"Islamophobia" Or Misogyny?

 There is a veritable gallimaufry of internal contradictions that occupy the thoughts of the left-wing. Gender is not something innate, it's something that you choose; yet we must fight for women's rights. You must be able to marry "anyone you love," yet polygamy is outlawed. Morality is relative, yet Donald Trump is objectively evil. Guns should be outlawed because people can get hurt, but abortion must be legal. The Law of Non-Contradiction in logic has no place in the liberal mindset. We often hear in the media, and in the Vatican II sect, that Islam is a "religion of peace" and to deny them open access to our boarders is "Islamophobia." Notice how the left comes up with neologisms for anyone who opposes their ideas. You don't agree that Islam is wonderful? You must be crazy; you have a "phobia" which, of course, is a neurosis---a mental disorder. Likewise, to reject the sodomite lifestyle makes you "homophobic."

 To show the sheer lunacy of the idea that "Islam is a religion of peace," ask your Modernist Vatican II sect friend if he/she believes in "equality for women"--such as female "priests" and other feminist tenets such as the  use of artificial contraception so woman can work free from "the burden" of children. In 99.9% of all cases, the reply will be that they do. Below, this post will set out to prove that those two ideas are mutually exclusive. Not only are Mohammedans anti-feminist (which is not a bad thing), they are misogynists who mistreat and demean woman as part of their false and evil religion.

Islam's Inherent Contempt for Women

 Islam gets its teachings from the perverse and wicked man, Mohammed. His teachings are contained in the Koran, believed to be revelations given to him by the god "Allah." Next to the Koran, most Mohammedans accept the teachings of the Hadith, a book which purports to be a record of the words, actions, and the silent approval, of their "prophet," Mohammad. The Tabari is a collection of Koran verses and Hadith quotes, and is illustrative of how "Allah" allows women to be abused, to the point of likening them to animals and sex objects. 

"Allah permits you to shut them [women] in separate rooms and beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Koran." (Tabari IX:113; Emphasis mine)

One of the worst practices in Islam is female genital mutilation (known as "FMG"). Young girls have their clitoris removed (most times without anesthesia) to eliminate their sexual drive ensuring they will not be attracted to boys and become "prime property" on the "marriage market" as a virgin. 

Men are allowed to be wife beaters. The Koran 4:34, "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], beat them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." (Emphasis mine). 

Here is a brief run down of the status of women in the Koran and Hadith. Women:

• Can be shut in separate rooms
• Should be beaten if disobedient
• Are to be treated like domestic animals
• Have deficient minds
• Make up the majority of damned souls in Hell

Islam: Condones Pedophilia and Murders Sex Crime Victims

 The pervert Mohammed was betrothed to his friend's daughter when he was forty-nine (49), and the girl Aisha was six (6). He consummated "marriage" with her three years later when the girl was nine (9) and he was fifty-two (52). Decent people will realize this is pedophilia. Mohammedans see nothing wrong with it and many Moslem countries, while having marriage ages in accord with acceptable standards, turn a blind eye to such "marriages" with middle-aged perverts and girls as young as nine. I'm wondering how long before sodomites, pro-pedophilia NAMBLA, and the ACLU use this practice to argue that statutory rape laws are unconstitutional and "ageist." (You must be "free to marry whom you love" after all, right?). 

Furthermore, if a woman is raped in an Islamic country, she is guilty of "adultery" if married, and in transgression of the "chastity laws" if single. Take the outrageous case of Iranian girl Atefeh Rajabi Sahaaleh, who was executed by hanging on August 15, 2004 at the age of 16. Atefeh was arrested after being raped by a 51-year-old man. According to Iranian law, she was convicted for "crimes against chastity." She was tortured by the police until she admitted she was raped by a fifty-one year old cab driver named Ali Darabi, who was married with children. She was found guilty of adultery (since the rapist was married!) and crimes against chastity. (See, e.g., documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYMNiSnlz_w)

Finally, we have "honor killings," which is when a woman of any age is under any suspicion of having brought shame to her family. At that point, the family of the girl/woman have not only a right but a duty to murder her and "restore honor" to the family. Lest anyone think this barbaric practice only occurs in "extremist" Islamic states, it has happened right here in the United States by those "peace loving" Mohammedans. 

