Monday, May 29, 2017

Burning Heretics

 We have been so inundated with political correctness, many things which are immoral currently seem right to a majority of people. Just thirty years ago, had you proclaimed yourself in favor of same sex "marriage," you would have been a pariah, and it would be the death knell for a politician. The Great Apostasy has made society lose its moral compass. Conversely, a majority of people also see things which are moral as having become immoral. Case in point: the Vatican II sect has made opposition to capital punishment the equivalent of opposition to abortion and euthanasia. Enemies of Traditionalists and apologists for the Vatican II sect will both cite to the "evil practice" of burning heretics at the stake as alleged "proof" that (a) the Church can be wrong in matters of faith and morals not infallibly defined and/or (b) Church doctrine can "evolve" to the point where something thought to be right can now be wrong. I will set forth the True Church teaching on capital punishment and heresy.

The Morality of the Death Penalty

According to theologian Prummer, "Only the State has the right to put to death those who have committed most serious crimes. The State has this right since the penalty of death is sometimes necessary for safeguarding the common weal [good] and only the State has the duty of safeguarding society. Capital punishment must be reserved for the most serious of crimes and these must be fully proven...Since the State has the power to put the criminal to death, so it has the power for a sufficient reason to mutilate the criminal (e.g., by cutting off his hand) or to flog him." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, pg. 126).

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment)" (See Moral Theology 2: 100).

Theologian Jone writes, "A criminal may be executed if juridical proof has established the moral certainty that he has committed a grave crime for which the State, in the interest of the common welfare, inflicts capital punishment, and if someone has been authorized by the State to execute the sentence." (See Moral Theology, pg. 140).

Proposition required by Pope Innocent III as a condition to be readmitted to the Church: "We declare that the secular power can without mortal sin impose a judgement of blood provided the punishment is carried out not in hatred but in good judgement, not inconsistently but after mature deliberation."

From the practice of the Church: "From 1815, when the pope regained political control of Rome from Napoleon, until 1870, the popes ordered the executions of hundreds of malefactors." (See Norko, M., "The Death Penalty in Catholic Teaching and Medicine: Intersections and Places for Dialogue," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36 (2008): 470-481).

From the Holy Bible: Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." St. John 19:10, "Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest Thou not to me? Knowest Thou not that I have power to crucify Thee, and I have power to release Thee?" Romans 13: 4, "For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. "

It is clear that the Church, in principle, allows for the execution of criminals who have committed "the most serious of crimes." This has always been the case.

Is Heresy A Crime Deserving The Death Penalty?

The propagation of heresy is worse than murder. Our Lord said, "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (St. Matthew 10: 28). Murder destroys the body. Heresy can bring eternal death in Hell. There is but One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved. It is the duty of the State to uphold the Rights of the Church as the sole and exclusive State religion. Error has no rights. 

CONDEMNED Proposition # 77 from the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX (1864): "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." 

In the bull Exsurge Domine, excommunicating Martin Luther and condemning his heresies, CONDEMNED proposition # 33 states, "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

It should be noted that there is a difference between:

(a) condemning a proposition that heretics being burned is always against the will of the Holy Ghost.

(b) endorsing a proposition that heretics being burned is the will of the Holy Ghost in all cases and at all times.

The first is merely asserting that it is possible that at some time and place burning of heretics may not have been against the will of the Holy Ghost, whereas the second proposition claims that the burning of heretics is always the active will of the Holy Ghost. The second statement is not implied by the first. This is where people make the error, and think it "wrong" or "scandalous" that God should permit the burning of heretics.

Let's look at a similar pair of propositions that might shed light on the subject. It is Church teaching that God may permit the capital punishment of some offenders and so to assert that "capital punishment is not against the will of God" is quite a different assertion than claiming that God simply wills capital punishment under all conditions or compels it. As theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means." (See Moral Theology, 2: 101).

Again, the first statement says nothing about when or where the Holy Ghost may permit the burning of heretics, the second implies that the Holy Ghost wills or is never against the burning of heretics. They are not the same claim.

It is the case that proposition (a) is true, that there may be times when burning of certain heretics may not be contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost, but still insist that not every specific case of burning heretics, as these have occurred in history, have always been contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost. It may be that only a certain severity of heresy could result in the Holy Ghost permitting the burning of that individual, and it is possible that such a severity has never occurred.

There is a difference between an "in principle" condemnation and a "de facto" one. In principle, burning heretics is a form of capital punishment, because their evil doctrines kill the soul, which is worse than killing the body (murder). But, just as you don't need to be in favor of capital punishment, as long as you don't condemn it in principle--the same applies here. Hence, there was no change in Church teaching and the burning of heretics is permitted in principle as a form of capital punishment! 

The Vatican II Sect and Capital Punishment

 The ecumenical/universalist sect spawned from the Second Vatican (Robber) Council, sees all religions as more or less equally good and leading to Heaven. Don't expect them to defend capital punishment for heretics, since they no longer believe in heresy (unless you believe the truth as a Traditionalist). However, the sect has basically adopted a de facto stance against capital punishment, in principle, even for premeditated murder. The sect advances four arguments against capital punishment: (1) it allows the killing of a person made in God's image; (2) it violates "the Gospel message;" (3) it is contrary to God's forgiveness; and (4) it shows a depraved desire for revenge. Each argument is seriously flawed.

