moral topics. (I have compiled the information in this post from many sources, both in print and online. I take no credit other than putting everything into a terse post and adding some commentary---Introibo). 

Part One: What is CRT and Why is it Evil?

Critical Race Theory is part of "Critical Theory," which is an umbrella term that encompasses many different critical social theories including entire disciplines like cultural studies, postcolonialism, critical pedagogy, postmodernism, feminism, black feminism, queer theory, in addition to critical race theory. So, what are the ideas at the heart of contemporary CRT?

1. Racism is endemic, normal, permanent, and pervasive.

 

2. Racism is concealed beneath ideas like colorblindness, meritocracy, individualism, neutrality, and objectivity.

3. Lived experience is critical to understanding racism. 

4. Racism is one of many interlocking systems of oppression, including sexism, classism, and heterosexism. 

Let’s now survey each of these central ideas individually.

Racism is endemic, normal, permanent, and pervasive.

The idea that racism is a normal part of American society is perhaps the most foundational idea of CRT. It is first on the list of the “Basic Tenets of Critical Race Theory” provided by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic: “First, racism is ordinary, not aberrational—‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country.” (See Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. pg. 8). 

CRT rejects a strictly traditional definition of racism that rests squarely on individual racial prejudice or explicitly discriminatory laws. While CRT certainly agrees that individuals and laws can be racist, it offers a much broader definition of racism that includes systems and structures that perpetuate the racial status quo, regardless of whether they are accompanied by racial hatred or even discriminatory intent.

So, according to CRT, how exactly does racism operate today? That brings us to a second central idea of CRT:

Racism is concealed beneath ideas like colorblindness, meritocracy, individualism, neutrality, and objectivity.

The immediate response is often “Which laws and policies are racist? Didn’t civil rights legislation prohibit discrimination on the basis of race? Isn’t there now equal opportunity for everyone under the law? Isn’t interpersonal racism waning? Isn’t there genuine social pressure to not be racist? Aren’t we moving toward a color-blind society in which people are judged as individuals, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?” These questions point to another central component of CRT—namely, that ideas like colorblindness, meritocracy, individualism, neutrality, and objectivity are ideological in nature. From the perspective of CRT, they are actually not remedies for racism but are instead mechanisms that preserve the racial status quo.

Delgado and Stefancic write: “[F]or the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.” (Ibid, pg. 104). CRT challenges the very notion that objective truth exists when it comes to merit, morality, law, and politics. 

Lived experience is critical to understanding racism.

Critical race theorists believe that contemporary views on race were shaped by particular hegemonic narratives about colorblindness, meritocracy, and social progress. These narratives needed to be challenged and overturned by counternarratives offered by people of color who had come to recognize their own oppression. To hear these stories, we need to “look to the margins,” to people whose voices, stories, and narratives had been excluded, ignored, or hidden by society’s dominant ideologies. Yet the evidence for this is all but non-existent.

Racism is one of many interlocking systems of oppression, including sexism, classism, and heterosexism.

Critical race theory’s insistence that one cannot separate CRT’s analysis of racism from (alleged) sexism, heterosexism (pro-sodomites), classism (pro-Marxism), and other forms of "oppression" is especially important when trying to assess the question of whether Christianity and critical race theory are compatible (the answer is NO!). 

Traditional Catholicism and CRT: Worlds Apart

Traditionalist Catholicism and CRT have different worldviews. Most philosophy texts define a worldview as the comprehensive framework of beliefs, values, and assumptions through which a person views and interprets reality. Derived from the German word Weltanschauung, it functions like an overarching lens that shapes how individuals understand existence, morality, purpose, and their place in the universe. It is not an overstatement to view contemporary critical theory as a worldview for many who embrace it. Its nature (its intrinsic features, characteristics, and functions) is indicative of a worldview. Its telos, (i.e., its full expression and ultimate goals) is indicative of worldview.

A comparison will immediately make the mutual exclusivity of Traditionalist Catholicism and CRT apparent: 

Worldview question: What is a human being?

Church answer: A creature made in the image and likeness of God.

CRT answer: A member of various social groups locked in a struggle for dominance.

Worldview question: What is the fundamental human problem? 

Church answer: Sin.

CRT answer: Oppression.

Worldview question: How can the fundamental human problem be solved?

Church answer: Redemption through the One True Church of Christ.

CRT answer: Activism and solidarity.

Worldview question: What is my primary moral duty? 

Church answer: Doing God's Will and saving your soul.

CRT answer: Dismantling unjust structures and systems.

Worldview question: How do I know the truth?

Church answer: Reason and Revelation.

CRT answer: Lived experience.

Worldview question: What is the final destiny of humanity?

Church answer: The General Judgement and either Heaven or Hell.

CRT answer: Social justice on Earth. 

The Illogical and Immoral Claims of CRT

CRT claims that America is systemically racist and that the entire social system disadvantages "people of color" (POC)---a term that includes all non-White people, but which usually refers to African Americans. Any discrepancy in the achievements between POC and White people is due primarily, or entirely, to this systemic racism, which is supposedly “baked into the system.” The claim of systemic racism is often accompanied by the idea that America has been racist from its beginning. The 1619 Project, a long-form journalism project of the New York Times that aims to reframe national history, claims that America was founded on racism when the first slaves were brought here in 1619. 

(See “The 1619 Project,” New York Times Magazine, August 14, 2019, nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html)

Any idea of “American exceptionalism” (in the good sense) is therefore deemed racist, xenophobic, white supremacist, and so on.

All White people are racist, say CRT advocates. They grant that not all White people harbor explicit ill will toward POC, but since they are part of a racist system, they participate in racism simply by being White. They must be taught to realize this, which is the goal of the popular book White Fragility (Beacon Press, 2018) by Robin DiAngelo. White people, particularly heterosexual White males, are the oppressors in society. This is, itself, racist in addition to being both insulting and looney. 

“White privilege” refers to the alleged condition of unearned and unjust benefits (economic, cultural, and emotional) that POC and sexual minorities do not experience. “White supremacy” is the ideology that says White people will fight to keep their white privilege over POC, even if they do so unconsciously. This is a redefinition of the older definition, which emphasizes a conscious belief that Whites are superior to Blacks and should, therefore, control them.

“Racial essentialism” is a tricky term. On the one hand, CRT says that race is “constructed” socially and not inherent in people. In this sense, it is postmodern. On the other hand, race is what determines whether one is oppressed or an oppressor. How this conflict is resolved escapes me, but perhaps it can be claimed that racial conceptions are constructed by the oppressors in order to oppress. As such, they are real. However, in terms of one’s objective being, they are false.

“Standpoint epistemology” is the belief that, unlike White people, POC and "sexual minorities" (sodomites and other perverts) have a privileged perspective on matters of racial oppression. Their “lived experience” defines objective reality. If someone questions that perspective, he or she is assumed to be racist. Thus, former CNN host Don Lemon would often speak of “his truth” of experiencing racism and "homophobia" as a sodomite Black man, as do others seeking to advance this agenda. This approach denies any objective approach to truth.