Atlanta, Georgia--January 2009. Twenty-five year old Sandeela Kanwal was strangled to death by her father for wanting to obtain a divorce from a marriage arranged by her father. According to the CNN news report, "'Honor killings' -- the slaying by family members of a woman or girl thought to be bringing them shame -- are usually kept quiet, making it difficult to determine how frequently they occur. The United Nations Population Fund estimated in September 2000 that as many as 5,000 women and girls fall victim to such killings each year." (See http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/08/honor.killing/). 

Turkey---September 2008. A 16 year old girl was buried alive after her family agreed that she had brought shame upon them. Her crime? Talking to boys in public. "Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an "honor" killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys. The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-meter hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman. Police made the discovery in December after a tip-off from an informant, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on its website. The girl had previously been reported missing. The informant told the police she had been killed following a family 'council' meeting...More than 200 such killings take place each year, said the piece, 'accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.' According to Eurostat, Turkey's yearly murder rate averaged 6.1 per 100,000 population between 2005 and 2007 (the ­latest figures), meaning that the 200 are actually set against an annual total of about 4,400." (See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/04/girl-buried-alive-turkey)

Pakistan---2016. "Parveen Rafiq closed her hands around the neck of her youngest daughter, Zeenat, and squeezed and squeezed until the girl was almost dead. Then, in the tiny apartment where the family lived, she doused the 18-year-old with kerosene and set her on fire. Neighbors saw the smoke and rushed to the home. Someone inside, apparently one of Rafiq's daughters-in-law, was screaming, 'Help her! Help!'

But the door was bolted from within. Moments later, they heard Rafiq scream from her rooftop: 'I have killed my daughter. I have saved my honor. She will never shame me again.'  Her macabre death on June 8 in the eastern city of Lahore was the latest in a series of increasingly gruesome 'honor killings' in Pakistan, a country with one of the highest rates of such killings in the world. In one case, a mother slit the throat of her pregnant daughter who had married a man she loved. In yet another, a jilted suitor doused a teenage girl with kerosene and set her on fire. In the city of Abbottabad, a teenage girl was tortured, injected with poison and then strapped to the seat of a vehicle, doused with gasoline and set on fire. Her crime was helping a friend elope." (See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistan-honour-killing-rate-womens-rights-mother-daughter-marriage-a7118356.html). 

Conclusion

 Ask your Vatican II sect friend after being presented with these facts, "Do you still think Islam is a religion of peace?" Does any of the above sound "peaceful"? The fact remains that Islam is barbaric to the core. The Catholic Church is derided by the Modernist occupiers of the formerly Catholic buildings as "oppressive to women" for not ordaining women as "priests," yet they will never condemn the real oppression of the Mohammedans. If I condemn this evil religion for what it teaches and does against women, am I "Islamophobic"? If I refuse to condemn Islam, am I a misogynist? A real Modernist conundrum. 

On a final note, the disturbing picture at the beginning of this post is of then eighteen-year-old Bibi Aisha in 2010. She was married at fourteen and was routinely beaten by her husband. At 18 she fled the abuse but was caught by police, jailed for five months, and returned to her family. Her father returned her to her husband's family. To take revenge on her escape, her father-in-law, husband, and three other family members took Aisha into the mountains, cut off her nose and her ears, and left her to die. She was rescued by some workers. Her picture made the cover of Time magazine. Doctors from the United States volunteered to give her plastic surgery. She has since had reconstructive surgery and is twenty-five years old, residing in Maryland. A victim of that "peaceful religion." 

Let us pray the full and unedited version of the prayer for the "Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ" composed by Pope Pius XI, and keep the words redacted by "St" Roncalli (John XXIII) in 1959, namely-- "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism; refuse not to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God."

A False Martyr

 On October 14, 2018, Traditionalists the world over shook their heads in disbelief as Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) "canonized" his equally false predecessor, Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) a "saint." This act requires no commentary from me. Montini was a practicing sodomite, a Freemason, and the person who "promulgated" all the heretical documents of the Second Vatican (Robber) Council, which form the basis of the man-made Vatican II sect religion. As real canonizations are infallible acts, everyone is faced with the choice of either accepting Montini as a saint worthy of emulation by the faithful, or rejecting the papal pretender who dared to list his odious name among the great saints of the Church. Yet, the "recognize and resist" crowd, and others immune to logic and reason, will somehow try to justify this act or convince themselves canonizations are not really infallible. They "forget" the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church, which means the Church cannot give that which is erroneous or evil--and giving Montini to the world as a "role model" is evil. Therefore, it could not have come from a true pope.

