A Hunger For God

 On May 23, 2014, Elliot Rodger, a disturbed 22-year-old filled with pent up rage over being spurned by women, went on a rampage, leaving seven dead and several others wounded in Santa Barbara, California. Elliot Rodger was the son of the assistant director for The Hunger Games movies. Ironically, The Hunger Games are largely the glorification of young people killing each other at an annually televised death match, orchestrated by a totalitarian regime. The secular media has been quick to point the blame at misogyny and mental illness as the driving force behind Rodger's murderous killing spree.

   Truth be told, Rodger was sick, but the postmodernist culture which rejects God, and the Vatican II sect which has robbed humanity of our connection to the Creator, only makes good people bad, and sick people worse. I will now explore what I believe led to the tragedy.

1. A Background Of Violence

 Let's consider what we call "entertainment" in this country, and peddled to children.

 In The Hunger Games (a trilogy of books, now movies, which Rodger's father helped to make), we find there are two major themes – rebellion and murder. The story-line is that the post-Apocalyptic Capitol (formerly North America) holds an annual televised event called “The Hunger Games.” Each district must draw the names of a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18. There were originally 13 districts before the Capitol destroyed one, leaving 12. Altogether, there are 24 youths chosen to become contestants (called “tributes”). They must fight to the death in a vast arena. The lone survivor returns home to wealth and fame.
 Michael Graham, at his blog "The Natural Truth" summarizes the books/movies very well:

"They are ridiculously, and unnecessarily cruel.  If your idea of “escapist fiction” is to watch kids stab, shoot, strangle, poison, chop and bludgeon each other to death—this is the book series for you. If you like reading books about young people getting starved, tortured, burned and maimed—your dream has come true!  If you think your 10-year-old should spend her (tween girls are the target demo for these books) time reading about their “heroine” plotting to murder people—and then doing so, graphically and cruelly—you got it in The Hunger Games.

I talked to the mother of a 12-year-old yesterday who is taking her daughter to see The Hunger Games this weekend. Her daughter read the first book at age 10 and, while Mom acknowledge that, yes, “the books are a little cruel and violent,” she was glad her daughter read them because “she needs to learn what the world is really like.”

Uh, no. No, it’s not.  We live in a stupid and sometimes cruel world, but we don’t kidnap people’s kids, give them axes, bows and swords and then put them on national TV to watch them kill each other.  We don’t watch people have their flesh ripped off by acid or getting ripped apart by backs of genetically-altered dogs for fun.

What we DO do, apparently, is take our 10-year-old kids to movies so THEY can watch all this “fun.”"
(See http://michaelgraham.com/what-is-ldquo-the-hunger-games-rdquo/)

  Think about it: if this garbage were called "The Rape Games" where the contestants have to avoid getting raped in order to win, do you really think it would be popular? NOW would be decrying it as misogynistic and portraying violence against women as acceptable. It escapes them that if torturing someone to death is seen as "entertainment" then rape appears almost tame in comparison. Welcome to the home life of Elliot Rodger.

2. Hate-filled Hearts Without God.

 Rodger belonged to an "Anti-Pick-Up Artists" site called PUAHate.com, where men denounce and deplore the women who rejected them. Last year, Rodger posted this message on the site:

"If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females. You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be.”

 After the killings, several members called Rodger a "hero." Not surprisingly, over 90% of "MRAs" (i.e. "Men's Rights Activists") are atheists (See http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2014/04/13/but-how-do-you-know-the-mras-are-atheists/)

 3. Satanic-Spawned Lust
   Elliot Rodger’s worldview was shaped by popular media with the constant glorification of “hooking up,” in such movies as Love & Other Drugs (a woman has casual sex with a pharmaceutical salesman and finds "love"), What's Your Number (after hearing a statistic that women who have TWENTY sexual partners will never marry, the "protagonist" Ally, puts a cap on her nineteen sex partners. She goes back and searches for all of her 19 exes, to find "the one."), and Friends With Benefits (two friends decide to have casual sex without the "emotional attachments" of marriage). People who remain celibate and single are ridiculed in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Christianity is mocked as a man gives up casual sex as "penance" for Lent (!) in 40 Days and 40 Nights. Is it any wonder young men and women feel odd and "abnormal" if they're not heathens by the time they graduate college? In contrast, the Bible and Church teaching makes it clear that singleness can be a desirable gift from the Lord. In fact, the apostle St. Paul reveals that the single person is even more blessed than his or her married friends if his or her focus is on the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:6, 8, 25-39). The Council of Trent dogmatically defined that virginity and consecrated celibacy is superior to the state of marriage.