Summary: CRT is Contrary to Church Teaching

• Worldview: CRT replaces a Traditionalist Catholic worldview, which views all people as made in the image of God, and replaces it with a framework centered on group power struggles and oppression

• Identity: CRT defines human identity primarily by race, (and to a lesser degree by gender and social class) rather than by spiritual standing as creatures of God with an eternal destiny

• Sin: CRT redefines sin as systemic or structural oppression rather than a personal moral failure against an All Holy God

• Salvation: CRT looks to human activism, equity programs, and societal deconstruction for liberation instead of looking to the cross of Jesus Christ

• Justice: CRT replaces God's justice, which requires impartial fairness and truth, with an ideology that favors certain groups based on their social status

Part Two: The Church and Race

This section is taken verbatim from an article in the Liguorian Magazine of August 1956. It was written by Fr. Donald Miller, a priest of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorists). Like their founder (St. Alphonsus Liguori), Redemptorists examine various issues from the perspective of Moral Theology. Fr. Miller was addressing the problem of segregation in the United States. The principles he expounds upon are applicable to all situations involving race. I found it interesting as to the wisdom taught by the Church and as explained by Fr. Miller.---Introibo

 Is racial segregation as a theory or principle contrary to the Will of God and the Natural Law?

The theory of segregation on the basis of assumed innate inferiority of one race to another is absolutely contrary to the Divine Will and the Natural Law. It has been condemned often by the Church as racism, on the ground that God created all men of all races equal in essential nature, equal in capacity for redemption by the Blood of Christ, equal in their destiny for the Beatific Vision in Heaven.  

No Catholic can hold for the essential inferiority of the Negro race to the white race without denying these essential qualities, which denial becomes the basis for many sins against justice and charity. 

The differences which God created in various races, or which, as some maintain, God permitted to develop over the course of history, through climate, environment, living conditions, etc., are not sufficient evidence of a mandate of God that races at all times be segregated. Rather, the sameness of the essential nature, faculties, destiny and privileges of all human beings of whatever race manifests a much clearer mandate of God that, when members of different races are found in the same community, they live together in peace, justice, and charity. This means that they live together without an artificial and enforced segregation. 

If skin color is so important as to manifest the Divine Will in favor of segregation, why stop there? Or where shall we stop? Why not say that differences of hair color, or different shades of blonde and brunette also manifest a Divine basis for segregation between these types of human beings? Everybody can see the absurdity of such an idea; yet differences of skin color are just as accidental to human nature itself as differences of hair color. 

So, you approve of inter-racial marriage?

We merely state this truth: inter-racial marriage is prohibited by no Natural, Divine, or ecclesiastical law. The local civil laws forbidding such marriages, and the popular antipathy against them, are part of a heritage of prejudice. 

Does not the fact that Communists are known to be trying to stir up trouble over the racial issue create the danger that Catholics will be serving the Communist cause if they campaign against segregation? Are not many well-meaning but duped Catholics thus being sucked into the Communist conspiracy?

Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical on Atheistic Communism, pointed out the truth that Communism thrives on actual social injustices; when injustices are removed from society, the appeal of Communism is nullified. Certainly, Communists are using racial discrimination to foment strife, and as long as discrimination continues, Communism will make converts. That is one of the important reasons for opposition to such discrimination.

If what you say is true, why has not the Catholic Church officially pronounced on this matter during the long history of segregation? By Her silence, She seemed to approve of segregation. Even today there is no official pronouncement of the Pope on the subject.

There have been many pronouncements of Popes that have a bearing on the morality of segregation. They have condemned "racism," which is a belief, taught as a theory or manifested in practice, that one race or class of people is inferior to another. They have often proclaimed the doctrine of the unity and solidarity of the human race, according to which all men are children of the same Father, redeemed by the same Blood of Christ, destined for the same Heaven, endowed with the same inalienable rights. All that has been said above is merely an application of these truths to a current situation. 

 The Teaching of the Church

Here is some of the Church teaching alluded to by Fr. Miller in the previous section. ---Introibo

In his first encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (1914), Pope Benedict XV declares that the relations between people should be one of brothers and sisters, i.e., of those who are one in nature because they are of the same family created by God. Discussing the ravages of the First World War (1914-1918), His Holiness writes, "Who would imagine as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human family?" (para. #3; Emphasis mine). 

In Mortalium Animos (1928), Pope Pius XI teaches, "... it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another." (para. #1; Emphasis mine). The same holy pontiff ordered the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities to compose a letter refuting and condemning racism and Nazi "Aryan race" ideology in order to prevent it from infecting Catholic educational institutions. The result was a privately circulated document entitled Instruction Concerning Racism, Its Doctrinal Errors and the Measures to be Employed Against Their Spread (hereinafter "Instruction"). The Instruction was dated April 13, 1938 and a complete English translation was made by canonist Bouscaren in the Canon Law Digest-Supplement 1941 (pgs. 165-167). The Congregation's Instruction condemns no less than eight (8) propositions as being both "pernicious" and "absurd:"

I. The human races, by their natural and immutable characters, are so different from each other that, the humblest of them is further from the highest race than of the highest animal species.

II. We must by all means, preserve and cultivate strong race and purity of blood, so that all which leads to this result is therefore honest and permitted.

III. It is blood, seat of the characteristics of the race, that all the intellectual and moral qualities of man derive as their main source.

IV. The basic purpose of education is to develop the characters of the race and inflame the minds of a burning love of their own race as the supreme good.

V. Religion is subject to the law of race and must be adapted to it.

VI. The first source and the supreme rule of law and order is racial instinct.

VII. There exists only the Cosmos or living universe; all things, including humans, are only various forms growing over the ages of universal life.

VIII. Each man exists only by the State and for the State. All that he rightly possesses derives exclusively from a concession to the State.

It shouldn't be too hard to understand that racism is inexorably linked to the damnable doctrine of Social Darwinism. It is taken from the false teaching of Charles Darwin (d. 1882) regarding evolution. The term "evolution" is used to refer to the general theory that all life on earth has evolved from non-living matter and progressed to more complex forms with time; humans are not special in any way--both body and soul (or "consciousness")-- comes from brute matter. This stands condemned by the Church.

Conclusion

"Crazy Race Theory" is anti-Christian, pseudo-intellectual claptrap. It must be firmly rejected. We must learn from the Church the correct view of race and avoid the extremes of CRT and divisive hatred based on racism. "After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb." (Apocalypse 7:9). 

Pharmakeia

 

It read like something out of a violent "slasher" horror movie. In April of 2018, Chad O’Melia met Bryn Spejcher and her Siberian Husky at a dog park. They immediately hit it off and began dating. At the time he was 26 and she was 27. Their relationship came to a brutal end a month later on May 27th in their hometown of Thousand Oaks, California. 

Spejcher went to Mr. O’Melia’s apartment where both took several hits from a "bong" (water pipe used to smoke dope) loaded with marijuana. Bryn almost immediately heard voices. Dark, guttural voices. She went to Chad’s kitchen and returned with a knife in each hand. She began to stab him. “Keep going,” the voices commanded. “Don’t stop. You’re almost there.”