With most of the notoriety centered on Montini, less has been written about the second big name to be "canonized" the same day: "Archbishop" Oscar Romero of El Salvador. He was "martyred" on March 24, 1980. Romero was no martyr and no saint. As I will demonstrate in this post, Bergoglio has eviscerated the Catholic theology of martyrdom, and given the world a heretical notion in its place. To make an analogy, Romero is to martyr as Bergoglio is to pope.

Romero's Life in Brief

Oscar Romero was born on the Feast of Our Lady's Assumption in 1917. He had little formal schooling, but was very intelligent. At the age of 13, he wanted to become a priest, and was formally educated at the seminary in El Salvador, before completing his studies in Rome, graduating from the prestigious Gregorian University. He was ordained to the priesthood on April 4, 1942. Back in El Salvador, he worked as a parish priest and in several ministries. In January of 1966 he complained of exhaustion, and he was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and the priests who counseled him said he suffered from scrupulosity. (See Oscar Romero: Love Must Win Out, Liturgical Press, [2014], pg. 45). 

Fr. Romero had no problems with the changes of Vatican II and embraced them. In 1970 he was invalidly "consecrated" as auxiliary "bishop" for the Archdiocese of San Salvador. In February of 1977, Romero was appointed "Archbishop" of that See by Montini. He held to nuanced version of the heretical Liberation Theology, (a form of Marxism) and denounced the government on the radio and from the pulpit every chance he had.  On March 24, 1980, while performing the Novus Bogus bread and wine service, a right wing death squad entered the church, and shot Romero in the heart, killing him at once. The perpetrators were never apprehended. In 1983, Wojtyla (John Paul II) prayed at Romero's tomb. The cause for his "sainthood" was opened in 1990. In 2000, Wojtyla declared Romero "that great witness of the Gospel." He was "beatified" in 2015, and "canonized" in 2018 by Bergoglio.

Liberation Theology

In the wake of Vatican II, Marxist ideals made inroads with the clergy and were openly embraced, particularly in South America. A Dominican priest, Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez (b. 1928, ordained 1959) wrote a book entitled A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll Press, NY: Orbis, [1971]) which gave the movement both its name and impetus. As a young man, Gutierrez studied to become a doctor, only to change course and study for the priesthood. He was taught by the most Modernist theologians of the day, Frs. Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Marie Dominique Chenu. De Lubac was removed from his teaching position in 1950 on suspicion of Modernism, Congar was prevented from teaching and publishing in 1954, and had one of his major works censured in 1952. Chenu had a book, Une école de théologie placed on the Vatican's Index of Forbidden Books in 1942 because of its heretical ideas about the role of historical studies in theology. He was subsequently removed from his teaching post. All three were rehabilitated by Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI), becoming perti (theological experts) at Vatican II. De Lubac and Congar would be made "cardinals" and heroes of the Vatican II sect. Gutierrez credits heretic Chenu as his biggest influence. 

With this background, its not hard to see that "Liberation Theology" is heretical from its very inception. It is basically Communism dressed up in religious garb. Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains unchanging for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.Theology is about actions to help the poor and oppressed using Jesus Christ as the "model of liberation." Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed. From what are they to be liberated? Not sin, but poverty and capitalism. Just like Modernists, they give traditional Catholic teachings new meanings while retaining the same verbiage. 

Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez's, "liberation theologians" interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. Gutierrez explains in his book that "sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men." (pg. 72). Those who are oppressed can and do sin by acquiescing to their bondage. To go along passively with oppression rather than resisting and attempting to overthrow it (by violent means if necessary) is a sin. The use of violence has been one of the most controversial aspects of liberation theology. Such violence is not considered sinful if it is used for resisting oppression. Indeed, certain liberation theologians in some cases regard a particular action (e.g., killing) as the sin of murder only if it is committed by an "oppressor" (usually meaning any capitalist government), but not if it is committed by "the oppressed" in the struggle to remove inequities.

Salvation. Salvation is viewed not primarily in terms of life after death for the individual, but in terms of bringing about the kingdom of God: a new social order where there will be equality for all.