As to argument #1:
  • God can take human life, as He is the Author of Life. The State has authority from God to "remove from the body politic" someone deemed a threat to the common good. Some object that mistakes are made in executing innocent people, and you can't give that person back their life. However, even if a mistake is made, we would need to do away with imprisonment. If an innocent person is incarcerated for life and either dies in prison, or loses years of his life, those goods can not be restored either.
As to argument # 2:
  • The account of the adulteress brought for stoning and stopped by Christ, is often used as "proof" that capital punishment is wrong because Christ said, "let him without sin cast the first stone." (St John 8: 1-11).
  • This is not a per se condemnation of capital punishment. If it were, then how could any punishment be inflicted, as we are all sinners?
  • The death penalty for adultery was applied to men as well as women under Mosaic Law, yet only the woman was brought to be executed.
  • Roman law prohibited the Jews from executing anyone. This is why Pontius Pilate needed to OK the Crucifixion of Christ. Our Lord could also be protecting Himself of the accusation that He was disobedient to the law.
  • Christ let the woman go free without any penalty. Does that mean adultery is not deserving of any punishment here--or hereafter? Christ was merely showing the Jews as hypocrites. 
  • Romans 13: 1-4, specifically allows for capital punishment: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."
As to argument # 3:

  • Christ was executed by the State, yet he did not condemn the practice. Execution allows time for the convicted to repent and escape eternal punishment, thereby being very forgiving, as opposed to imprisonment which usually just hardens the heart of the killer being locked up for many years.
  • The Good Thief declared in St. Luke 23: 41, "We [i.e. the other thief and himself] are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this Man [Christ] has done nothing wrong." Christ was unjustly put to death, but not the other two. Our Lord did not rebuke the Good Thief, but promised him salvation, "This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise." The Holy Ghost would not inspire St. Luke to record something regarded as just if such were not the case. 
As to argument # 4:
  • In Contra Faustum, St. Augustine writes, "Though there is no sin in wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the man who wishes for no revenge at all is further from the sin of an unjust revenge." (Emphasis mine).  Notice there is nothing wrong with desiring an offender to be punished proportionately within the limits of the law.
The only argument really needed against ANY of them: It goes against the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, which clearly teaches capital punishment is not wrong in principle. 


  Heresy is the root cause of our decaying society. People act on their beliefs, and when those beliefs are wrong, wrong actions follow. Vatican II and Wojtyla (JPII) urged States to adopt "religious liberty." Now, every moral aberration can be found in these formerly Catholic countries. The Vatican II sect dares to put the taking of innocent life (abortion and euthanasia) on the same level as the taking of a life from a criminal who has forfeited his/her own right to life by the murder of another. The Church has always recognized capital punishment, self-defense, and just war as reasons permissible to take human life.

 In today's world, where everything is considered relative, beliefs are "subjective," and everyone is entitled to profess any religion, the idea of burning heretics seems unthinkable as well as cruel and unusual punishment. When put in perspective, it is an act of mercy. It is better to see the horror of a temporary punishment here, and escape a permanent burning in Hell. 

Monday, May 22, 2017

The "Work Of Mary"?

 Evil is rampant in the Vatican II sect. Now, more than ever, heresy, blasphemy, and immorality are promoted by Mr. Bergoglio, the sect's current "pope." Recently, Francis made a trip to Fatima for the 100th anniversary of the Blessed Mother's first appearance there on May 13, 1917. At Fatima, he "canonized" Jacinta and Francisco Marto (the two youngest seers) as "Saints." To be clear, I firmly believe that they are saints, but in the absence of a true pope, they (unfortunately) cannot be infallibly declared as such. For those desperate to cling to the delusion that Francis is "pope," they will cite this event as "proof " of his orthodoxy. John Paul II (Wojtyla) was most emphatic in his "Marian devotion." He made sure to mention the Blessed Mother several times before writing or speaking his latest heresy to ensure that gullible "conservative" members of the sect would think him "holy," and keep in union with him. These usurpers of the See of Peter use what Pope St. Pius X called a "false and lying devotion" to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and attempt to cloak the evil they do under the guise of Marian piety.

 If you really want to see what the false pontiffs of the Vatican II sect think of Mary, look no further than the so-called Focolare Movement. It is also known as Opera di Maria or Work of Mary. Operating with the full backing of the Modernist Vatican, many people don't know of its existence, let alone the heretical motives and teachings of this group. This post will expose the origin and aims of Focolare, and in so doing, the evil of the post-Vatican II "popes," done in the name of Mary, will also be laid bare.

Meet Chiara Lubich

The founder of the Focolare Movement is Chiara Lubich (1920-2008). Born Silvia Lubich in Trent, Italy, she was the daughter of a Socialist father, who was unable get work under Fascist rule. She worked hard to put herself through college and became an elementary school teacher.  When Trent was under siege during the bombings of World War II, Lubich and a couple of close friends were reading the Bible. Lubich experienced what she described as a "strong religious experience" and on December 7, 1943 changed her name to "Chiara" (i.e., "Clare") after St. Clare of Assisi. This date is considered the founding of the Focolare Movement (the name Focolare means "hearth" in Italian, but it is officially known by the Vatican II sect as "The Work of Mary"). 

