Monday, January 26, 2015

Failing The Rabbit Test

Years ago, when a woman tested positive for pregnancy, there was rejoicing by the parents. True, a rabbit died as part of the testing, but the need to know if there was a pregnancy justified its medical use. Antipope Francis, is now saying, "God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that – excuse the word – that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No."

 Humans have the sacred and awesome role in assisting in God's creation. When a man and woman, joined in Holy Matrimony, use natural means to procreate, they form the body of the new human person, and God infuses the immortal soul. Ratzinger opened the door to contraception being formally legitimized in the Vatican II sect when he said female prostitutes could licitly use contraception to prevent the spread of AIDS. This is the complete overthrow of Catholic moral theology. 

 The Ordinary Universal Magisterium has always taught that acts contrary to nature are intrinsically evil and cannot be justified. To say otherwise is to accept the principle that the end justifies the means. An article published in the Vatican II rag, The Wanderer (which always seeks to explain away the Modernist heresy of the Vatican II antipopes), said that contraception is only wrong within marriage because outside of marriage all sexual acts are forbidden anyway, hence extramarital contraception must be judged as moral or immoral on extrinsic grounds (!) 

 If there is nothing wrong with perverting the sex act outside of marriage then bestiality, as well as sodomy, could be justified on some extrinsic grounds. Now, Frankie is getting ready to take it to the next step-- feel free to limit children at will and with out sufficient cause. Don't trust in God. People see our sect as promoting "breeding like rabbits." Frankie even castigated a woman who had seven children by C-section and was pregnant with another child as "irresponsible." 

 All this could lead to a de facto overturning of the true teaching against contraception. The fact (always brought up in the media) that "89% of married Catholics (sic) approve of contraception" no more renders it licit or moral than if 89% of Catholics approved of adultery. When the next October synod on the family takes place in October, watch for what is probably coming next: limiting children at will for selfish reasons is "legitimate." 

 This is an injury to God. Marriage was instituted to propagate the human race. It is an injury to society. It depopulates an already shrinking Christian society which will be overrun by the Mohammedans having large families. It is an injury to the family. It renders the husband and wife selfish and they will either spoil or neglect the one or two children to which they limited themselves  for selfish motives; not out of absolute necessity. It is an injury to the individual as they subordinate the highest good of marriage to their selfish desire to be free from children they deem "unnecessary" because it would detract from a lavish lifestyle. 

 Whether or not Christianity survives or is enslaved by the darkness of Islamism depends on the proper view of the ends of marriage and self-sacrifice. This is a matter of the highest importance--not an exercise in splitting hares. 

Monday, January 19, 2015

Taking A Jab At Truth

 Antipope Francis made headlines this week when, in the wake of the murders at the rag Charlie Hebdo, he claimed that violence in the name of God is never justified (really? The Crusades and just wars were contrary to the Will of God?). He then went on to claim that, "You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others … There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits." Francis then made the quip that if one of his aides (standing beside him) were to insult his mother, the aide should expect to get punched. 

 The media has had a field day with these remarks and, once more, spin-doctors at the Modernist Vatican were attempting damage control (i. e. He didn't mean that violence is justified if you insult someone, etc.) Nevertheless, there were some underlying principles which were by and large ignored and to which I wish to draw your attention. 

 1. "Every religion has its dignity."

  Error has no dignity, error has no rights, except the right to disappear. 

The following propositions were CONDEMNED as ERROR in the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX:

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

It's obvious the True Church did NOT consider false sects that send souls to their eternal ruin as "dignified." There is only dignity in truth not lies. Herein we find the "Frankenchurch" ecclesiology of Vatican II, which teaches that there are "elements of truth" in false religions, and from this "partial truth" they allegedly derive "dignity."

2. "You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

 As a practical matter in a pluralistic state, such as the United States, this is prudent advice. However, what constitutes "making fun"? Disagreeing with and working against false teachings is not the same as schoolyard name calling and taunts. Furthermore, look at the violent nature of Islam. They commit murder when their false prophet is attacked, but when was the last time such a thing occurred when Christ was insulted? You don't see Christians (of the false sects and the True Church) respond in such a way.

 A true pope would have condemned Islam, not made excuses for infidels.  Some commentators have defended Islam on the basis that the religion itself isn't violent, its what some people make of it. I suppose that some bigots could make the KKK an eleemosynary institution, but they would cease to be following the official teachings of the organization, and could no longer be considered Klansmen in the true sense of the word. The Koran teaches jihad and violence to spread the false teachings of Mohammed, anyone who doesn't do so is going against Islam. Analogously, a Traditionalist Catholic who has an abortion is not following official teaching and is "Catholic" in name only, incurring ipso facto excommunication.