4. A Life Without God

 Rodger left a 137 page "manifesto" entitled "My Twisted World." In Rodger’s thoroughly godless manifesto he mentions, “They took me to church a few times and I hated it.” The only "god" he mentions is himself:

“I am the closest thing there is to a living god…I will truly be a powerful god, punishing everyone I deem to be impure and depraved.”

 Elliot Rodger rejected God and moral absolutes ("Who am I to judge?") and therefore, like every other atheist, had no moral compass based on objective morality to guide his life. He was left with nothing but his  own wicked heart; permeated by  feelings of lust, envy, jealousy and hatred, all fueled by the demonic forces in our world. Elliot Rodger desperately needed Christ, but if he went to the local Vatican II parish, He would not be there. The Real Presence is no more. The Mass and sacraments are gone. Antipope Francis tells us atheists can go to Heaven, so why even bother to look for the only answer that gives life meaning? I'm not suggesting that Rodger didn't have mental health problems, but the evil of  this world, and the lack of Grace from the eclipse of the True Church, is a recipe for making a bad situation a million times worse.
 The hunger for God and His One True Church is no game.

Murder Can Be Fun

   I'm a middle-aged man who has been around the block more than a few times. I have always been a right to life activist and, in my younger days, I took on the world. I really didn't think there was anything left about the horror of abortion that could shock me. I was wrong. My attention was brought to a video made by one Emily Letts; the contents of which are so disturbing, I could only shake my head in disbelief.

   Let me warn my readers that the video is disturbing; it does not show the mangled body of the murdered unborn child, but the mind of a woman who views abortion as "positive" and even "fun." Entitled "Emily's Abortion Video" it can be found here:  http://youtu.be/OxPUKV-WlKw. Ms. Letts is a self-described "patient advocate" who got pregnant and decided to film her own child being murdered---her "positive abortion experience." As I stated before, you will not see the true horror of abortion. Instead, you will view Letts smiling and giggling about getting pregnant, and telling everyone that she "wasn't ready to have a baby."

   The secular media extols the "virtue" of contraception. Here we see the wisdom of the True Church. When sex is cut off from procreation, pleasure comes before---and in place of--- life. Life is cheap, and if your contraception fails (or you don't even bother to use it), you can always have a "nice, safe abortion." It's never safe for the child who gets killed, but that's another story.

   During the actual abortion, all we see is the face of Letts as she thanks her wonderful hired killers ("doctors") and smiles about "how lucky she is" to be there. When the murder is finished she says, "Cool!" and "Yea! I'm done" as she gets wheeled out of the abortuary. You would think she was 13 years old and just got her ears pierced, not taken a human life.

   Then we see Letts a few days later telling us how the murder of her child has positively impacted her life and how she feels no regret nor sadness. The most unsettling part is when she states, “I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can make a life. I knew what I was doing was right because it was right for me, and no one else.” Like a true sociopath, she talks about making life and doesn't wince at the logical conclusion that she ended it. Only if abortion is NOT the taking of life can it be moral. Here, like a modern day Hitler, she acknowledges the fact of life and then rejoices in its destruction. It was "right for me and no one else." Was it right for her now dead child? "True for me, but not for you," is the motto of our moral relativists. So if a white man owns slaves prior to the Civil War, it's OK for him, but not for you, so don't try to force "your morals" on him. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.

   To those who think Letts is an "extremist," ALL abortion is extreme. Just like slavery and genocide. There is no way to allow "a little bit of murder." The political leftists have all come out in favor of the video and denounced the fact that Letts received large volumes of "hate mail." Imagine that! Maybe I could make a video of myself clubbing a baby seal to death and then claim I'm a victim when people decry my actions as cruelty to animals.

   In reality we are all victims of Vatican II. When the True Mass and sacraments were destroyed, and moral teachings replaced with "feel good about yourself" platitudes, we raised a generation like Emily Letts. A generation that sees nothing wrong as long as you follow your conscience, no matter how misinformed that conscience may be. People who recognize no law above themselves. As Satanist Aleister Crowley stated, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

   Until recently, the Vatican II sect at least paid lip service to stopping abortion. Now Antipope Francis tells us not to be concerned with those "narrow-minded rules." When murder is no big deal, is it any wonder some sick woman finds it "positive" and even "fun" (giggle, giggle)? Let's turn our attention to the really important moral issues, like youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old, and please disregard the dead  bodies of the aborted babies in the trash can. God help us.

Extra Terram Nulla Salus?