The Work of Mary (hereinafter "WOM")was given this name because of its alleged link with the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ. Lubich and her friends decided to give this lay movement the interesting motto, "Unity or Death." They wanted to contribute to peace and to achieve the evangelical unity of all people in every social environment. The goal became a world living in unity. It began with this benevolent sounding intention to attract followers. The Modernist theologian, Fr. Pasquale Foresi, became friends with Lubich and helped to shape the group, as did Igino Giordani, a left-wing Italian politician and ecumenist.  They were careful not to draw attention to themselves in the early days of their cause. By using benign sounding phrases and always speaking in general terms, the WOM seemed to be dedicated to uniting all people in the Church. Its true aims wouldn't become clear until 1961 under Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII). 

Apostasy Hiding Behind Mary's Name

The WOM began their ecumenical dialogue in 1961 and have forged ties with Jews, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Hindus, and others. 

From the WOM (or Focolare) website: Our goal: The Movement aims to make a real contribution to breaking down the walls that separate the Churches removing prejudices and providing the space where the different types of ecumenical dialogue  can bear fruit. This ‘dialogue of life’ enables Christians to give witness to the possibility of living together.

The foundation is the Gospel lived under the light of the spirituality of unity, the specific spirituality of the Focolare. Christians from the various Churches, living this spirituality, feel the need to recognize and deepen common patrimony and to also value the sources of spiritual life that are found within the different Churches. The novelty lies in that all feel they are part of a family and are linked by the commandment of Jesus: “I give you a new commandment: love one another; as I have loved you, so you are to love one another. If there is this love among you, then all will know that you are my disciples.” (Jn13,34)

Abject ecumenism: In 1977, in London, Chiara Lubich was awarded the Templeton Prize for progress in religion. She presented her experience before leaders of different religions and had the deep sensation that everyone present, although from different faiths, were like a single family. As she left, it was precisely the people from other religious traditions (Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindu, etc.) who were the first to step up and offer their warm congratulations. This appeared to be evidence that the spirituality of the Movement could be shared not only by Christians, but, to some measure, even with persons of other faiths. For Chiara, these events were a sign from God, showing that the Movement had to open itself to this dialogue with the people of all religious traditions.

On the Jews: Dialogue with the Jews is especially important to Christians. John Paul II spoke of them as our "elder brothers", and Benedict XVI’s "fathers in the faith" further highlighted the deep bond between Christians and Jews.

On Islam: This path of discovery between the spirituality of unity and Islam has had some noteworthy moments: the meeting for Muslim friends held in 2008 in Rome, Italy which was entitled “Love and Mercy in the Bible and in the Holy Koran”. The presentation by Muslim Professor Adnane Morkrani, entitled “Reading the Koran with the Eye of Mercy” was very much appreciated by the Imam and Muslims who were present.

On atheists, agnostics, and other modern day heathens: By the end of the 70s the Movement spread beyond the confines of church and a natural dialogue opened up with agnostics, atheists and people indifferent towards religion. The rapport between all was such that each felt free to express their thoughts certain that unity also means having profound respect for the person, his dignity, identity, culture and needs as well as what he believes in. (All above quotes taken from

Their goal is simple: A one-world, dogma-free religion based on a Modernist notion of "love."

What the One True Church Teaches

On True Unity---Pope Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos # 13): Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate. (Emphasis mine).

On Respecting All Faiths---Pope Leo XIII Custodi Di Quella Fede #15): Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Emphasis mine)

On the Jews---Pope St Gregory the Great, Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers 1:92 If we because of our faith in Christ are deemed children of Abraham, the Jews therefore because of their perfidy have ceased to be His seed. (Emphasis mine)

On Islam---Pope St Pius V, Salvatoris Domini: ...[Moslems] are the enemy of the Catholic faith.

On Atheists and Agnostics---Vatican Council I (1870): 1. If anyone shall say that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema. 

Focolare is No Work of Mary

The Blessed Mother gave us Christ Who is Truth Itself. It is both blasphemous and inconceivable that she could approve such lies present in the teachings and works of Chiara Lubich and the WOM. It is evident that it comes from the father of lies, and this movement spreads the gravest of errors. Yet, what did the Vatican II "popes" have to say about WOM?

1. John Paul II (Wojtyla)
  • John Paul II requested Lubich's participation as an observer at several meetings of the Synod of "Bishops." He held her as a confidant, and approved the group's activities. They de-emphasize the priesthood and religious life, and only allow a woman to be its president (Currently Maria Voce since the death of Lubich in 2008)
  • On June 29, 1990, the "Pontifical Council for the Laity" decreed recognition of the WOM as an international association of the faithful of pontifical right. The WOM has 140,440 members worldwide as of 2015. The centers of common life ("Focolare") are present in 89 countries as follows: Africa (17), Asia (14), Europe (31), Middle East (6), North America (8), Oceania (3) and South America (10). There are about 4.5 million other people who are involved more broadly in the movement, including 47,000 from other churches; 30,000 co-workers and sympathizers belonging to other religions outside Christianity, and 70,000 co-workers and sympathizers without religious convictions. 
2. Benedict XVI (Ratzinger)
  •  Upon her death in 2008, Benedict XVI regarded Lubich as the “founder of a large spiritual family that embraces multiple domains of evangelization,” and expressed his admiration for Lubich’s constant commitment for "communion in the Church," for ecumenical dialogue, and for fraternity among all people.
3. Francis (Bergoglio)
  • Called the Focolare "a little seed in the Catholic Church’s womb that in the course of the years has brought to life a tree...[which] now extends its branches in all the expressions of the Christian family and also among members of different religions and among many who cultivate justice and solidarity together with the search for truth."
  • Opened the cause for Lubich's "canonization" and gave her the title "Servant of God."