Jesus Christ. While liberation theologians do not outright deny Christ's Divinity, there is no unambiguous confession that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. The "significance" of Jesus Christ lies in His example of struggling to help the poor and the outcast. The Incarnation is reinterpreted to represent God's total immersion into man's history of conflict and oppression. Christ, they tell us, was about liberating the poor. They conveniently ignore He said, "For the poor thou hast always with thee: but Me thou hast not always." (St. Matthew 26: 11).  

The Church. Gutierrez and other liberation theologians say the Church's mission is no longer one of a "quantitative" notion of saving numbers of souls. Instead, the Church's Great Commission is about improving the "quality of life" on Earth; thereby siding with the poor and the oppressed.

Despite all this heresy, Gutierrez was never excommunicated or censured by Wojtyla, the "anti-Communist" who condemned Liberation Theology, yet did nothing to stop it. It is claimed that Romero disavowed violence, and was not a "liberation theologian" but a "Transfiguration theologian" who rejected Marxism. What is "Transfiguration theology"? It is an ecumenical, watered down socialism. Romero did indeed denounce violence. However, he stated:
"Pope Paul VI who continually enlightens my thinking in these matters...also encouraged ecumenism as a spiritual and pastoral need. With joy I am able to tell you that we have spoken with our evangelical sisters and brothers and very soon we will meet to plan and work together in an authentic ecumenical sense." (See http://www.romerotrust.org.uk/homilies/126/126_pdf.pdf)

 Montini, the apostate sodomite and Freemason, was Romero's "enlightenment." His work is based on ecumenism from Vatican II, and has its roots in Liberation Theology properly so-called. Furthermore, "Cardinal" Gerhard Muller claimed to have read through "six volumes on Oscar Romero" and at the end of this exhaustive study found nothing that would prevent him from being recognized as a saint. This is not very reassuring considering that Muller, the former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (sic), is himself a heretic who denies the dogma of Transubstantiation. (See the excellent analysis of Novus Ordo Watch at: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/08/heresies-cardinal-muller-transubstantiation/).

The next section will explain why Romero was so keen on ecumenism.

Romero and Opus Dei

According to opusdei.org, Opus Dei’s founder, Saint (sic) Josemaría Escriva, and Archbishop Romero had known each other since 1955. In 1974 Romero came to Rome and had several conversations with the future saint. Escriva was concerned that the Archbishop should have the opportunity to rest during his stay in Rome, because he realized the tense situation he faced back in El Salvador.

After Escriva's death, Romero was one of the first bishops to write a letter to the Holy See asking for his canonization. In this letter he said that he was grateful for having known Msgr Escriva personally "and for having received from him encouragement and strength to be faithful to the unchangeable doctrine of Christ and to serve the Holy Roman Church with apostolic zeal."

And he [Romero--Introibo] continued: "Personally, I owe deep gratitude to the priests involved with the Work [Opus Dei], to whom I have entrusted with much satisfaction the spiritual direction of my own life and that of other priests."

Cardinal Rosa Chavez, auxiliary bishop of San Salvador and a close friend of Romero, says that the martyr’s spirituality was nourished by the spirituality of Josemaría Escriva and that he often read his book The Way."
(See https://opusdei.org/en/article/saint-oscar-romero/amp/).

Opus Dei (Latin: "The Work of God") is organized like a religious order, comprised overall of priests and laity. Entering "the Opus" is considered to be a vocation and there are both rules and vows, although married members take different vows than clerics. It is a personal prelature, meaning that, there is a prelate, clergy and laity under the direction of the Congregation of Bishops. As opposed to a diocese, people are bound to the prelature by membership as opposed to geographical area.

Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?

 In a word: NO.

• It was the first institution to take in non-Catholics and even non-Christians

• For Escriva and his organization, freedom of conscience comes before Truth. Hence he said, "[Religious] Pluralism is not to be feared but loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom."

• Escriva had Protestant, schismatic, Jewish, Moslem and even pagan benefactors who were very good financial brokers for Opus Dei; it was already an active force for "political ecumenism." In Spain, the group refused to take a stand against abortion, not wanting to violate the "conscience" of the non-Catholics

• Montini (Paul VI) used the work of Escriva for his personal meditations

• The Opus Dei member ultimately learns not only to respect, but to love, religious pluralism

This was the garbage spirituality and theology of Romero. He used a version of liberation theology based on Vatican II ecumenism and made enemies based on this heretical theology as well as for denouncing the government.

Can Romero Be a True "Martyr"?

Bergoglio believes in an "ecumenism of blood;" that members of false sects can be "martyrs." He stated on Vatican Radio, February 16, 2015:
"The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard,” said the Pope.  "It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ."