3. "Insult my mother...a punch awaits..."

 OK, Frankie seems more protective of his mother than the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the man who made a joke about the Crucifixion!      
( Whom is he trying to kid? Insult my mother and expect a punch, but I'll mock Christ and you can laugh! Frankie has yet to denounce the anti-Catholic, and anti-theistic movies and pop culture singers who routinely mock Our Lord and Our Lady. He exalts his earthly mother over his Heavenly Mother and Her Divine Son.

 These were the real messages the media and bloggers missed. He might not "float like a butterfly and sting like a bee," but Antipope Francis will take a jab at truth every opportunity, hoping to score a knockout for the Father of Lies. 

Monday, January 12, 2015

The Evolution Of Heresy

 On January 1, 2015, the former three-term governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, died at the age of 82. His tenure as governor (1/1/83-12/31/94) was marked by controversy. The nominally "Catholic" governor of the Vatican II sect went out of his way to claim that you could be a "good Catholic" and support the murder of innocent children by abortion. Ironically, he would veto capital punishment citing his "conscience." His explanation was summed up as "capital punishment is the government taking a life, abortion is the government giving you a choice." I guess it never occurred to the left-wing media that their "erudite" darling couldn't come to grips with the fact that if an unborn baby is a person (which he conceded), then that is also taking human life---an innocent life to boot.

 As a life long New Yorker, I remember everyone being "proud" of the fact he was considered presidential or Supreme Court material, as a "great Catholic" (sic) and an Italian-American. One member of the Vatican II sect clergy, "Bishop" Austin Vaughn, Auxiliary Bp. for the Archdiocese of New York (who was in jail for blocking the entrance to an abortuary), denounced Cuomo and said he was going "straight to Hell" unless he repented. The remarks made front page of all the newspapers back in 1990, but not one other member of the Vatican II sect supported Vaughn, including his superior "Cardinal" John O'Connor. No one visited Vaughn in jail, and not a word from "St" John Paul II. Cuomo's son Andrew, the current governor, called his wayward father his "mentor and hero." He wants to enshrine Roe v. Wade into a statute, and in 2011, he strong-armed sodomite "marriage" into law. He lives in sin with his concubine (divorced without even a Vatican II phony "annulment"), and is freely given Vatican II "communion."

 I bring all this up, because as I read the liberal press lionizing this evil man, the New York Times motioned that he was a "disciple of the teachings of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ." Most people have probably never heard of Teilhard (1881-1955) or the destruction which he brought to the Church and the world at large.

Fast Facts On Teilhard:

  • He was born in south central France on May 1, 1881.
  •   He was educated at the Jesuit College at Mongre and joined the Society of Jesus in 1899.
  •  He continued philosophy and seminary education from 1901-05. This was followed by a three-year sojourn to Cairo, Egypt, where he taught physics and chemistry at a Jesuit school and developed his interest in paleontology. He went to England in 1908, studied theology and was ordained in 1911.

  •   He returned to Paris and studied paleontology and took a doctorate in 1922.

  •   For a short period he taught at the Catholic Institute in Paris but his unorthodox views, especially his rejection of Original Sin, led to his expulsion. He was exiled to China in 1923.

  • While in China, he never even attempted to make a convert, and some of his writings suggest he was a racist, who believed the Chinese were "sub-human."

  • He almost never offered The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

  • He was involved in the "Piltdown Man" hoax. They claimed to have found a "missing link" proving evolution, but it was proven to be a forgery--the jawbone of an ape attached to the skull of a human. Teilhard was involved in this lie.

  •  In 1926, his Superior forbade him to teach.

  •   In 1933, the Holy See in Rome ordered him to give up his subsequent post in Paris.

  •  In 1939, the Holy See banned some of his writings

  •   In 1947, Rome also forbade him to write or teach on philosophical subjects.
  •   In 1955, his Superiors forbade de Chardin to attend the International Congress on Paleontology. That same year, de Chardin died in New York on Easter Sunday.

  •   On June 30, 1962, a Monitum was given at Rome by the Holy Office: “It is sufficiently clear that the above mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine. For this reason, the most eminent and most reverend Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as Superiors of Religious Institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Teilhard de Chardin and his followers.”