She obeyed. She later testified that she felt like something else had taken control—as if she were watching her own body from the outside.

Bryn stabbed Chad over one hundred times, penetrating every major organ. Then she turned and began stabbing her own dog. When police arrived, she was kneeling over Chad’s lifeless body, plunging a serrated bread knife into her own neck. What terrified officers wasn’t just the blood. It was the strength--and the look in her eyes.

They tased her four times. She didn’t react. They struck her nine times with a steel baton, breaking her arm in five places. She kept going. Bryn had no history of mental illness. One of her professors testified that of the thousand graduate students he had taught, “none has ever been better than Bryn Spejcher.” (Spejcher worked as an audiologist). 

In December of 2023, Spejcher was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to an underwhelming two years of probation and no prison time with a mandated 100 hours of community service. Her defense to the crime was "cannabis induced psychosis" and the case was referred to as "Refer Madness."  (Compiled from multiple sources---See e.g., toacorn.com/articles/jurors-find-spejcher-guilty-of-manslaughter; and https://www.vcdistrictattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/23-141-Spejcher-Nafziger-Convicted-SW.pdf). 

So, is this some made-up defense, like the so-called "Twinkie defense" (a reference to the1979 trial of Dan White, who killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. His lawyers argued he had a diminished mental state from severe depression, shown partly by eating junk food); or is there something more to it? 

The Horror Stories Continue

Robert Corry was the attorney who legalized recreational marijuana in Colorado in 2012--the poster child for cannabis advocacy, the legal mind who assured America that marijuana was safe. What supreme irony that he would become the male version of Spejcher. 

In 2019, Corry was arrested for waving a sword at strangers in Denver. Weeks earlier, he had kidnapped a woman at Denver International Airport, hijacked her car, crashed through the airport parking garage gate, and told her he would kill her if she didn’t stay quiet. He claimed he was being chased by “Arabs with a helicopter.” (See denver7.com/news/crime/denver-attorney-rob-corry-arrested-again-after-allegedly-threatening-people-with-sword; See also cbsnews.com/colorado/news/robert-corry-arrested-kidnapping-case-denver-international-airport-arabs).

To be clear, Cory was not some 18-year-old punk with a rap sheet. This was a seasoned, high-powered attorney coming apart like a man possessed. Cannabis-induced psychosis. The top marijuana lawyer in America was undone by the very drug he championed. Today, he admits the errors of his ways and fights against the drug-genie he let out of the bong. 

I warned against legalized marijuana and the abuse of prescription drugs in my home state of New York. Now, in the wake of legalization, that warning is being proven correct. I can't go out without smelling marijuana everywhere. Drug-induced crimes have skyrocketed. Even young children are being caught in the drug web. If Johnny misbehaves, mother increases his Ritalin dose; and to keep herself on an even keel, she takes Prozac. A large percentage of Americans no longer know how to stand up to adversity and thereby develop strength of character. Instead of facing their problems and working through to a solution, they insist upon a wonder drug to assist them with every difficulty.

Got a problem? Take a drug. Want to relax? Take a drug. Can't get a prescription? There's always legal marijuana. While I have read many good articles on the mental and physical harm of drug abuse (in all its forms), hardly any discuss the doorway they open to the demonic. Hence, the purpose of this post.  

(The information in this post comes from myriad sources, both in print and online. I take no credit except for compiling it into a terse post and adding some commentary.---Introibo).

What's Going On?

The doctors don’t know exactly what they’re dealing with, but they see what "safe" drugs do; especially the marijuana now legalized (as of this writing) in 24 states and Washington D.C.  

Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse since 2003, has watched the data pile up for two decades: We are seeing a very significant rise in psychosis associated with the consumption of marijuana. And the higher the content of THC, the higher the likelihood of a psychotic episode. 

(See thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/potent-marijuana-strain-in-us-causing-psychosis-time-bomb-v2zfxd9km).

Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn, chair of psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine, sees it firsthand in her patients: When I see youths with psychotic symptoms, they’re almost always using lots of cannabis. (See nbcnews.com/health/health-news/teens-marijuana-use-mental-disorders-research-rcna153344).  Science has documented the symptoms, but it is beginning to realize it is staring into something it can never comprehend---the demonic.

A Problem Not Just Physical But Spiritual 

Society has been telling us that alcohol and marijuana are "harmless." Yet we are seeing the opposite. While alcohol can be used in moderation, the use of marijuana cannot without loss of reason to one degree or another. 

The Teaching of the Church on Drugs

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

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

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

The Devil is in the Details

What modern doctors are only now discovering, ancient physicians saw two thousand years ago.

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times investigative reporter, and author of the extensively researched book Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence, unearthed a chilling historical warning. The Pen-ts’ao Ching, the first comprehensive pharmacopeia ever created, warned Chinese physicians around 100 AD that excessive cannabis use caused users to see “devils” (See Berenson [2019], p. xxiii) They also had “stimulated uncontrollable violence and criminal inclinations.” (Ibid) They believed the drug acted as a spiritual catalyst, a doorway to evil.  Seeing devils. Uncontrollable violence. Two thousand years ago!

Berenson didn’t stop with ancient warnings. Working with a Columbia University professor of clinical biostatistics, he analyzed modern data and they documented a sharp and undeniable rise in emergency room visits, violent crime, and schizophrenia tied directly to cannabis use.

Ancient doctors said it caused “seeing devils.” Modern doctors say “psychosis” and “schizophrenia.” The language has changed, but the pattern hasn’t. The “devils” seen by the ancients are now filling our modern psychiatric wards.

In the 1960s, Timothy Leary, "the Pied Piper of Harvard," led mesmerized youth into spiritual experiences that materialistic scientism had told them did not exist. Leary’s LSD (and other psychedelics) turned out to be the launching pad for mind trips "beyond the physical universe of time, space, and matter" to a strange dimension where anything was possible. For millions it was a “mind-blowing” experience that forever changed their lives.

The drugs of abusers put people into an altered state of consciousness; hence, the attraction. Those of you who read my series of posts called "Singing For Satan" (published August 2017-August 2019), know that almost all of the musicians were drug users, and most claimed contact/inspiration from "spirits"--Eminem, The Eagles, etc. They used drugs and entered into an altered state of consciousness which makes one susceptible (like hypnosis) to demonic forces. So-called "shamans" (pagan "witch-doctors") take drugs for this very reason; it enables them to make "contact with the spirits." Leary called the Beatles “the four evangelists.” Listening to the Beatles’ album Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, Leary said, “The Beatles have taken my place. That latest album—a complete celebration of LSD.” (See Jay Stevens, Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream, [1987], pg. 345). 

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

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

There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.  (See academyofideas.com/2018/06/aldous-huxley-brave-new-world-dark-side-of-pleasure; Emphasis mine). 