   Traditionalists have been painted by more than a few as being people who are out of touch. They don't conform to the modern world, they are conspiracy nuts, and they are bigoted (usually claiming antisemitism). I must admit, I unfortunately have met a few of my fellow believers who do a disservice to both themselves and the True Church when the obsess over private revelations (i.e., Fatima or some obscure apparition), and see groups of enemies conspiring at every moment against True Catholics.

   Conforming to the modern world, in things contrary to Faith and Morals is something we should avoid at all costs, and hold out our non-conformity as a badge of honor. The charge of antisemitism, when founded upon the Teaching of the Church (i.e., Jews must convert to be saved, they are guilty of Deicide, etc.) is unfounded. Such things are based upon love and concern for the salvation of souls, and firmly rooted in the teaching of Christ. One can see that in an extended period of sedevacante, there will be natural divisions to problems since there is no one in authority to whom we can "kick it upstairs" and pronounce a final, binding judgement.  This explains the excessive theorizing on the part of Traditionalists causing internal strife and the unfounded charge of us being splintered "like Protestants." The Vatican II sect does claim to have a "pope," however, and their desire to link together everything false (even when contradictory) is really strange. You have different groups teaching different, and even contradictory doctrines, and both are accepted as long as they all submit to the heresies of Vatican II.  Frankie, rather than settling matters in favor of one teaching or another, makes things worse.

   Proof came this past week when Antipope Francis claimed he would baptize Martians if they asked for the sacrament. Time magazine was quick to point out that Frankie was saying something "to keep his audience interested" but it was being taken out of context. Or was it? The Vatican’s chief astronomer, Argentine Jesuit "Father" José Funes, explained the possibility of extraterrestrial life in 2008, when he too said that God’s mercy could be offered to aliens if it were needed. He even cited Pope Francis’ namesake to make his point. “This is not in contrast with the faith, because we cannot place limits on the creative freedom of God,” Funes said. “To use St. Francis’ words, if we consider earthly creatures as ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters,’ why can’t we also speak of an ‘extraterrestrial brother?’” (See http://time.com/99616/for-pope-francis-its-about-more-than-martians/)

  There are many problems with what was said from a theological perspective. First, does the alien life form require baptism? What if their ancestors never sinned and they were not in need of redemption like the human race? God may have other designs for them. If they were in original sin, why did Christ die on our planet, and how did He bring the Church to their world?  While these are certainly fascinating theological topics for a hypothetical debate, what Frankie was implying was actually quite sinister.  He used the Martian quip as a metaphor for baptizing the infants of fornicators living in sin, and sodomite "couples."

 According to theologian Schulze, baptism should be withheld from an infant (outside the immediate danger of death) unless there is good reason to believe the child will be raised, educated, and remain in the Catholic Faith (See Schulze, Frederick, Manual of Pastoral Theology, B. Herder Books, St. Louis, Mo., pgs. 11-13, (1931)).  This is the constant teaching of the Church. Now, Frankie doesn't care about the child's eternal welfare. Why should he care? Doesn't he believe that even atheists can go to Heaven? If you can get to Heaven without the integral Catholic Faith how much less necessary is baptism? What kind of instruction--and what kind of example--- will a child receive in the Faith from parents who shack up, or worse, are perverts?

 Ironically, the members of the Vatican II sect Saint Benedict's Center (both the one in Massachusetts and the one in New Hampshire) remain staunch Feeneyites, i.e. adherents of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney who rejected the teaching of the Church of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953. Here you have two communities that recognize Frankie as "pope," yet while he denigrates baptism to the point of making it a joke, the Feenyites damn everyone to Hell without water baptism and require submission to the very man who claims you can get to Heaven with NO FAITH at all!
 As a matter of fact, Vatican II sect "canon lawyer," a layman named Pete Vere, has written an opinion (in his capacity as a canon lawyer) that makes a good case that members of the Vatican II sect can hold to the "strict view" of Fr. Feeney without being heretics. He writes:

"In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine,
wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several
controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the
Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.

Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr.
Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by
the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church
and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not
judge it opportune to enter into this question.”

While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died
in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his
same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly
within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to
oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists (sic) within the Church.

On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual
descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of
the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical
practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the
good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS(Outside the Church No Salvation), BOB (Baptism of Blood) and BOD (Baptism of Desire)."

 There you have it folks! You can be a heretic at both ends of the spectrum--deny BOD and BOB--or extend it to everyone, and you can be a good member of the Vatican II sect as long as you accept Frankie and the robber council Vatican II. You can get a side chapel in the One World Religion of Antipope Francis as long as you are a heretic, schismatic, infidel, pagan or apostate. We Traditionalists who alone possess the Truth are excluded, Deo gratias! I had the misfortune of getting a nasty missive over my last post from a member of the Vatican II sect. He claimed I had "no authority" to declare the Novus Bogus "mass" invalid. I asked him if he saw a priest attempt to say Mass using milk and cookies in place of bread and wine, could he know that the mass was invalid, or would he need someone in authority to tell him it was invalid and consider it valid until there was such a declaration. He refused to answer, knowing I had just proven his assertion incorrect.