  •  On July 20, 1981, the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the (Vatican II) Faith, printed a Statement in L’Osservatore Romano reiterating the warning of the 1962 banning of the writings of Teilhard.

According to Teilhard, the true religion, which is Christianity, emerges by means of evolution and reveals itself not as the final stage, but as the only religion capable of continuing development.  Far from being a stage through which humanity passes in adolescence, the adoration of a Savior God is essential to the maturation of human nature. Primitive needs are not outgrown but refined in the Catholic Church until, by its guidance, they are satisfied in the ultimate monotheism, in worship of the Omega-God of evolution. Teilhard’s writings are full of heresies condemned by the Church. Besides denying the Church’s infallible Doctrine of Original Sin, he did not believe in the supernatural, such as angels, the devil or Hell. De Chardin was also a pantheist, who claimed that everything is God.  In addition, Teilhard was a monist, a collectivist, a secularist, founder of a new religion and a religious evolutionist. (See The Truth About Teilhard, by Msgr. Leo S. Schumacher and Christ Denied by Fr. Paul Wickens--whom I was honored to know personally).As a religious evolutionist, Teilhard erroneously claimed that everything is “becoming” and evolving and that God is evolving. So too, does Faith and Moral "evolve" so there is no fixed and immutable dogmas or morals.

This lead to some interesting ideas of Teilhard that his proponents would like us to ignore:

"Rome does not want me to return to my professorship. They do not seem to have taken a dislike to me, far from it; but they want to save Religion…..I would take enormous delight in breaking all ties" (the reference here is to breaking all ties to traditional Catholic belief, and the Church as a whole – from letter written Feb. 14 1927)

"I do not think God should be worshipped" – from a conference given in 1947

"What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world……"(Letter to Leontine Zanta, Jan 26 1936)

"Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?" (Le Christique, 1955)

"I have got so many friends in good strategic positions, that I feel quite safe about the future" (Letter, Sept. 24, 1947, wherein de Chardin remarks on his numerous disciples in positions of great influence in the Church, which would certainly appear to have been borne out by the accolades given de Chardin during the Second Vatican Council)

"No humane hopes for an organized society must cause us to forget that the human stratum may not be homogeneous. If it were not, it would be necessary to find for the Chinese, as for the Negroes, their special function, which may not (by biological impossibility) be that of the whites." (April 6, 1927 letter--pure racism)

 As you can see, if everything is in flux, you can claim to be "Catholic" while holding new and heretical/immoral ideas on everything from Creation, to the Sacraments, The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, abortion, and homosexuality. Teilhard's ideas came alive at Vatican II. Who are some of his most ardent supporters?

According to The National Catholic (sic) Reporter:
"Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, for example, who as a young theologian named Joseph Ratzinger criticized Teilhard's views, a few years ago praised Teilhard's "great vision"of the cosmos as a "living host." That raised a few eyebrows and prompted Benedict's spokesman to clarify that "by now, no one would dream of saying that (Teilhard) is a heterodox author who shouldn't be studied."
Benedict's successor, Pope Francis, has also invoked Teilhard-sounding concepts about the ongoing development of human consciousness, and Vatican observers say it would not be surprising if Teilhard made an appearance in an encyclical on the environment that Francis is currently writing."

 Ratzinger, Francis, and Mario Cuomo. These are the fruits of Teilhard. The late Fr. Malachi Martin (of whom I am no fan), did remark in his book Hostage to the Devil, that one of the five reported cases of diabolical possession (that of a priest) was caused by his reading of Teilhard's writings (technically forbidden in writing by the Vatican, but now openly embraced by the current and immediate past antipopes). Could it be that they have invited Satan not only into the Church (to set up a false sect), but even invited him to possess their very soul? Following  De Chardin in his radical evolutionism, they've become a monkey's uncle, and ape Satan in his hatred of the truth.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Hollywood's Unbroken Assault On Faith And Morals

Two new movies were recently released in theaters across America. Both attack God, one directly, the other indirectly. Popular culture is no longer content at being atheistic, it is openly anti-theistic (i.e. it doesn't merely deny God, it openly seeks to eradicate Him and His moral law from society). Ridley Scott, an avowed atheist, has put forth the movie Exodus: Gods and Kings.