The Focolare Movement is the work of Satan and his minions; the Modernists and Masons. It has nothing to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary and everything to do with hiding behind her glorious name to advance a wicked agenda of a One-World Ecumenical Religion. Don't be fooled by "Rosary rallies," Fatima "canonizations," and flowery sermons on Mary. No one can, for example, pray the Rosary and claim to honor Mary if they then attend the Novus Bogus "mass" that makes an invalid, sacrilegious mockery of her Divine Son's unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross. 

 Likewise, don't be fooled by "popes" who speak sweetly of Mary and then promote a movement named after the Blessed Mother which seeks to undermine her Divine Son and His One True Church. True unity of faith is only achieved by converting everyone to the True Catholic Church, outside of which no one can be saved. The "unity" of Lubich and her wicked disciples is one where the truth is forsaken. The motto initially adopted by the WOM was "Unity or Death." It should be, more aptly, "False Unity AND Eternal Death in Hell." 

Monday, May 15, 2017

Do-It-Yourself Theology

Fred and Bobby Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) are to theology what professional wrestling is to the Olympics. Although the former in each case is phony, they are each more amusing, if nothing else. Our baffled "Benedictine brothers" love to pontificate on every theological topic under the sun, while lacking in any theological training. Moreover, they condemn to Hell anyone who dares to disagree with their opinions (subject to continuous change), and based on their (current) private interpretations of ecclesiastical decrees. It was brought to my attention that our Feeneyite fiends have put out an article entitled "Historical Examples of Approved Theologians Teaching Error."  Ironically, the only errors are in the article, not the approved theologians!

The Dimonds write, "A false doctrine has become somewhat widespread in our day among those who deny the Church’s teaching on salvation and baptism.  The error involves elevating the fallible writings of certain ‘approved’ theologians to the status of the Magisterium.  This is a grave mistake which denies the true rule of faith (the magisterial proclamations) by substituting another in its place (the fallible teaching of theologians).  Having adopted a false rule of faith, these people fall into various errors and heresies, especially on the issue of salvation." Is this really the case? In this post I will put forth the facts surrounding the issue.

Flawed Dimonds

 Before you entrust the care of your immortal soul to Fred and Bobby Dimond, here are the facts about them I have published in the past. They:

  • Claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. 
  • Have no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and damn to Hell anyone who disagrees
  • Used to tell people they can attend the Mass of sedevacantist priests who are "heretics" (believe Church teaching on BOD and BOB), as long as they don't contribute money. By the same logic you could attend the Mass of an Eastern Schismatic/Heretic as long as you don't contribute money!
  • Claimed that a Mass with the name of the false pope in the Canon (such as by the SSPX) is a grave evil to attend, yet for years attended the "mass" of the Eastern Rite Vatican II sect which always puts the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)
  • Have spread the Feenyite heresy denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as forcefully as possible and have made an excommunicated Jesuit, reconciled to the Modernist Vatican and holding to many strange ideas and practices (Fr. Leonard Feeney), an ersatz "hero"
  • Currently tell people they can go to Traditionalist priests for Confession, but not for Mass and Communion, and of course, anyone who disagrees is damned to Hell. They are like the Jehovah's Witnesses sect whose teachings change frequently and often contradict prior teachings
  • Have claimed to know that certain people who died were in Hell (we cannot know, except by special revelation, who is in Hell except for Judas Iscariot)
  • Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids
Real Theologians

 The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."
 The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals.  The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.

1. What do we mean by "approved" theologians? Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church.

2. Theologians demonstrate, and do not determine Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is de fide or some other theological note, like "certain."  They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness,  that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes, theologians   are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. (a) In explaining and determining the meaning of dogmas, theologians are considered private teachers with regard to the methods they use (arguments, etc.),but not when they propose a doctrine as a doctrine of the faith or the Church, even though they express its meaning to other persons using other concepts and formulas. (b) The opposite opinion obviously sins against the teaching of the Church regarding the authority of theologians. (c) Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that the Fathers of the Church and her theologians erred in setting forth and explaining the meaning of the doctrine of the faith. This opinion involves the Jansenist error that the faith has been "obscured" in the Church.

 On the subjects of BOD and BOB, theologians may disagree as to what theological note is to be ascribed to them, yet they are unanimous in their teaching that BOD and BOB must be believed. A theological note is a category that tells us how close a teaching is to the truths revealed by God, and which He requires us to believe. For example, a doctrine may be "of the faith" (de fide), the denial of which would be heresy, or "certain," the denial of which would be a direct sin against the Faith, but not heretical. The specific category therefore, has a corresponding censure. However, any category would place the doctrine among teachings that Traditionalist Catholics must adhere to or sin against the Faith. Some theologians simply teach doctrines without assigning theological notes to them, however ALL theologians agree BOD and BOB are in conformity with the truth presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium, otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines and their works would be censured.