 If he claimed he needed someone in authority to tell him it was invalid, that means that virtually anything, no matter how adverse to Catholic teaching, could be perpetrated on the faithful. If he said it was invalid without being declared as such by someone in authority, he just proved his own contention incorrect. Then he went into a tirade about "joos" and how I'm an "apostate" from "Jew York." When I pointed out that his antisemitism would be roundly condemned by his "pope" who wore a yarmulke in Argentina and prayed with the Jews in the synagogue, thus committing apostasy, he went on another rant about Jews, and how Frankie's soul was not his concern. When I informed him such an individual could not become pope, he denied it. I asked for citations to back up his assertion, and he claimed Pope St. Pius X, but he could not state from whence this alleged teaching came. I even invited him to debate online, and he (of course) refused.

 Once again the insanity of Vatican II is displayed. You can be a real antisemitic person as long as you accept "Pope" Frankie, who prays with Jews in an act directly contrary to the Faith. If you're Bishop Williamson and reject the errors of Vatican II, you will be roundly condemned for questioning the exact number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and the manner in which they were killed.

 What advice would I give to a Traditionalist if an extraterrestrial came to him? Well, DO try to convert him by sending him to a Traditionalist bishop to assess the situation. (Notice Frankie never said he would try to convert the aliens, but give them baptism "only if they ask"). Most importantly, tell him to stay away from the Antipope at all costs. "ET don't phone Rome."

Satan And Vatican II At Harvard

 In 1951, political pundit William F. Buckley, Jr. released his best known book entitled God and Man at Yale. Buckley wrote the book based on his experiences as an undergraduate at Yale University, and he forcefully argued that the professors pushed a secular left-wing ideology on the students by breaking down their religious beliefs through their teaching. This week, the Harvard Extension School Cultural Studies Club wanted the Satanic Temple (a group of Satanists) to perform a "black mass" on the Harvard campus as a means of fostering "multiculturalism."

  Harvard's president, Dr. Drew Faust (yes, that is her real name), refused to cancel the event, citing freedom of speech. “The decision to proceed is and will remain theirs,” she said of the student group. Faust added, “It is deeply regrettable that the organizers of this event, well aware of the offense they are causing so many others, have chosen to proceed with a form of expression that is so flagrantly disrespectful and inflammatory.” Notice she did not decry it as evil, but simply "disrespectful." After a petition signed by tens of thousands in Massachusetts was presented to the university (not to mention a public rebuke by "Cardinal" O'Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston), Faust still would not cancel the event, but said she would attend a holy hour sponsored by the Archdiocese  "...to demonstrate that the most powerful response to offensive speech is not censorship, but reasoned discourse and robust dissent.” At the last moment, amid death threats, the event was cancelled by the student group without further comment.

 In order to fully understand what went on, several questions need to be answered: (1) What is the "Satanic Temple" and what do they believe? (2) What did they plan to do at the "black mass"? (3) What is the true Catholic teaching to be applied and how does it compare with the teaching of Vatican II?

 I. What is the "Satanic Temple"?
According to their own website:

"The Satanic Temple seeks to separate Religion from Superstition by acknowledging religious belief as a metaphorical framework with which we construct a narrative context for our goals and works. Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free and rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness.

In theological terms, the mythology translates thus:

God is supernatural and thus outside of the sphere of the physical. God’s perfection means that he cannot interact with the imperfect corporeal realm. Because God cannot intervene in the material world, He created Satan to preside over the universe as His proxy. Satan has the compassion and wisdom of an angel.  Although Satan is subordinate to God, he is mankind’s only conduit to the dominion beyond the physical. In addition, only Satan can hear our prayers and only Satan can respond.  While God is beyond human comprehension, Satan desires to be known and knowable. Only in this way can there be justice and can life have meaning.

The Satanist harbors reasonable agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. The cultural narratives through which we contextualize our lives must be malleable to conformity with our best scientific understandings of the material world… Those understandings, in turn, must never be so rigidly codified as to themselves be inflexible to advancements yet unknown. Thus, Satanism is an evolving religion, unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Belief must reconstruct itself to fact, never the other way round. This is the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, even (and especially) when to do so irretrievably dissipates blissful and comforting delusions of old.
That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."