This is so far removed from Catholic teaching, it can't be denounced strongly enough. Time for a reality check. The following points I condensed from Fr. Ronald Knox's wonderful treatise The Theology of Martyrdom (B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, (1929)).

1. The word "martyr" means "witness." It means you give witness to the True Faith by your death. Martyrdom implies, not simply losing your life, but giving up your life. Your life is prematurely cut short in the interests of something greater than yourself. Neither suffering by itself, nor suffering followed by death is martyrdom properly so called.

2. The Church does not bestow the title of martyr upon those heroic priests, nuns, and layman who have persistently attended to the suffering in times of pestilence. St. Aloysius, whose death was brought on by such a labor was not canonized a martyr. These deaths were not the result of the assertion of religious truth against the enemies of religious truth. They laid down their lives for Christ's sake, but not for Christ's quarrel. 

3. The faith one dies for can only be the unadulterated, Integral Catholic Faith; the One True Religion. To those who object that non-Catholics can receive Baptism of Desire, and it is therefore hypocritical to deny Protestants who, in good faith, die for a false belief the title of martyrs, it can be demonstrated their argument is without merit.  Baptism of Desire does not deny the objectivity of Truth, as this argument presupposes. The world tells us "Be good and you will go to Heaven, if such a place exists." A martyr is not someone who dies for what they believe, it is someone who dies for the Truth. Thomas Crammer died because he disbelieved in the papacy. St. Thomas More died because he believed in the papacy. Both cannot be true, so to make martyrs of both means either objective truth doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

4. As an adult, you must have the intention to die as a witness for the Truth. If a Traditionalist is killed in his sleep (unaware he was in any danger) by someone who is an enemy of the Faith, he does not qualify as a martyr. The Church means, by martyrdom, death undergone at the hands of those who hate the True Catholic Faith, for the sake of the True Catholic Faith; and undergone, in the case of adults, deliberately. Infants, killed for the sake of the True Faith, by those who hate the True Faith, die as martyrs without any intention necessary. They receive Baptism of Blood (if unbaptized) and their salvation is assured. (e.g. The Holy Innocents).

5. On the part of the enemies of Christ, a certain odium fidei ("hatred of the Faith") is necessary. A wholesale abandonment of the Faith, or hatred of all beliefs, is not necessary. To hate any article of True Faith/Morals because it is taught by the Church will suffice. Therefore, Henry VIII did not have to abandon every belief of the Church. Denying divorce and remarriage is adultery and hating that belief because the Church teaches it as true, was sufficient without more, to establish an odium fidei.

6. A soldier who takes up arms to fight a just war is not to be considered a martyr if he dies. Hence, the one who dies must not be guilty of provocation---that he died because he didn't kill the other man first. The exception is with captured soldiers who, now unarmed, are given the option of death or apostasy.

7. Notice how different this is from the Moslem conception of committing suicide while killing others (e.g. 9/11 attacks) as "martyrdom"!

Romero was killed because of a heretical theology and his political activity. Therefore, he did not die for the One True Church and--on that basis alone--cannot be a martyr. His murderer(s) did not truly have the "hatred of the faith"--only hatred for Romero's politics and false theology which supported his politics. Romero is neither a saint nor a martyr, unless you jettison all Catholic teaching on martyrdom by replacing it with an "ecumenism of blood" as professed by Bergoglio.

Conclusion

On October 14, 2018, Jorge Bergoglio held up as "saints" a false pope and a false martyr. Montini (Paul VI) did more to destroy the Faith and drive the Church underground than anyone else. Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio were just speeding up the process he began.  Oscar Romero was a revolutionary who offered an ecumenical form of socialism under the guise of Christianity. His theology and spirituality were formed by (and praised by) heretics of the worst kind. He does not meet even the minimum standards to be considered a martyr according to the teaching of the One True Church. 

Meanwhile, real pope-saints, such as Pope St. Pius V, and Pope St. Pius X are obscured (at best) or derided as irrelevant in "today's world" because they were not ecumenical. Now, we have real saints and martyrs, like St. Isaac Jogues, St. Maria Goretti, and St. Thomas More being replaced in the Vatican II sect by the likes of Oscar Romero, a socialist and heretic, who didn't die for the Faith. "Pope" Francis does not want held up for emulation someone who died to convert the Native Americans from paganism (they were "noble savages"), or who died for defending her virginal purity (not sensitive to promiscuous sodomites), or who died defending the true doctrine on the papacy (not sensitive to Siscoe, Salza, and the SSPX who want to join Francis). 