Conclusion

A woman commits an unspeakably violent act resulting in the death of a man and she gets a slap on the wrist because of "cannabis induced psychosis." Where is the outrage to make marijuana illegal again? Both Bryn Spejcher and Robert Corry were educated, law abiding adults with no history of mental illness. Both smoked dope on a regular basis with no sign of any problem. Then it hits out of the blue. It can happen only once or more often---they felt possessed and committed crimes. 

It's not fully understood by medical science, yet the Church has always taught the sinfulness of drug abuse or pharmakeia --a form of sorcery used by pagans and occultists to call on demons. When people sin and alter their mind, the door to evil is opened. Ask demons into your life, and they will take you up on your offer. As the push for legalization of marijuana in all 50 states continues, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) aggressively push to end the "War on Drugs". They advocate for repealing all laws criminalizing the possession, use, and delivery of controlled substances. (See nacdl.org/Landing/DrugLaw). 

Dr. Carl Hart, a neuroscientist at Columbia University, has been a highly visible proponent of legalizing all drugs for "responsible adult use," arguing that prohibition creates more harm (!) than the substances themselves. We will be seeing much more violence and madness. Enjoying their drugs, the masses do nothing. The supremely evil Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opium (drug) of the people." He got it backwards. Truly, "Opium is the religion of the people" today. 

The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass And Fleeing All Uncleanness

 

To My Readers: This week guest poster John Gregory reminds us about what a treasure we have in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In an age of near universal apostasy, if any Traditionalist Catholic has access to a True Mass, remember how blessed you are by God and resolve never to take the Mass for granted!! John Gregory then reminds us of the duties and obligations we have in following the Ninth and Tenth Commandments. 

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

THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS AND FLEEING ALL UNCLEANNESS

By John Gregory 

Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness (Ephesians 5: 2). 

The Eucharist as a Sacrifice

 

We must now proceed to explain its nature as a Sacrifice, that pastors may understand what are the principal instructions which they ought to impart to the faithful on Sundays and holy days, regarding this mystery in conformity with the decree of the holy Council (of Trent).

 

IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THE MASS 

This Sacrament is not only a treasure of heavenly riches, which if turned to good account will obtain for us the grace and love of God; but it also possesses a peculiar character, by which we are enabled to make some return to God for the immense benefits he bestowed upon us. 

How grateful and acceptable to God is this victim, if duly and legitimately immolated, is inferred from the following consideration.  Of the sacrifices the Old Law it is written: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not; (Psalm 39: 7) and again: If thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. (Psalm 50: 18) Now if these were so pleasing in the Lord’s sight that, as the Scripture testifies, from them God smelled a sweet savour, (Genesis 8: 21)that is to say, they were grateful and acceptable to Him; what have we not to hope from that Sacrifice in which is immolated and offered He Himself of whom a voice from heaven twice proclaimed: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3: 17) 

This mystery, therefore, pastors should carefully explain, so that when the faithful are assembled at the celebration of divine service, they may learn to meditate with attention and devotion on the sacred things at which they are present. 

Distinction of Sacrament and Sacrifice 

They should teach, then, in the first place, that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two purposes: one, that it might be the heavenly food of our souls, enabling us to support and preserve spiritual life; and the other, that the Church might have a perpetual Sacrifice, by which our sins might be expiated, and our heavenly Father, oftentimes grievously offended by our crimes, might be turned away from wrath to mercy, from the severity of a just chastisement to clemency.  Of this thing we may observe a type and resemblance in the Paschal lamb, which was wont to be offered and eaten by the children of Israel as a sacrament and a sacrifice. 

Nor could our Saviour, when about to offer Himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross, have given any more illustrious indication of His unbounded love towards us than by bequeathing to us a visible Sacrifice, by which that bloody Sacrifice, which was soon after to be offered once on the cross, would be renewed, and its memory daily celebrated with the greatest utility, unto the consummation of ages by the Church diffused throughout the world. 

But (between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and a Sacrifice) the difference is very great; for as a Sacrament it is perfected by consecration; as a Sacrifice, all its force consists in its oblation.  When, therefore, kept in a pyx, or borne to the sick, it is a Sacrament, not a Sacrifice.  As a Sacrament also, it is to them that receive it a source of merit, and brings with it all those advantages which have been already mentioned; but as a Sacrifice, it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction.  For as, in His Passion, Christ the Lord merited and satisfied for us; so also those who offer this Sacrifice, by which they communicate with us, merit the fruit of His Passion, and satisfy. [He who celebrates Mass worthily and he who communicates worthily merit by those personal acts an increase of grace and glory.  The communicant receives moreover from the Sacrament the fruits explained above on pages 241 ff.  But Communion does not effect directly, as does the Mass, satisfaction for sin.] 

The Mass Is a True Sacrifice

 

PROOF FROM THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 

With regard to the institution of this Sacrifice, the holy Council of Trent has left no room for doubt, by declaring that it was instituted by our Lord at His Last Supper; while it condemns under anathema all those who assert that in it is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice; or that to offer means nothing else than that Christ is given as our spiritual food. 

Nor did (the Council) omit carefully to explain that to God alone is offered this Sacrifice.  For although the Church sometimes offers Masses in honor and in memory of the Saints, yet she teaches that the Sacrifice is offered, not to them, but to God alone, who has crowned the Saints with immortal glory.  Hence the priest never says: I offer Sacrifice to thee Peter, or to thee Paul; but, while he offers Sacrifice to God alone, he renders Him thanks for the signal victory won by the blessed martyrs, and thus implores their patronage, that they, whose memory we celebrate on earth, may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven. 

PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 

This doctrine, handed down by the Catholic Church, concerning the truth of this Sacrifice, she received from the words of our Lord, when, on that last night, committing to His Apostles these same sacred mysteries, He said: Do this for a commemoration of me; (Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 24) for then, as was defined by the holy Council, He ordained them priests, and commanded that they and their successors in the priestly office, should immolate and offer His Body. 

Of this the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians also afford a sufficient proof: You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils.  As then by the table of devils must (1 Corinthians 10: 20) be understood the altar on which sacrifice was offered to them; so also—if the conclusion proposed to himself by the Apostle is to be legitimately drawn—by the table of the Lord can be understood nothing else than the altar on which Sacrifice was offered to the Lord. 

Should we look for figures and prophecies of this Sacrifice in the Old Testament, in the first place Malachy most clearly prophesied thereof in these words: From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation; for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachy 1: 11) 

Moreover, this victim was foretold, as well before as after the promulgation of the Law, by various kinds of sacrifices; for this victim alone, as the perfection and completion of all, comprises all the blessings which were signified by the other sacrifices.  In nothing, however, do we behold a more lively image of the Eucharistic Sacrifice than in that of Melchisedech; for the Saviour Himself offered to God the Father, at his Last Supper, His body and blood, under the appearances of bread and wine, declaring that He was constituted a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech. (Hebrews 7: 3) 

Excellence of the Mass

 

THE MASS IS THE SAME SACRIFICE AS THAT OF THE CROSS 

We therefore confess that the Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself, once only, a bloody Sacrifice on the altar of the cross. The bloody and unbloody victim are not two, but one victim only, whose Sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of our Lord: Do this for a commemoration of me. 