Most Satanists do not claim to worship Satan, rather they claim to be agnostics and/or atheists who seek to satisfy their pleasures and cling to "science" while uniting around a "mythology" which unites them in a formalized setting. They further claim as their beliefs:

"There are seven fundamental tenets:
1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."

 One could rightfully ask, "Why does a group that claims 'reason' and 'science' want to go around offending people with something they consider mythology?" They would be better off joining the Ethical Humanist Society if "reason and science" were their main concerns, and drop the whole "myth-schtick." Satan is the Father of Lies and it seems more than likely, there are some (even most) who do buy into the actual worship of the devil. This is the same group that wants to donate a Satanic statue to the Oklahoma State Capital, to get "equal time" with a monument of the Ten Commandments.  The statue of the Baphomet, or Sabbatic Goat, a figure that has been used to represent Satan for centuries, is to be made of bronze, poured over a clay mold. Images in the news show the hideous figure on a throne, with smiling children at each knee.

Look again at the seven fundamental tenets. don't they seem to be the same subject matter Antipope Francis talks about, and the themes of most Vatican II clergy "homilies"?

II. What did the Satanic Temple plan to do at the "black mass"?

  According to Joseph Laycock: "Had the black mass proceeded as planned, it would have been about two hours long, with the first hour devoted to an educational lecture and the second half to a performance. There would have been a short speech by Harvard ethicist Christopher Robichaud about how we define such ideas as hate-speech and tolerance" Then, "The second half would have been a performance of a black mass based on descriptions from the nineteenth-century French novel La-bas. Two actors dressed as a nun and a priest would have performed a ritual in liturgical Latin. A prop representing a communion wafer would have been stepped on or otherwise defiled. It was this last detail that became the focus of the controversy."

Deo gratias, the Novus Bogus Vatican II service is null and void, so a real Host could not be defiled. Interestingly, when the Satanic Temple was asked about this, they said the host would be unconsecrated, but when the University group suggested stepping on a piece of broccoli instead, they refused! (See
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7878/black_mass_hysteria_at_harvard__the_real_story/)

III. What is the true Catholic teaching on such matters and how does it compare with Vatican II?

 Just as William F. Buckley, Jr. deplored the effects of bad teachers on good Faith and Morals in 1951 at Yale, what happened at Harvard (unthinkable even 25 years ago) is the logical outcome of the false teachers at Vatican II.

Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World) §73 states:

"No better way exists for attaining a truly human political life than by fostering an inner sense of justice, benevolence, and service for the common good, and by strengthening basic beliefs about the true nature of the political community, and about the proper exercise and limits of public authority."

Obviously, the text is not concerned with "political life" marked by Christian values, but "political life" marked by human values, that is, by values that are generally characterized by "an inner sense of justice, service for the common good." In fact, in this scheme, it is not a question of intellect and will adhering to principles of "justice" and "charity" and to "service" founded on revealed Truth, principles that are objectively set forth by God and taught by the Church throughout the centuries, and necessitate our adherence to them. Rather it is a matter of values merely heeding to an "inner sense." This is totally foreign to Catholicism, and even mortally contrary to it, but is typical of Modernist thinking. However, it goes along nicely with the tenets of the Satanic Temple, doesn't it?  Let's see what the True Church teaches,"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. (See Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, #3, 1906).

Even in a society where Catholics are not the majority, to give free reign to the public worship of evil (under a guise of humanitarianism guided by Freemasonic principles, must be condemned as intrinsically evil. It is not merely "disrespectful."  Being bigoted is the ONLY sin the general public acknowledges these days. Even then, if the KKK wanted to re-enact a mock lynching, I doubt they would have gotten the support of the president of Harvard. The satanists claim the analogy is inapposite because what they do is not oppressive to any minority; they are the minority that has been repressed, and they are showing their disapproval by blasphemy. Once you accept the Masonic/Modernist premises, such nonsense starts to sound OK. The fact is, approval of those who deny God and his objective moral order must be condemned and stopped-- whether those who do so are a majority or minority. This is contrary to the Masonic principles of our country and of the Vatican II sect which joins them.


Nostra Aetate (Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) §2 states:

"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy (vera et sancta) in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

This means that, for the Vatican II sect, the truth "which enlightens all men" perhaps comes through rules and teachings that differ "in many particulars" from the Church's teaching! (How could an authentic ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church have been inspired to articulate such an idea? Answer: It couldn't!). We get this insanity from the heretical notion of "Frankenchurch"( i.e.that there is a "Church of Christ"  within, yet not wholly contained by the Catholic Church and is present according to how many "elements" are to be had). To have all elements is best, but having just some is good too. So if the Temple of Satan acknowledges the devil as portrayed by the Bible, they have some truth, so why protest? Think I'm making an overstatement?