 In the movie, the parting of the Red Sea is made to be a purely natural event, given Scott's atheism. You can’t just do a giant parting, with walls of water trembling while people ride between them,” says Scott, who remembers scoffing at biblical epics from his boyhood like 1956’s The Ten Commandments. “I didn’t believe it then, when I was just a kid sitting in the third row. I remember that feeling, and thought that I’d better come up with a more scientific or natural explanation” (See Like the Modernists, Scott seeks to explain away the supernatural character of the parting of the Red Sea by the occurrence of a meteor hitting the sea, followed by cyclones and tidal waves. The idea of a meteor hitting the sea and not hurting the Jews, but causing the Egyptians to be swallowed up in the aftermath at the precise moment would be miraculous in and of itself!

 Scott continues his onslaught against the supernatural by claiming that the Burning Bush (through which God spoke to Moses) is really just a delusion of Moses hearing voices in his head after receiving a concussion when a rock strikes his skull. He sees a little boy talking to the bush, but only he can see the boy, making him appear delusional. God is further ridiculed, being portrayed as a small boy who has temper tantrums, and Moses yells at Him (!) However, a pagan priestess is seen giving a correct prophesy not recorded in the Bible, or in Tradition. Scott simply made it up and the pagan "gods" seem superior to the True God. The actor playing Moses, Christian Bale (best known as Batman in the Dark Knight movie trilogy), claimed, "I think the man was likely schizophrenic and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life,"he said.
Bale also said he was surprised by the complexity of the Old Testament figure – and his creator.(sic)
‘He was a very troubled, tumultuous man and mercurial. But the biggest surprise was the nature of God. He was equally very mercurial.’ "(See

 Also released was Unbroken, directed by Angelina Jolie and is based on the book Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption (2010), written by Laura Hillenbrand. It tells the story of one Louis Zamperini, who died aged 97 on July 2, 2014. He was a member of the US Air Corps during World War II. His plane got shot down, and after barely surviving 47 days at sea, Zamperini was captured by the Imperial Japanese. He endured untold hardships and torture at the hands of the sadistic Japanese; especially one called "The Bird" who regularly tortured prisoners. Zamperini prayed to God promising to serve Him, should he survive. Eventually, Zamperini made it home, but forgot his pledge to Christ and led a sordid life.

 His greatest challenge (ironically) came when he was home. He suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and became an alcoholic. He remembered his pledge to God, and promised to serve Christ. He beat his addiction, and his PTSD subsided. He actually returned to Japan to forgive his torturers.  Only "The Bird" refused to meet with him. This is incredible Christian charity, and I wonder if Mr. Zamperini would have entered the Traditionalist Church had he only known about it.

 Unfortunately, as powerful and moving as Louie Zamperini’s story is, the most moving and profound part of the story has been excised from his life in Jolie’s Unbroken. It would be easy to show his life spinning out of control with haunting nightmares, alcoholism and PTSD, drawing attention to a huge problem that is tragically overlooked in the world. His conversion and transformation, along with the saving of his marriage and subsequent trip to Japan to forgive his captors, would move millions to tears! According to an L.A. Times story, Jolie told Donna Langley, chairman of Universal Pictures, that her version of the story would end with Zamperini’s liberation as a POW and would not include his bout with alcoholism and his dramatic conversion to Christ. Jolie got the idea to leave out that part of his life in "a vision" she received at 2 am one night.

 When Jolie was questioned about what she wanted people to take away from the movie, she replied"“For my children and for everybody in the room, I want to be able to say, 'It can seem dark and it can seem hopeless and it can seem very overwhelming, but the resilience and the strength of the human spirit is an extraordinary thing.'” (See Angelina Jolie, NBC’s Today Show, February 25, 2014) When asked if God existed, Jolie responded, "For some people. I hope so, for them. For the people who believe in it, I hope so. There doesn't need to be a God for me. There's something in people that's spiritual, that's godlike. I don't feel like doing things just because people say things, but I also don't really know if it's better to just not believe in anything, either." Jolie is reportedly raising her Cambodian son Maddox Buddhist, though her personal beliefs are not widely known" (See --Emphasis mine)
Had Mr. Zamperini lived to see the film, I think he would have been moved to tears for what was left out of his life---God.

 A tale of two movies, both meant to appeal to mostly Christian audiences. One denigrates God, and the other ignores Him. I wouldn't have expected anything less from Hollywood, unless produced by that rare individual like Traditionalist Mel Gibson. Save your money and don't patronize these latest insidious films against God. The Vatican II sect will not be warning you of this danger. Stay away, and at least your soul will remain unbroken.