The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer Sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself show, for the priest does not say: This is the body of Christ, but, This is my body; and thus, acting in the Person of Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the true substance of His body and  blood. 

THE MASS A SACRIFICE OF PRAISE, THANKSGIVING AND PROPITIATION 

This being the case, it must be taught without any hesitation that, as the holy Council (of Trent) has also explained, the sacred and holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice performed on the cross, but also truly a propitiatory Sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us.  If, therefore, with a pure heart, a lively faith, and affected with an inward sorrow for our transgressions, we immolate and offer this most holy victim, we shall, without doubt, obtain mercy from the Lord, and grace in time of need; for so delighted is the Lord with the odor of this victim that, bestowing upon us the gift of grace and repentance, He pardons our sins.  Hence this usual prayer of the Church: As often as the commemoration of this victim is celebrated, so often is the work of our salvation being done; that is to say, through this unbloody Sacrifice flow to us the most plenteous fruits of that bloody victim. 

THE MASS PROFITS BOTH THE LIVING AND THE DEAD 

Pastors should next teach that such is the efficacy of this Sacrifice that its benefits extend not only to the celebrant and communicant, but to all the faithful, whether living with us on earth, or already numbered with those who are dead in the Lord, but whose sins have not yet been fully expiated.  For, according to the most authentic Apostolic tradition, it is not less available when offered for them, than when offered for the sins of the living, their punishments, satisfactions, calamities and difficulties of every sort. 

It is hence easy to perceive, that all Masses, as being conducive to the common interest and salvation of all the faithful, are to be considered common to all. 

The Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass 

The Sacrifice (of the Mass) is celebrated with many solemn rites and ceremonies, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.  On the contrary, all of them tend to display the majesty of this august Sacrifice, and to excite the faithful when beholding these saving mysteries, to contemplate the divine things which lie concealed in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.  On these rites and ceremonies we shall not dwell, since they require a more lengthy exposition than is compatible with the nature of the present work; moreover priests can easily consult on the subject some of the many booklets and works that have been written by pious and learned men. 

What has been said so far will, with the divine assistance, be found sufficient to explain the principal things which regard the Holy Eucharist both as a Sacrament and Sacrifice. 

THE NINTH AND TENTH COMMANDMENTS 

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his hand-maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.” (Exodus 20: 17) 

But fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh the saint. . . . For know ye this, and understand that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (Ephesians 5: 3, 5) 

IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS

It is to be observed, in the first place, that these two precept, which were delivered last in order, furnish a general principle for the observance of all the rest.  What is commanded in these two amounts to this, that if we wish to observe the preceding precepts of the law, we must be particularly careful not to covet.  For he who does not covet, being content with what he has, will not desire what belongs to others, but will rejoice in their prosperity, will give glory to the immortal God, will render Him boundless thanks, and will observe the Sabbath, that is, will enjoy perpetual repose, and will respect his superiors.  In fine, he will injure no man in word or deed or otherwise; for the root of all evil is concupiscence, which hurries its unhappy victims into every species of crime and wickedness.  Keeping these considerations in mind, the pastor should be more diligent in explaining this Commandment, and the faithful more ready to hear (his instruction). 

WHY THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS ARE EXPLAINED HERE TOGETHER 

We have united these two Commandments because, since their subject-matter is similar, they may be treated together.  However, the pastor may explain them either together or separately, according as he may deem it more effective for his exhortation and admonitions.  If, however, he has undertaken the exposition of the Decalogue, he should point out in what these two Commandments are dissimilar; how one covetousness differs from another—a difference noticed by Saint Augustine, in his book of Questions on Exodus. The one covetousness looks only to utility and interest, the other to unlawful desire and criminal pleasure.  He, for instance, who covets a field or house, pursues profit rather than pleasure, while he who covets another man’s wife yields to a desire of pleasure, not of profit. 

NECESSITY OF PROMULGATING THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS 

The promulgation of these two Commandments was necessary for two reasons.  The first is to explain the sixth and seventh Commandments.  Reason alone shows that to prohibit adultery is also to prohibit the desire of another man’s wife, because, were the desire lawful, its indulgence must be so too; nevertheless, many of the Jews, blinded by sin, could not be induced to believe that such desires were prohibited by God.  Nay, even after the Law had been promulgated and become known, many who professed themselves its interpreters, continued in the same error, as we learn from these words of our Lord recorded in Saint Matthew: You have heard that it was said to them of old: “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” but I say to you, etc. (Matthew 5: 28) 

The second reason (for the promulgation) of these two Commandments is that they distinctly and in express terms prohibit some things of which the sixth and seventh Commandments do not contain an explicit prohibition.  The seventh Commandment, for instance, forbids an unjust desire or endeavor to take what belongs to another; but this Commandment further prohibits even to covet it in any way, even though it could be acquired justly and lawfully, if we foresee that by such acquisition our neighbor would suffer some loss. 

THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS TEACH GOD’S LOVE FOR US

AND OUR NEED OF HIM

But before we come to the exposition of the Commandments, the faithful are first to be informed that by this law we are taught not only to restrain our inordinate desires, but also to know the boundless love of God towards us. 

By the preceding Commandments God had, as it were, fenced us round with safeguards, securing us and ours against injury of every sort; but by the addition of these two Commandments, He intended chiefly to provide against the injuries which we might inflict on ourselves by the indulgence of inordinate desires, as would easily happen were we at liberty to covet all things indiscriminately.  By this law then, which forbids to covet, God has blunted in some degree the keenness of desire, which excites to every kind of evil, so that by reason of His command these desires are to some extent diminished, and we ourselves, free from the annoying importunity of the passions, are enabled to devote more time to the performance of the numerous and important duties of piety and religion which we owe to God. 

Nor is this the only lesson of instruction which we derive from these Commandments.  They also teach us that the divine law is to be observed not only by the external performance of duties, but also by the internal concurrence of the heart.  Between divine and human laws, then, there is this difference, that human laws are fulfilled by an external compliance alone, whereas the laws of God, since He reads the heart, require purity of heart, sincere and undefiled integrity of soul.  

The law of God, therefore, is a sort of mirror, in which we behold the corruption of our own nature; and hence these words of the Apostle: I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: “Thou shalt not covet.” (Romans 7: 7) Concupiscence, which is the fuel of sin, and which originated in sin, is always inherent in our fallen nature; from it we know that we are born in sin, and, therefore, do we humbly fly for assistance to Him, who alone can efface the stains of sin. 

TWO PARTS OF THESE COMMANDMENTS

In common with the other Commandments, however, these two are partly mandatory, partly prohibitory. 

Negative Part

 

“THOU SHALT NOT COVET” 

With regard to the prohibitory part, the pastor should explain what sort of concupiscence is prohibited by this law, lest some may think that which is not sinful to be sinful. 