§18 of Ad Gentes (on missionary activity), states:

"Working to plant the Church, and thoroughly enriched with the treasures of mysticism adorning the Church's religious tradition, religious communities should strive to give expression to these treasures and to hand them on in a manner harmonious with the nature and the genius of each nation. Let them reflect attentively on how Christian religious life may be able to assimilate the ascetic and contemplative traditions whose seeds were sometimes already planted by God in ancient cultures prior to the preaching of the gospel."

Here, "ancient cultures" whose gods were "devils," and whose sacrifices were offered "to devils and not to God" (I Cor. 10:20), are recognized in them a salvific presence of "semina Verbi" of the "seeds of revealed Truth." The devil is thus rehabilitated by Vatican II.

 Finally, isn't the Novus Bogus Vatican II service the blackest of all blasphemous "masses"? The people seek the Food of Angels and are given nothing but bread. It pretends to be of God, but it comes from Hell too.

  In summation, the Vatican II sect protested a "black mass."  It was held to be wrong due to "prejudice" more than being an intrinsic evil to society. They went to worship a piece of ordinary bread for an hour because they have destroyed the True Mass and Sacraments. Worst of all, the teachings of Modernism have led us to a place in history where to permit devil worship (properly so-called or otherwise), despite the protestations of a few, is really nothing more than being offensive to people's sensibilities. How could it be otherwise given the teachings of Vatican II?

 At the "canonizations" of Wotyla and Roncalli, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), lamented the elimination of the devil's advocate. They still can't see Mr. Begoglio and his robber council are the biggest advocates Lucifer ever had.

Like A Roaring Lion

   The news media has reported that Antipope Francis is "cracking down" on nuns who espouse "radical feminism."  It's no secret that Vatican II sect "nuns" are, by and large, politically socialist (if not communist), religiously humanistic (apostates who reject Christianity), and many wonder about their sexual proclivities looking and acting like lesbians. I have often commented that in this age of near universal apostasy, we must learn to discern. Is he really doing anything? He might be throwing a bone to the "conservative" members of his sect, so "Fr" Z and company can rave about him. It's telling that he's doing nothing about "Suor Cristina" the 25 year old Vatican II nun who dresses in a habit and went on the TV show The Voice of Italy,  which is much like American Idol. Sr. Cristina dances and sings to such perverse music as No One by Alicia Keys and Girls Just Wanna Have Fun by Cyndi Lauper. Perverse is too strong a word you say? These songs are not so bad, people protest. As a matter of fact Vatican II "Deacon" Greg Kandra of the Diocese of Brooklyn praises her in his blog (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/04/shes-back-sister-christina-performs-again-on-the-voice/). Francis approves of this form of "evangelizing."

   Let's get something straight, Francis has made it clear that "proselytism is nonsense." What's really happening is that Sr. Cristina presents the real danger, not the radical feminist nuns. The latter are seen by many for what they are; women who couldn't get real jobs, have no interest in religion, and want to promote left-wing political causes. Sr Cristina makes people accept the unacceptable. She's liked as she attempts to conform Christ to the world instead of vice-versa (her audition video on YouTube received over 48 MILLION hits).  I heard the ubiquitous song Roar by Katy Perry, and it reminded me of that verse in the Bible, "Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour." (I Peter 5:8--emphasis mine). The spirit of Antichrist is present in most of today's music, not in just the blatant rock groups like AC/DC singing Highway To Hell. 

   When discerning music, it's important to pay close attention to two things: (1) the lyrics and (2) the lifestyle of the musician(s) singing it. Good old "Deacon Greg" thinks the Cyndi Lauper song Girls Just Wanna Have Fun was OK to perform, because Sr. Cristina pointed to Heaven when singing the verse "oh, daddy dear, you're still number one, but girls just wanna have fun." Time for a reality check.

• Cyndi Lauper, born June 22, 1953, became famous as a rock icon in the early 1980s. She is a promoter of sodomite "rights."