Fr. Fenton's The Concept of Sacred Theology makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc, are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. Thousands of people have (to their detriment) "diagnosed themselves" on  Web MD, thinking they can understand their symptoms and arrive at a correct determination without medical education and training. 

3. The unanimous teaching of the theologians represent the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

The universal and constant agreement of the theologians that something belongs to the faith is not a case of some erudite priests or bishops who can be wrong, nor is it a fallacious appeal to authority. It is how the Church teaches us free from error. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium at work.

Proof: "For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

Catholics are bound to believe the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

 Proof: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [Magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed." Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792; Emphasis mine.

The Code of Canon Law (1917) imposes the same obligation. ( See Canon 1323 section 1). Therefore, to reject the unanimous teachings of the theologians is to reject the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

4. To reject the unanimous teachings of the theologians is to deny the Infallibility of the Church.
 As demonstrated by theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: 327,  The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible.) Therefore, the consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of Divine Tradition.

5. Proof of Church approbation of approved theologians.
(a) The many popes who taught material from the works of the theologians.
(b) The founding, directing, and supervision of the various theological schools by the Magisterium.
(c) Since the Council of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes.
(d) Popes have used theologians as consultants and commissioned them to draw up Magisterial documents. Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange drafted the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) condemning modern errors, and theologian Guerard des Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declaring the dogma of the Assumption.
(e) The writings of various theological schools have been praised and recommended by popes. Likewise, the popes and Roman Congregations have been diligent in censoring theologians who go astray. Consider that Frs. John Courtney Murray, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and Josef Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were all censured in their writings and/or suspected of Modernism. These were the theologians who "hijacked" Vatican II for the new Modernist religion it created.

6. The enemies of theologians.
According to Salaverri (and Church history) they include: Protestants, Jansenists, Humanists, and Modernists.

7. The Magisterium further supports the theologians in the last two Ecumenical Councils.
 From the history of the Council of Trent and Vatican I (1870) it is certain that in the theologians was recognized, as a certain criterion of the truth of faith and morals, the unanimous consent of the theologians or of the theological schools.

8. When the Church has not pronounced a subject closed to debate, the theologians (and theological schools) may disagree. 
By argumentation, the theologians refine their arguments and clarify all sides of an issue until there is consensus, or the Magisterium takes sides. This is NOT "proof" that a theological school (or theologians in general) are "in error."

Examples of Approved Theologians Preventing False Interpretation of Magisterial Pronouncements 

 Chapter II of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (July 18, 1870), declares: "Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione, seu jure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem: anathema sit."

Translation: "If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (Emphasis mine)

 The "plain meaning" of this Magisterial text seems to teach infallibly that there will always be a pope except for the brief period of time between the death of one pope and the election of the next. (False) Conclusion: sedevacantism is heretical as it denies a "perpetual line of successors." Many opponents of sedevacantism have used this decree of the Vatican Council to denounce it. They are as theologically ignorant as the Dimonds, because they reject the theologians and come up with a private interpretation. Here's what real theologians teach about "perpetual successors:"

According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

The (1870) Vatican Council's definition was directed against heretics who contended that (1) the Primacy was an extraordinary power Christ gave to St. Peter alone, (2) Christ did not intend it to be passed along in perpetuity to his successors, and (3) this power either died with Peter, or was passed along to the Church or episcopal college. (See Dorsch, de Ecclesia, 2:191-2) The definition therefore means, "a primacy of true jurisdiction, together with a full scope of rights and duties would continue in the Church, and this in virtue of the will of Christ or by divine law." (Dorsch, Ibid 2:191)

Rightly understood, the First Vatican Council does not oppose sedevacantism at all.

As a second example, Feeneyites are fond of repeating the second infallible canon on baptism from the Council of Trent: "Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema." Only "true and natural water" can confer baptism, so BOD and BOB cannot be true. Rejecting the theologians (and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium along with them), the Feeneyites make two fundamental errors. (1) BOD and BOB are not the sacrament of baptism, yet they can confer extra-sacramentally the grace of the sacrament. (2) The canon they cite was not ruling out extraordinary means of salvation by BOD and BOB, it was defining the matter of the sacrament.

 According to theologian Pohle, "That natural water is indispensable for the validity of Baptism has been clearly defined by the Tridentine Council: 'If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism...let him be anathema.' This declaration excludes the figurative use of the term 'water,' as employed by the later Socinians, and denies Luther's assertion that any liquid that can be used to bathe in, is valid matter for Baptism."

The Alleged "Historical Example" of Approved Theologians Teaching Error

 The Dimonds allege that the Council of Florence dogmatically defined the Canon of Scripture (Books of the Bible) and that after Florence, theologians still disputed the Canon of Scripture. Their whole contention is easily refuted in two points.

1.  Florence did not settle the issue of the Canon of Scripture dogmatically.
You have to be careful with the Council of Florence because not all that came from that Council is considered the dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council. This council was called to deal with the Eastern/ Latin Schism and many of its canons were directed to individual Eastern sects and not to the Universal Church. The portion of the council that dealt with the canon was a bull [a letter] from the pope to one of the Eastern sects (2/4/1442). For that reason it was not and is not accepted as being the formal definition of the Canon. That would later occur at Trent when the matter was taken up specifically for formal definition for the entire church. 