WHAT SORT OF CONCUP9ISCENCE IS NOT FORBIDDEN 

Such is the concupiscence of the spirit against the flesh; (Galatians 5: 17) or that which David so earnestly desired, namely, to long after the justifications of God at all times. (Psalm 118: 20) 

Concupiscence, then, is a certain commotion and impulse of the soul, urging men to the desire of pleasures, which they do not actually enjoy.  As the other propensities of the soul are not always sinful, neither is the impulse of concupiscence always vicious.  It is not, for instance, sinful to desire food and drink; when cold, to wish for warmth; when warm, to wish to become cool.  This lawful species of concupiscence was implanted in us by the Author of nature; but in consequence of the sin of our first parents it passed the limits prescribed by nature and became so depraved that it frequently excites to the desire of those things which conflict with the spirit and reason. 

However, if well regulated, and kept within proper bounds, it is often still the source of no slight advantage.  In the first place, it leads us to supplicate God continually, and humbly to beg of Him those things which we most earnestly desire.  Prayer is the interpreter of our wishes; and if this lawful concupiscence did not exist within us, prayer would be far less frequent in the Church of God.  It also makes us esteem the gifts of God more highly; for the more eagerly we desire anything, the dear and more pleasing will be its possession to us.  Finally, the gratification which we receive from the acquisition of the desired object increases the devotion of our gratitude to God. 

If then it is sometimes lawful to covet, it must be conceded that not every species of concupiscence is forbidden.  Saint Paul, it is true, says that concupiscence is sin; (Romans 7: 20) but his words are to be understood in the same sense as those of Moses, whom he cites, (Exodus 20: 17) as the Apostle himself declares when, in his Epistle to the Galatians he calls it the concupiscence of the flesh, for he says: Walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. (Galatians 5: 16) 

Hence that natural, well-regulated concupiscence which does not go beyond its proper limits, is not prohibited; still less do these Commandments forbid that spiritual desire of the virtuous mind, which prompts us to long for those things that war against the flesh, for the Sacred Scriptures themselves exhort us to such a desire: Covet ye my words, (Wisdom 6: 12) Come over to me all ye that desire me. (Ecclesiasticus 24: 26) 

WHAT SORT OF CONCUPISCENCE IS HERE PROHIBITED

It is not, then, the mere power of desire, which can move either to a good or a bad object that is prohibited by these Commandments; it is the indulgence of evil desire, which is called the concupiscence of the flesh, and the fuel of sin, and which when accompanied by the consent of the will, is always sinful.  Therefore only that covetousness is forbidden which the Apostle calls the concupiscence of the flesh, that is to say, those motions of desire which are contrary to the dictates of reason and outstep the limits prescribed by God. 

TWO KINDS OF SINFUL CONCUPISCENCE 

This kind of covetousness is condemned, either because it desires what is evil, such as adultery, drunkenness, murder, and such heinous crimes, of which the Apostle says: Let us not covet evil things, as they also coveted; (1 Corinthians 10: 6) or because, although the objects may not be bad in themselves, yet there is some other reason which makes it wrong to desire them, as when, for instance, God or His Church prohibit their possession; for it is not permitted us to desire these things which it is altogether unlawful to possess.  Such were, in the Old Law, the gold and silver from which idols were made, and which the Lord in Deuteronomy forbade anyone to covet. (Deuteronomy 7: 25, 26) 

Another reason why this sort of vicious desire is condemned is that it has for its object that which belongs to another, such as a house, maid-servant, field, wife, ox, ass and many other things, all of which the law of God forbids us to covet, simply because they belong to another.  The desire of such things, when consented to, is criminal, and is numbered among the most grievous sins.  For sin is committed the moment the soul, yielding to the impulse of corrupt desires, is pleased with evil things, and ether consents to, or does not resist them, as Saint James, pointing out the beginning and progress of sin, teaches when he says: Every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured; then, when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; but sin, when it is completed, begetteth death. (James 1: 14) 

When, therefore, the Law says: Thou shalt not covet, it means that we are not to desire those things which belong to others.  A thirst for what belongs to others is intense and insatiable; for it is written: A covetous man shall not be satisfied with money; (Ecclesiasticus 5: 9) and of such a one Isaias says:  Woe to you that join house to house, and lay field to field. (Isaias 5: 8) 

“HIS WIFE” 

The Commandment which forbids us to covet the goods of our neighbor, is followed by another, which forbids us to covet our neighbor’s wife—a law that prohibits not only the adulterer’s criminal desire of his neighbor’s wife, but even the wish to marry her.  For of old when a bill of divorce was permitted, it might easily happen, that she who was put away by one husband might be married to another.  But the Lord forbade the desire of another’s wife lest husbands might be induced to abandon their wives, or wives conduct themselves with such bad temper towards their husbands as to make it necessary to send them away. 

But now this sin is more grievous because the wife, although separated from her husband, cannot be taken marriage by another until the husbands death.  He, therefore, who covets another man’s wife will easily fall from this into another desire, for he will wish either the death of the husband or the commission of adultery. 

The same principle holds good with regard to women who have been betrothed to another.  To covet them is also unlawful; and whoever strives to break their engagement violates one of the most holy of promises. 

And if to covet the wedded wife of another is entirely unlawful, it is on no account right to desire in marriage the virgin who is consecrated to religion and to the service of God.  But should anyone desire in marriage a married woman whom he thinks to be single, and whom he would not wish to marry if he knew she had a husband living, certainly he does not violate this Commandment.  Pharaoh (Genesis 12) and Abimelech (Genesis 20), as the Scripture informs us, were betrayed into this error; they wished to marry Sarah, supposing her to be unmarried, and to be the sister, not the wife of Abraham. 

Positive Part 

DETACHMENT FROM RICHES ENJOINED 

In order to make known the remedies calculated to overcome the vice of covetousness, the pastor should explain the positive part of the Commandment, which consists in this, that if riches abound, we set not our hearts upon them, (Psalm 61: 11) that we be prepared to sacrifice them for the sake of piety and religion, that we contribute cheerfully towards the relief of the poor, and that, if we ourselves are poor, we bear our poverty with patience and joy.  And, indeed, if we are generous with our own goods, we shall extinguish (in our own hearts) the desire of what belongs to another. 

Thoughts which Help one to Keep these Commandments 

In order to extinguish the fire of passion, it will be found most efficacious to place before our eyes the evil consequences of its indulgence. 

Among those evils the first is that by obedience to the impulse of passion, sin gains uncontrolled sway over the soul; hence the Apostle warns us: Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof. (Romans 6: 12) Just as resistance to the passions destroys the power of sin, so indulgence of the passions expels God from His kingdom and introduces sin in His Place. 

Again, concupiscence, as Saint James teaches, (James 1: 14) is the source from which flows every sin.  Likewise Saint John says: All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life. (1 John 2: 16) 

A third evil of sensuality is that it darkens the understanding.  Blinded by passion man comes to regard whatever he desires as lawful and even laudable. 