• Her hits include Time After Time, about sexual encounters, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun about the need of women to be as openly promiscuous as men, and She Bop, about masturbation

• Despite "Deacon" Greg's protestations to the contrary, Lauper is all about sexual perversion. In an interview on The Howard Stern Show, Lauper stated that she recorded the vocals of the song while nude .Lauper said she wanted little kids to think the song was about dancing, and to understand the real meaning as they got older. She never directly stated in the lyrics what the meaning of the song was, so it could receive airplay

• The video for She Bop featured Lauper as a quirky sexual liberator leading the brainwashed masses to their own liberation. (This was done in metaphor showing teenagers as fast-food consuming zombies.) There were many double entendres indicating the song's true meaning, including a magazine that Lauper is staring at titled "Beefcake" and other sexual meanings such as the "self-service" sign and three gas pumps with the signs Good, Better and Nirvana in the cartoon part of the video, the vibrating motorcycle, the "masterbingo" part of the video with "Uncle Siggy" Sigmund Freud as host, and Lauper wearing blackout glasses with a white cane in several scenes of the video. In fact, the video doesn't go as far as the lyrics, as the magazine referenced in the song ("...in the pages of a Blueboy magazine") was a popular gay erotica magazine of the time, whereas the magazine Lauper holds represents the tamer — and somewhat closeted — erotica of an earlier era. Nor did the lyrical reference come out of the blue: Lauper has stated that finding a copy of Blueboy lying around in the recording studio provided the impetus for writing She Bop.

• In a 1985 interview with Newsweek magazine, Lauper stated that "Church, family, and state are the three biggest oppressors (of women) to come along.

• MS magazine (a pro-abortion, pro-sodomite rag) declared her their "woman of the year" in 1984. She has since received numerous awards for promoting "LGBT" so-called "rights"

• And because Sr. Cristina points to Heaven,  Lauper's music becomes a wonderful tool for conversion? (I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell "Deacon" Greg if he's interested).

   Katy Perry is another example of perversity on parade. Born Katheryn Hudson on October 25, 1984, she is seen as wholesome because her father was a Pentecostal minister and she grew up on Gospel music. Her first album was Christian music. Then, she claims in an interview, "When I was 15, because I grew up in a household where all I ever did was listen to gospel music…. I swear I wanted to be, like, the Amy Grant of music, but it didn’t work out, and so I sold my soul to the devil"

Her first big hit after selling her soul was I Kissed a Girl, which is about a lesbian encounter.  Later her own father would break down in tears over her choice to serve Satan.  He would later acknowledge, as she did earlier, that Perry is doing Satan’s work, exclaiming, “My girl Katy Perry is a devil child.”  He stated, "I was at a concert of Katy’s where there were 20,000. I’m watching this generation, and they were going at it. It was almost like church,” Keith said. “I stood there and wept and kept on weeping and weeping. They’re loving and worshiping the wrong thing.” (See http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4911473/katy-perry-preacher-father-in-devil-child-rant.html). 

   Perry came out as a promoter of Wicca at this year's Grammy awards. She began her performance as a witch, singing within a crystal ball. Then, emerging  from the crystal ball, she danced with revolting-looking "demons" replete with devil horns. She had a Knights Templar cross emblazoned across her torso and turned to pole dancing on a wooden witches broom. She completed her Satanic act by standing before a raging fire like an image straight from Hell itself.  

 This is what we're up against as Satan takes full advantage to deceive as many souls as possible during this time of near universal apostasy. Sr. Cristina's promotion of these wicked songs and the evil people who make money off of it, will not make anyone who is ensnared by them to turn to Christ. Yet how many teens will emulate Sr. Cristina by singing and dancing to these wicked tunes from Hell? How many parents will say it's OK for their kids to do this because if a nun is promoting it as a tool for evangelization (with the support of Antipope Francis) it must be all well and good? How many may lose their soul? 

 Yes, Katy Perry, like her master Satan, goes about "roaring" like a lion seeking those her perverse ways can devour. And we have Francis and the Vatican II sect promoting all these pop music icons with traditionally attired "nuns" telling the masses to be in the world AND OF the world. Why do so many in the Vatican II sect fall for it? I'm reminded of another Scripture verse, "The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite." (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

 

Interviews, Phone Calls, and The Poison Tongue

  Mr. Jorge Bergoglio (Antipope Francis) has made a habit of undermining the vestiges of Catholicism through the mass media. It's as if the Antichrist had his own smartphone (666-HELL, perhaps?). Francis is truly a Modernist fox. By using interviews and phone calls, so-called "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect (e.g., "Fr." Z, Jimmy Akin, Dave Armstrong, etc.) can claim that "it was only an interview (or phone call), and therefore it is only his personal opinion. He was not speaking with his Petrine authority."