In their attempt to prove Florence definitive, they cite (out of context) Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus #20. Read in context what the pontiff wrote: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical." 

 The "ancient and unchanging truth" that was "solemnly defined"  deals with Divine Inspiration, not the Canon of Scripture! Notice how the pope says the subject was "finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." The First Vatican Council speaks to the Inspiration of Scripture, not the Canon. "The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author." Notice, too, how it mentions the Council of Trent, but not Florence. Hence, it was Trent and not Florence that dogmatically ended the dispute. The very decree of Florence says before the enumeration of Biblical Books, "It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit." No pope, nor theologian, nor Trent or Vatican I ever cited the Council of Florence as settling the issue of the Canon of Scripture. The fact the Florence got the Canon correct, shows the protection of the Holy Ghost in dogmatic development, and equally shows that the Church has never ruled against unanimous consent of the theologians. An issue not settled and open to debate does not have unanimous consent by definition, and is another matter altogether.

2. If the Dimonds are correct, Pope Leo X was a heretic. 
In their article, the Dimonds claim "after the Council of Florence, a famous cleric, in a Bible approved by Pope Leo X (though not in an infallible capacity), denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books." Here, the famous cleric is Cardinal Ximenes. If Florence had been dogmatic on the Canon of Scripture, Pope Leo X would be a heretic. The fact that Pope Leo approved the Bible is a testament to the fact the Canon of Scripture was NOT dogmatically defined. Would the Dimonds dare assert that because Bergoglio didn't "infallibly" allow adulterers to receive "communion" it's not formally heretical? Did Wotyla (John Paul II) escape the charge of heresy because he didn't "infallibly" promulgate the encyclical Ut Unam Sint? He didn't infallibly claim to order anyone to kiss the Koran as he did, so it's somehow not an act of apostasy? I could multiply these examples, but I think you get the point.


 The misfit, malevolent "monks" of MHFM have it exactly backwards. Those who reject the teachings of the theologians, reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and wind up in heresy, not those of us who follow them in keeping with the Church. You can follow the approved theologians of the Church, or let Fred and Bobby Dimond "teach" you. Be careful if you choose the latter. They have no ecclesiastical education or training (probably no secular learning beyond high school) and cannot claim to be real Benedictines. They will read Church documents and "interpret them" for you. They will declare you to be damned to Hell for not following their every utterance, so check their website daily (all their opinions are subject to complete change without notice, so it's up to you to keep abreast). They twist citations to fit their private interpretations, much like good Protestants. 

The only authentic interpreters of doctrine are the makeshift "magisterial" wannabe monks, Fred and Bobby Dimond; the Westboro Baptist version of "Traditionalism." I used to credit them for spreading the truth that the See of Peter is vacant, but the damage they do to souls and the True Church far outweighs the good. They will do anything, no matter how duplicitous, to keep people in their Feeneyite heresy--the one thing they never change--in much the same way the Jehovah's Witness sect will change everything except their doctrine denying people life-saving blood transfusions. 

So the next time Fred and Bobby Dimond come out with more "historical examples" of approved theologians teaching error, I hope you will remember not to put your faith in MHFM--Massively Heretical Fraudulent Monks. 

Monday, May 8, 2017

Suicide Solution?

 The hit Netflix series, 13 Reasons Why, is based on an internationally bestselling book of the same name by author Jay Asher. It chronicles the story of Clay Jenson who has received cassette tapes in a package and hears the voice of deceased classmate Hannah Baker. He's one of 13 people who receive Hannah's story, which details the circumstances that led to her suicide. The show glorifies teenage suicide. Hannah was a victim of rape, cyber-bullying and other evil acts. She kills herself to "get revenge" on the thirteen people who wronged her. This female "protagonist" is shown as a "martyr," thereby displaying the show's complete disregard (and a warped understanding) of martyrdom. It also romanticizes suicide as "heroic."

 School districts throughout the United States are issuing warnings against the show, telling parents not to let their children watch it. Unfortunately, you hear virtually nothing (as usual) from the Vatican II sect, and when you do, it's not a condemnation or clarification of Church teaching but only a warped public service announcement regarding "mental illness." The message is that suicide can only be the result of psychological problems, not spiritual ones.  The secular schools will only tell the parents "it's not a good choice." (I guess the same could be said of mass murder).  This post will put forth authentic Church teaching on suicide.

Direct and Indirect Suicide

 Suicide is either direct or indirect, according to both the intention and mode. A person who kills himself from knowledge and choice makes the act direct. The mode is direct if what is done tends by its very nature to cause death (e.g., taking a lethal dose of cyanide). Someone who is mentally ill would only kill himself indirectly. The mode is indirect if that which is done tends from its nature to another end, i.e. to struggle with a criminal wielding a gun. It is wrong to assume that all people are mentally ill, and the suicide is only indirect (although one is free to assume a majority may be psychologically disturbed). 

 Direct  suicide is always a mortal sin that deprives the person of ecclesiastical burial unless they were able to give signs of repentance before death (See Canon 1240, section 3). If the person who attempts suicide is unsuccessful, they are subject to various penalties pronounced in Canon 2350, section 2. If it is doubtful that the person killed himself, the doubt is decided in the decedent's favor that he did not, provided there would be no scandal. 