Finally, concupiscence stifles the seed of the divine word, sown in our souls by God, the great husbandman.  Some, it is written in Saint Mark are sown among thorns; these are they who hear the word, and the cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lust after other things, entering in, choke the word , and it is made fruitless. (Mark 4: 18) 

Chief Ways in which These Two Commandments are Violated 

They who, more than others, are the slaves of concupiscence, the pastor should exhort with greater earnestness to observe this Commandment.  Such are the following: those who are addicted to improper amusements, or who are immoderately given to recreation; merchants, who wish for scarcity, and who cannot bear that other buyers or sellers hinder them from selling at a higher or buying at a lower rate; those who wish to see their neighbor reduced to want in order that they themselves may profit in buying or selling; soldiers who thirst for war, in order to enrich themselves with plunder; physicians, who wish for the spread of disease; lawyers, who are anxious for a great number of cases and litigations; and artisans who, through greed for gain, wish for a scarcity of the necessaries of life in order that they may increase their profits. 

They too, sin gravely against this Commandment, who, because they are envious of the praise and glory won by others, strive to tarnish in some degree their fame, particularly if they themselves are idle and worthless characters; for fame and glory are the reward of virtue and industry, not of indolence and laziness. 

Conclusion

In light of these teachings, we are reminded that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass calls each soul to purity of heart, clarity of mind, and fidelity to God’s law.  The indulgence of impure desires does not remain a private fault but becomes a doorway through which sin gains power over the soul, darkens the understanding, and drives out the presence of God.  By recognizing the grave consequences of coveting what is forbidden and by contemplating the spiritual harm caused by unchecked passion, the faithful are moved to vigilance, repentance, and renewed commitment to virtue. 

Therefore, let every Christian strive to extinguish the first sparks of concupiscence, to guard the sanctity of marriage and betrothal, and to cultivate a heart free from unlawful desire.  In doing so, we honor God, preserve the integrity of our souls, and prepare ourselves to participate worthily in the sacred mysteries. May the grace of Christ strengthen us to flee all uncleanness and to walk steadfastly in the light of His truth so that we may enjoy the perpetual perfect liturgy, forever unfolding the essence of God for our eternal adoration and felicity.

Contending For The Faith---Part 54

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.

Some Common Arguments Against the Existence of God Refuted

In this week's post, I will respond to some commonly used arguments by atheists against the existence of God. These are the short, snappy "arguments" (more akin to quips than anything serious) that unbelievers often use to stump Traditionalists and other theists. I will give a terse response to each, so that you may have a ready comeback and see the "argument" for what it really is--a fallacy. On one point--"the universe had no beginning"--I discuss it more so the science can be comprehended along with the philosophical application. I take no credit for the answers. All I did was make the answers given by great thinkers (Aquinas and others) into a terse, readable post.

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

 

Atheist Objection: “Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”

Reply: This question seems to have only two possible responses. Either He cannot create it, in which case He is not omnipotent; or He can create the rock, but cannot lift it, in which case again He is not omnipotent. In both cases, God is not omnipotent. However, God has to be omnipotent; therefore, He does not exist. This is wrong as it is based on a false premise. God's omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything, but rather the ability to do anything that does not contradict His essence/attributes.

God cannot lie because He is Truth itself. In the instant case, God is the greatest possible Being. Therefore, there can be nothing that, in any aspect, is greater than God, because then He would not be the greatest possible Being. Such a rock is a contradiction incapable of being realized--just as there can never be a "married bachelor." 

Atheist Objection: “A perfect God could not have created an imperfect world. Since the world is obviously imperfect, God does not exist.”

Reply: Two responses: (1) God did create a perfect world and it was made imperfect by Original Sin. (2) God can create imperfect things in order to lead them over time to a state of perfection. In this view, man (who is not a “thing” but a being) is not born complete. He can study, educate himself, grow, achieve things, and in so doing determine what he will be later on in eternity through what he freely decides to do with his life on Earth. Only machines, which are tools, are expected to be perfect and complete at the moment of their creation. Man, by contrast, is a free being, and this means that he has the privilege of evolving and perfecting himself over time.

As to the material aspect of the Universe, a perfect Universe is either deterministic or has already reached its end. However, ours is neither, for the moment.

Atheist Objection: “If God is omniscient and knows the future, man is not free; if, on the other hand, God does not know everything, He is not all-knowing and therefore does not exist.”

Reply: Knowing the future is not the same as causing the future. For example, you may be standing up on a large hill. You see two cars speeding towards each other coming from opposite sides of the hill, where neither driver can see the other car. Given their speed and direction, you know they will crash a few seconds before it happens. Yet it was the free will of the drivers to go past the speed limit which caused the accident, not your knowledge of what would happen as a result.

Atheist Objection: “The Universe is self-sufficient. It does not need a cause.”

Reply: Atheists cannot escape the scientific fact that the Universe did have a beginning. It is expained by the Big Bang Theory. (BBT).

 I find it sad that, here in America, there are many people who do not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. The common (and incorrect) notion is that a theory is a "hunch" or an "idea." A law is something true. Scientific theories can become scientific laws with enough facts proving them true. All of this is wrong.

Just as theology has words with specific meanings within the discipline, so does science. A scientific theory is a description of the natural world that scientists have arrived at by means of rigorous testing. It tries to explain the "why" about something. Scientific laws explain the "what" that has always been observed and tested. So, for example, gravity is both a theory and a law. The law of gravity explains what happens between objects depending on mass and distance. Laws also usually describe what happens in the terms of a mathematical formula. 

An accepted theory is the one that has the most evidence in its favor from multiple sources. Both theories and laws can change when/if new evidence is found which causes the theory or law to be undermined or in need of revision due to the newly discovered evidence. The BBT is not some "hunch" that isn't true because it's not a law. It is the best scientific theory backed up by multiple lines of evidence as to the origin of the universe. Over 98% of cosmologists, and over 95% of all scientists subscribe to it because of the evidence.

Of course, the usual objection to follow is the disparaging of science by declaring that the scientific establishment gave us COVID vaccines and climate change nonsense. While science can be abused and misused, two points must be made: (1) most scientific advances have been genuine and wonderful. Think of neurosurgery that routinely saves lives and wasn't available a mere 40 years ago. (2) the establishment has every reason to be against the BBT because it was discovered and promoted by Catholics, and it points to God. 

The Catholic Origin of the Big Bang

Father Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Roman Catholic priest and physicist from Belgium, was the scientist who proposed the BBT. The notion that the universe had a beginning did not sit well with many at that time. Some were even disgusted by it. Renowned English astronomer and physicist Arthur Eddington said that “philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant.” (See Arthur S. Eddington, “The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics,” Nature 127 (March 21, 1931): 447–53).Notice that Eddington didn’t claim the science was bad or that these new scientific discoveries were repugnant. Rather, he was bothered by the philosophical implications of the discovery.

The prevailing scientific theory in cosmology prior to Fr. Lemaitre, was The Steady State Theory (SST), which claimed the universe always existed from eternity. The Communists and other atheists loved the SST because if someone asked, "What created the universe?" the answer was straightforward---"The universe was always there. It didn't need or have a creator." Fr. Lemaitre's theory was met with derision and horror by Communists/atheists. A beginning of the universe clearly implied a Creator. The question of how the universe was created was back on the table. 