No, Bergoglio wants the world to emulate someone who embodies the "spirit of Vatican II" and spouts the Communist "Social(ist) Gospel." As the world crumbles around us with Faith and Morals disappearing more and more, the day may not be too far off when many of us who profess the Integral Catholic Faith may be targeted and become true martyrs. May God then give us strength. 

Know Thy Enemy

 The Vatican II sect is a man-made religion created in the wake of the death of Pope Pius XII. It is founded on the heresy of Modernism, which is so evil, Pope St. Pius X called it the "synthesis of all heresies." While many people rightly "know it when they see it," there is no shortage of those who don't fully understand what it is, how it developed, and the remedies against it. Pope St. Pius X wrote two very strong Magisterial documents against Modernism: The encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), and a syllabus of Modernist errors, Lamentabili Sane (1907). These decrees are a perfect dissection of the problem, however, they are written for those well-versed in both philosophy and theology. Luckily, in 1907, a very holy and learned priest, Father J.B. Lemius, wrote a 155 page booklet entitled A Catechism of Modernism. His goal was to make the teaching of Pascendi accessible to all people in a "question and answer" catechism-type of format.

 The booklet was endorsed by no less than Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, the staunch Anti-Modernist theologian and saintly adviser to Pope St. Pius X. Fr. Lemius' work was reprinted by TAN Books in 1981. In this week's post, I will seek to condense the Anti-Modernist catechism so that all may better understand the greatest enemy of humanity, the Modernist Vatican II sect, which apes the One True Church and leads millions to their eternal damnation. I take no credit for what is written. It was all put together by Pope St. Pius X, and masterfully broken down into a more reader-friendly format by Fr. Lemius. I merely try to make an even more truncated version, with the hope of not sacrificing too much material for the sake of brevity. The section on "Modernism and the Vatican II sect," contains but a few of countless examples, culled by me from various sources, which demonstrate the Modernist doctrine that fuels the sect.

What is Modernism?

•  It is an amalgamation of errors. It begins with agnosticism.  According to this teaching, human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, which means things that appear to the senses, and it has no power to overstep these limits. Since we cannot know (or even infer) to the existence of things outside the scope of phenomena, the human intellect is incapable of knowing the existence of God.

• As a result, Modernism denies the supernatural as an object of certain knowledge. The Modernists who challenge all rational proof of the existence of God as the First Cause of everything in existence, both material and spiritual, fall victims to a "scientific agnosticism." For these, God is something which comes forth from man's subconscious. Religion is therefore essentially about feelings, specifically what makes you feel good; if Christianity, or any other religion, is what makes you feel good and more in touch with the Divine, then it is true for you. Religion has never consisted of creeds or objective truth but of feelings. This doctrine is known as vital immanence. Religion is a feeling or sentiment that comes from a subconscious need for the Divine.

• Modernists regard Divine Revelation as a purely natural emergence of religious knowledge from a natural sense known as the "religious sense." There is no "One True Church" and no Deposit of Revelation that needs to be guarded.  

•  The Modernist God is not transcendent; He is not "out there" but "totally within." As St. Pius X explained in Pascendi, the Modernist God was no more than a symbol and that "the personality of God will become a matter of doubt and the gate will be opened to pantheism." Do you notice how much of the Vatican II sect is infested with Eastern religion and philosophy, such as yoga and reiki? Have you seen in Nostra Aetate, how the Second Vatican (Robber) Council acknowledged "the good" that is in Hinduism and Buddhism? It comes from this erroneous idea of a "God within us all."

• Since God is unknowable (as are miracles), the Bible cannot be held as historically accurate. We cannot consider Christ as God, or give credence to miracles. 

• Dogmas are taught to be subject to evolution from one meaning to another. As man's religious feelings evolve, so must dogma.  Dogma evolves into whatever accommodates the needs of the current culture. 

• "Same name, different meaning." When Modernists talk about Traditional doctrine, they affirm it with a different meaning so they sound orthodox while remaining heretics. When they profess, for example, "Our faith is based upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ;" it could mean His physical and historical Resurrection as the Church teaches, or simply a symbolic story which was invented by the first Christians to promote faith in Christ who rose only in the mind of His believers.