The Sinfulness of Suicide

 Suicide is a grave sin for three (3) reasons:

1.It is a most grave offense against the rights of God. The act usurps God's authority over life and death. "Thou, O Lord, hast the power of life and death." (Wisdom 16: 13). Human life has intrinsic worth because it comes from God, and God wills the salvation of all. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on a human nature and died for humanity, to give all a chance to get to Heaven. 

2. It is a grave offense against society. A community has the right to be benefited by the lives of their members. It has a demoralizing effect on those who loved the person. People valuable to society would rashly kill themselves in a fit of depression thinking they are not valuable. Even members of society not able to contribute in any substantial, material way would deprive others of an example of fortitude, or the opportunity to show charity and mercy to the needy. 

3. It is a grave offense against the natural law. You cannot "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless there is love of self (not inordinate). Those who kill themselves to escape pain and miseries, incur the greater evils of death and moral cowardice, to be followed by eternal damnation--the greatest of all evils and suffering.  

(Material above condensed from theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, 2: 117-123)

 Spiritual Suicide: Vatican II

 Vatican II has rendered death the greatest evil to avoid by teaching de facto Hell does not exist, God does not punish, and all religions are equal. Ironically, and tragically, it also gives those overwhelmed by trials an incentive to take their own life. Why not end it all and be happy in Heaven? Arch-heretic Hans Kung, now 89 and suffering from Parkinson's Disease, said he will seriously consider suicide. "No one should endure an unbearable suffering as if it were sent by God," he writes in his last book. Really? Isn't that exactly what Christ did to redeem us on the Cross? 

 It's been said that suffering is the price we pay for being human. We put an animal "out of its misery," but human life is different for the follower of Christ. No one wants to suffer, but at least we know it serves a purpose. We can expiate our sins, unite our suffering with Christ and merit the conversion of poor sinners. The greatest of human achievements and creativity can come from suffering, such as the paintings of Van Gogh, or the music of Beethoven. All the saints realized the value of suffering and rejoiced to suffer here rather than hereafter. Vatican II jettisoned the primacy of the supernatural order (for the few left in the sect who even believe in it) and suffering is seen as valueless. Hans Kung wishes to imitate Judas, rather than Christ; fitting as both betrayed Him.


 Consider the following statistics from

  • Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for ages 10-24. 
  • Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for college-age youth and ages 12-18. 
  • More teenagers and young adults die from suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease, COMBINED.
  • Each day in our nation, there are an average of over 5,240 suicide attempts by young people grades 7-12.

 Now, we have a teen drama that romanticizes suicide. 13 Reasons Why makes it seem that if everyone were nice, no one would commit suicide, and given the problems of life, suicide can be an "honorable" and even "brave" option. Rock singers such as Prince, Ozzy Osbourne, and Judas Priest have songs that glorify killing yourself. The Vatican II sect tells us there is no redemptive value to suffering because we all go to Heaven anyway. Christ told us, " And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. " (St. Matthew 10:28). Suicide kills both body and soul. 

Monday, May 1, 2017

Our Father...Who Wasn't There

 Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens, are known collectively as "The Four Horsemen of The New Atheism." Their self-anointed task isn't simply to convince people in the 21st century that God doesn't exist, but that faith is useless, detrimental, and even irrational. Dawkins, an English biologist, wrote a book entitled The God Delusion that went to #1 on the New York Times Bestseller List in 2006 and remained there for a long time. The idea that God is irrational gets its roots in the theories of Sigmund Freud. (That's not to say all psychologists/psychiatrists are atheists or subscribe to his ideas). Freud's criticism of the belief in God is called The Projection Theory. According to this theory, God is a projection of our own unconscious desires. As Freud wrote in his book The Future of an Illusion, "...the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection...which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fears of the dangers of life."

 It certainly doesn't help matters with Jorge Bergoglio telling us "Atheists go to Heaven," as these "New Atheists" seek to rob as many people of Faith as possible. The Vatican II sect is too busy spreading their own Modernist errors which lead to atheism; most of the credible challenges to atheism come from conservative Protestants. One notable exception is Dr. Paul C. Vitz, a Vatican II sect conservative psychologist. He published a book in 1999 and revised/expanded it in 2013 to address the New Atheists entitled Faith of the Fatherless, The Psychology of Atheism. His thesis (and book) is nothing short of brilliant.

Dr. Vitz, a retired professor of psychology at New York University and Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences at Arlington, Virginia, received his PhD from Stanford University, and was himself an atheist until his late 30s. He performed an extensive study on all the major atheists, and came to a startling discovery; they had dysfunctional fathers! Freud's Projection Theory commits the genetic fallacy in logic. This occurs when you try to discredit an idea based on its origin. Even if belief in God came from an unconscious desire for a father-figure, this doesn't prove God non-existent. Perhaps the very reason we have such a desire is because Our Creator made it innate within us to seek Him out.

Dr. Vitz flips the Projection Theory on the atheists. He suggests to them that perhaps the reason they don't believe in God is precisely because He is seen as a loving Father, and they resent their own earthly fathers. This doesn't logically prove atheism false, but it certainly takes the wind out of the sails of their argument. Maybe it's not God that comes from a psychological "defect," maybe it's atheism! Nothing I could write in a short post could do justice to this book, which I hope you will seek out and read. Dr. Vitz develops a theory of his own, but too extensive for the purpose of this post. I will set out what he has to say about the New Atheists and give a brief snapshot of The Defective Father Hypothesis. 