  Meanwhile, everyone knows the practical consequences. If you accept this apostate joker as the Vicar of Christ on earth, any opinion he makes public will carry much influence over the Vatican II clergy and laity. His statements are both many and serious:

• Traditionalists are "self-absorbed Neo-Pelagians"
• There is no Catholic God
• Who am I to judge? (sodomites)
• There's no doctrinal security
• Atheists can go to Heaven
• Proselytism is nonsense
• Opposition to abortion and sodomy are obsession with "simple minded rules"
• .....And the list goes on and on

   In his very first interview, Francis hinted at the possibility of giving "communion" (Deo gratias, it's invalid!) to adulterers, i.e. divorced and remarried Vatican II sect members. In retrospect, what he said is downright scary:
“Times have changed and the Church faces many problems,.. I think the time for mercy has come as John Paul II predicted by introducing the Feast of Divine Mercy. Divorced people can take communion, it is those who have divorced and remarried that cannot. Here I must add that the orthodox follow the theology of economics and allow second marriages. When the commission of eight cardinals meets at the beginning of October we will discuss how to proceed. The Church is taking a very close look at pastoral initiatives for marriage. My predecessor in Buenos Aires, Cardinal Quarracino always used to say: ‘I consider half of today’s marriages to be invalid because people get married without realising it means forever. They do it out of social convenience, etc…’ The issue of invalidity needs to be looked into as well.” (Emphasis mine)

On the feast of the false "Divine Mercy," Bergoglio declared the late, un-great heretic Wotyla (John Paul II) a "saint."  In the furtherance of a false notion of mercy and Wotyla's Modernism, Francis is now seeking to give communion to notorious adulterers on or about this October. It began with an interview. Follow that up with a phone call just recently to an Argentinian woman, whom Francis told it was OK to receive the Vatican II communion cracker at another parish! This is the signal that a de facto change is to come. Let's face it, what conservative Vatican II "priest" will have a leg to stand on for refusing communion to adulterers if "Christ's Vicar on Earth" is calling people up and telling them it's alright to do so?

Did the Holy See Press Office immediately denounce the report as false, and declare that communion for the adulterers can never be sanctioned? Of course not!  There was a FOUR SENTENCE press release which would not (and did not) deny that it happened, and leaves everyone wondering what to make of it. According to the blog of Vatican II canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters, it is a serious matter. He writes:
(The sentences of the Holy See's Press Office will be in black; Dr. Peter's response will be in red)

"Several telephone calls have taken place in the context of Pope Francis’ personal pastoral relationships. {Okay}.

Since they do not in any way form part of the Pope’s public activities, no information is to be expected from the Holy See Press Office. {The HSPO has never been limited to commenting only on a pope’s “public” activities, but this statement certainly serves to distance the HSPO from anything related to Francis’ phone calls. The phrase “in any way” strikes me as strong language.}

That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion. {Through the garbled syntax of the sentence, I think this says, again, that the HSPO has no intention of trying to parse what might or might not have been said in a papal phone call, so please don’t even ask.}

Therefore, consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences. {The most important sentence in the communique, and a welcome one, first for what it says—though that should have been obvious—and for its not repeating what was said earlier in regard to Francis’ homilies and ferverinos, namely that they supposedly form no part of the papal magisterium. Of course such statements, being liturgical, public, and on points of faith and morals, were part of the papal magisterium. Not a very big part, I grant, but still, a part. Popes cannot switch-off being popes in the middle of Mass, and the HSPO was, I think, wrong to imply otherwise. Anyway, that mistake is not repeated here.}"

So why wasn't it either denied or the authentic teaching reaffirmed? Francis is undermining the last edifices of Catholicism by leaving it like that, and knowing what the practical consequences would be. Bergoglio wants us to think that St. Thomas Moore and St. John Fisher were fanatics obsessed with "small-minded rules" and really gave up their lives for something that actually doesn't matter much. Here in New York, our openly adulterous, baby-killing, pro-sodomite governor, Andrew Cuomo, is given the Vatican II communion cracker by the so-called "bishop" of Albany. Francis just wants to "normalize" this everywhere.

  People must remember the words of Sacred Scripture, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). Just this past week, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, Donald Sterling, was banned for life from the game because of racist statements he made. People were (rightfully) indignant over these hateful and evil remarks. However, no one seemed perturbed that the statements were recorded by his mistress, several decades his junior,  with whom he would regularly sit together to watch the games! He's been married to the same woman since 1955 and flaunts his adultery in front of his wife and the world. No one cares. The wife and mistress are after his money. "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (I Timothy 6:10). Francis apparently sees nothing wrong either.

 We must ask ourselves, "Why would anyone be shocked to find racism in the heart of a man who harbors contempt for his marriage vows?"  As Our Lord Himself told us, “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart” ( St. Luke 6:45). What Francis speaks from his poison heart and trips out past his tongue is nothing less than vile heresy and moral aberration.

 Mr. Sterling's remarks got him banned from basketball for life. Mr. Bergoglio's words will ban those who follow them from Eternal Life.