Schools in Communist countries banned the teaching of the BBT so young Communists wouldn't doubt atheism. In fact, it was an opponent of the theory, Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the name for Lemaitre’s theory, referring to it mockingly as “this big bang idea” during a radio broadcast. Over the years, many theories were proposed to get rid of this “definite beginning” of the universe, and a war of theories was waged until, finally, in the 1960s, the BBT displaced the SST as the accepted cosmological theory. (N.B. Although the formal SST was developed by Hoyle in response to the BBT that he so hated, it was held that the universe was "always there" --a form of the SST--a long time prior. Einstein himself subscribed to it until Fr. Lemaitre's work changed his mind). 

Note well why Hoyle rejected the BBT; he was an atheist and anti-Catholic.

Hoyle did not want to believe that the universe was created from a big bang, because that would imply that there was a creator, and to him, that idea wasn’t a possibility because he was an atheist. He believed that, “religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly dreadful situation in which we find ourselves…No wonder then that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this is illusory” (positiveatheism.org). His belief, in his own words, was that “‘every cluster of galaxies, every star, every atom...had a beginning, but the universe, itself, did not’” (Willick 2003). This is why he proposed that the universe has been around forever, and that we were not created from some all powerful deity, but from the right combinations of heavy elements that were fused through the nuclear reactions that take place in the center of stars, a process that he named “nucleosynthesis."

(See csueastbay.edu/philosophy/reflections/2004/contents/jon-brix.html; Emphasis mine). 

This puts the lie to the contention that the BBT was "used by atheists to deny God" as some assert. It is actually the opposite---it was opposed by atheists in academic circles until the manifest weight of the credible evidence was too great to hold the BBT back from acceptance. An assertion by those who oppose the BBT on religious grounds is an ad hominem attack on Fr. Lemaitre as a "Modernist." This is rank calumny. Father was never under suspicion of Modernism or any heresy by the Holy Office. He was praised by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII.

In 1951, Pius XII gave an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled “The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science,” offering an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory with Fr. Lemaitre present in a place of honor.

With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter busting with energy. It would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.

The Supreme Pontiff asserted that the BBT proved the existence of God.

Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator.  Hence, creation took place.  We say: therefore, there is a Creator.  Therefore, God exists! (See ucatholic.com).

Evidence for the BBT

I strongly suggest reading the four page summary of evidence which I now condense. It comes from the University of Western Australia.

Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory:

• Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and

• the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation

1. Early in the 20th century the Universe was thought to be static: always the same size, neither expanding nor contracting. But in 1924 astronomer Edwin Hubble used a technique pioneered by Henrietta Leavitt to measure distances to remote objects in the sky. Hubble used spectroscopic red-shift data to measure the speeds these objects were travelling then graphed their distance from Earth against their speed. He discovered that the speed at which astronomical objects move apart is proportional to their distance from each other. In other words, the farther away objects are from Earth, the faster they are moving away from us. This became known as Hubble’s law

2. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was initially very hot and dense. As it expanded, it cooled (your refrigerator works on the same idea, expanding a liquid into a gas to cool the inside). Cosmologists were able to calculate the theoretical temperature of today’s Universe and began to search for evidence of it.

It was eventually discovered by accident in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson as ‘noise’ in an antenna they had built to research how radio signals could be reflected off orbiting satellites. They first thought it was radio interference from nearby New York City, but eventually recognized it as radiation from beyond the Milky Way. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) that Penzias and Wilson observed is leftover heat radiation from the Big Bang. Today, CMBR is very cold due to expansion and cooling of the Universe. It’s only 2.725 Kelvin (-270.4 °C), which is only 2.725 °C above absolute zero. Cosmic microwave background radiation fills the entire Universe and can be detected day and night in every part of the sky.

(Condensed from "Evidence for The Big Bang;" uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf).

Philosophical Argument for God from the BBT

The BBT shows that all which exists in the universe--all matter, energy, and even space and time itself--started from nothing in an amazing singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The Kalam Cosmological Argument runs thus:

Premise 1: Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

This is common sense and proven from all experience. No scientist (or anyone else) believes things pop into existence out of nothing. Atheists Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have redefined "nothing" to mean "space" and "gravity" respectively. This is disingenuous to say the least. If I say, "I had nothing for breakfast today." It means I didn't have anything. It doesn't mean I ate something and that something I call "nothing." Krauss and Hawking do NOT believe something comes from "not anything;" they just want to escape the beginning of the universe and its theistic implications.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist. 

This we know from the BBT. 

Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

It follows logically from the two premises. The First Cause must be space-less (because there was no space), timeless (because there was no time), immaterial (because there was no matter--or even energy), and a Mind of great Power (because if all the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe to exist were present, then it would have existed from eternity--therefore, it must have been willed into existence at a certain point). You just described God. Welcome to theism.  

Objection: Then who created God? Answer: God wasn't created. Notice that the first premise is whatever begins to exist must have a cause. God, unlike the universe, is eternal. Moreover, the question is irrelevant. Once, I had a very bad gastrointestinal issue that couldn't be resolved. My doctors were stumped. One very intelligent gastroenterologist thought it was a rare bacteria that's hard to diagnose even with extensive tests.  The cure, if that was the cause, was to take a powerful medication for ten days, along with some other protocols. Desperate for a cure, I agreed. After the ten days, I was cured. When I asked him, "Where could I have gotten this bacterium?" he replied, "Who knows? The fact that the cure worked means we found the cause." Analogously, even if God "needs a creator" (He doesn't) it wouldn't mean He didn't create the universe.

Atheist Objection: "Religions have always been the cause of violence and wars.” 

Reply: Those who make this argument point out that religion has most often engendered war and violence. Consequently, as these religions have brought about evil, they cannot really be established by a good God. Ergo, the atheist asserts we can conclude either that God is evil or that He does not exist. Since the Church asserts that God cannot be evil, He must not exist. 

The premises of this argument are false, and we only have to look at the misfortunes of the twentieth century for ample evidence of this fact. The wars waged over the last century by dogmatic materialists were far more cruel, violent, prolonged, and lethal than all the religious wars of the past put together. 

The crimes and violence of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot have no precedent in human history.

Phillips and Axelrod’s Encyclopedia of Wars cataloged 1,763 wars that have taken place throughout the history of humanity. Of these 1,763 wars, 123 were based on religious motives, or less than 7% of the total. Not only are the wars waged for religious reasons less numerous than some people suppose but, according to the same encyclopedia, the number of people killed in these 123 “religious” wars is equivalent to 2% of the total number of persons killed in all historical wars. That means that “religious” wars in general have had fewer victims than wars waged for other motives.

Conclusion

This post presented five atheist objections to the existence of God. I say "objections" rather than arguments, because frequently, the short one or two sentence objection is used to befuddle believers and make atheism seem "evident." It is my hope that you understand why they are wrong and are thus better prepared to defend our Holy Mother the Church whenever She is attacked.