Defective Father Hypothesis

 1. Dr. Richard Dawkins. Born in 1941, Dawkins is a retired biology professor from Oxford University in England. He hates all religion, but has an especially intense hatred of Christianity. He was an only child, born in Kenya to a father who worked in colonial agricultural service. Richard was happy in Kenya, but his father uprooted him while young to return to England. Dawkins was placed in a boarding school called Oundle, which was run by the Anglican sect. He was a good student with an interest in biology, and claims he was a "typical" Anglican until his twenties when he found a better explanation for the world in the teachings of Charles Darwin. Significantly, Dawkins had little contact with his parents, especially his father, once he began Oundle. He was sexually abused by one of his teachers; a pedophile with strong ties to the Anglican sect. This strong negative association with religion and fathers would set him up for his "atheistic conversion." 

2. Dr. Daniel Dennett. Born in 1942, Dennett is a philosopher and cognitive scientist. He is co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and professor of philosophy at Tufts University, having obtained his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, and a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford. Dennett is perhaps best known for his book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomena (2006). He considers God as a meaningless idea generated by the human mind. 

 Born in Boston, Massachusetts, young Daniel and his family moved to Lebanon during world War II, where his father was a counter-intelligence agent for the United States government. His father died in an unexplained plane crash in 1947, when Dennett was only five years old. Shortly thereafter, he moved back to the U.S. with his mother. Dennett has written in his autobiography, "In my youth some of my friends were the sons of eminent or even famous professors at Harvard or MIT, and I saw the toll it took on them as they strove to be worthy of their father's attention. I shudder to think what would have become of me if I had to live up to my father's actual, living expectations and not just those extrapolated in absentia by my friends and family." Dr. Vitz comments that this is odd. There is no sense of loss, and Dennett "shudders" to think what it would be like if he had a father growing up! Psychologically speaking, Dr. Vitz terms this an act of rationalization and denial. 

3. Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was born in 1949 and died in 2011 from complications due to esophageal cancer. He was an English-born journalist (later a U.S. citizen) best known for his attacks on religion, most notably, his work God is not Great; How Religion Poisons Everything (2007). He hated God because he despised the idea of a Supreme Being in control of everything. Hitchens was a libertarian, and considered God an obstacle to liberty. He came to reject God for other reasons as well. His father was cold, and aloof. He rarely spoke and was a Naval officer in England. Hitchens refers to his father as the "Commander," ostensibly due to his being head of the household, as well as his military rank.

 His father sent him to boarding school from age 8 to 18, after which he attended Oxford. He had little interaction with his father, and the few positive words he had for him were his admiration for his military record fighting the Nazis. Hitchens' father admired athletic prowess, and Christopher disappointed him as he was small in stature and an intellectual. Hitchens was very close to his mother, Yvonne. When he was a twenty year old student at Oxford, his mother told him she was bored with his father and was having an affair with a former Anglican "priest," Reverend Timothy Bryan. Both had become followers of the 1960s New Age "guru" Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Shortly thereafter, for reasons not entirely clear, Hitchens' mother and Timothy Bryan had made a suicide pact, and died together at a hotel in Athens. Hitchens blamed his father and the religious ex-Anglican minister for the death of his beloved mother. 

4. Dr. Sam Harris. Little biographical information is known of this neuroscientist born in 1967. He grew up in a secular home with a non-practicing Quaker father, and a non-practicing Jewish mother. He was an English major in college, and became famous when his book The End of Faith became unexpectedly popular. He went back to school and received a PhD in neuroscience to try and prove God a product of the human mind. Harris despises Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, but has an affinity for Buddhism. Harris may be an exception to the hypothesis of Dr. Vitz. However, if Harris has a "dismissing personality style" (which would account for his detachment from his past), he would be more prone to "impersonal force" religions (like Buddhism) as opposed to traditional forms of monotheism. 

There is nothing new about the New Atheists in terms of real arguments, only in terms of their hostility towards God, and their quest to extirpate Him from society. Dr. Vitz writes a compelling account of abusive, weak, or absent fathers in the lives of most prominent atheists. Remember this the next time someone wants to attribute your faith to some "psychological defect." While the "Defective Father Hypothesis" and the "Projection Theory" do not refute or prove atheism from a logical viewpoint, Dr. Vitz gives us much food for thought. 

 How we are raised will have an impact on our inclinations towards right and wrong, good and evil, God and atheism. St. Joseph was held up as the standard for fathers to follow prior to Vatican II. Now, look at what the Vatican II sect has brought upon the world. Divorce and "remarriage" are at an all-time high, with adulterers allowed to receive the Novus Bogus "communion" cracker. Sodomites are getting "married" and raising children, while Bergoglio says, "Who am I to judge?" So-called "single mothers," once a social stigma, are now common place and are allowed to function as "lectors" and "Eucharistic (sic) Ministers." Those of us who were born during Vatican II have seen more dysfunction arise in families and society than ever before. I cannot bring myself to think what those who are raised in the current culture prepared by Vatican II (and moved forward by Frankie) will turn out to be.