• Catholic dogma is but a common consciousness of the believers. Thus, prompted by this "common consciousness," the believers came together in a society [Church] to formulate and systematize its beliefs. This (according to the Modernists) is how the Magisterium of the Church began.

How Did Modernism Originate?

•  It has its roots in the Protestant Revolt ("Reformation"). It made people the sole arbiter of Truth through private interpretation of Scripture. Protestants jettisoned the need for a Magisterium. 

• It continued through the exaltation of the individual during the so-called "Enlightenment." It exalted the individual and skepticism. 

• Infected with these false notions, through curiosity and pride (curious to know what is condemned and prideful that they are not like others--they know better than the Church), some theologians began trying to undermine the Church from within. "I hate arrogance and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue." - Proverbs 8:13.

• These theologians (e.g. Loisy and Tyrrell) had their teachings condemned and were excommunicated. Many others were censured over the years (e.g., Kung, Rahner, Roncalli, etc.). As hard as he tried, Pope St. Pius X drove the Modernists underground, but never extirpated them. 

Remedies Against Modernism

• Study Scholastic philosophy, especially the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas. All seminarians must be given a sound formation in philosophy, and the approved theologians. Prayer and mortification are necessary. 

• Exclude from positions of power anyone who does not demonstrate a love of Aquinas and a hatred of novelty. Those sympathetic to Modernism, even if not Modernists themselves, must be purged. 

• Books and writings that are sympathetic or supportive of Modernism must be banned and refuted.

• Those suspect of Modernism must be investigated, and if guilty, removed from all authority. 

Modernism and the Vatican II sect

• Worship. "Mass" is a four letter word not to be used. The "liturgy" or "celebration of the Eucharist (sic)" is not about the worship of God, but the entertainment of the people. The "assembly" must do everything, because there is no supernatural priestly order. Hold hands around a table, sing profane, banal songs, and have a touchy-feely "homily" about how "God loves us no matter what we do." Transubstantiation is a myth. The people stand (usually dressed like slobs or immodestly), while a layman or laywoman ("laytransgenders" can't be far behind) holds up the cracker and says "The Body of Christ." The recipient says "Amen" because it only becomes a symbol of Christ for us by consent of the assembly who memorialize Jesus. The more or less blessed cracker is then placed in unconsecrated hands to be chewed like cud and the tabernacle has been replaced by a hole in the wall.

• The Sacraments. The sacraments are not visible signs of invisible graces instituted by the historical God-Man, Jesus Christ, but mere "expressions of faith" instituted by the "Christian community." In almost all cases, the primary and secondary effects of the sacraments have been inverted. Baptism is not about the remission of Original Sin and infusion of sanctifying grace. It is about "welcoming someone into the community of the People of God." The Eucharist is a memorial meal, not part of an Unbloody Sacrifice, and not the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Penance or Confession is now "Reconciliation,"where you get counseled by a glorified social worker ("priest") about being more "giving to the community" since offences against God are non-existent. Holy Matrimony is about the happiness of the couple first above all, and procreation is merely secondary (if considered at all). Holy Orders makes a man a "President of the Assembly." He is not in any way special or endowed with supernatural authority and power. Confirmation is having a "mature faith," not being a soldier for Christ. Extreme Unction is no longer to prepare the soul for Judgement (or restore bodily health, should God Will it), it's "Anointing of the Sick" for those who gather in the church with colds, headaches, and other maladies both mental and physical (the spiritual doesn't exist). 

• Morality. All morality is subjective. If God cannot be proven, and if Revelation is not possible, all moral actions are relative to the community in general, and can be overridden in almost all cases by the "conscience of the individual." Your personal happiness comes first, and whatever you "feel" is permissible is moral. In matters of sexuality, as long as "all parties consent," and "no one gets hurt," everything is allowed. Evils such as (but not limited to) birth control, euthanasia, divorce and remarriage, abortion, and homosexuality can all be condoned by a false notion of  "conscience." Dostoevsky said, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." The same holds true if you hold to agnosticism and eschew the supernatural order. Morality "evolves." Soon, they will adopt Satanist Aleister Crowley's maxim, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." 

• The Church. All paths lead to God. There is no One True Church, since all religions are the subconscious need for the Divine manifested in various ways. No religion is more true or better than any other.Vatican II teaches, "Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him [Christ], has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man." (See Gaudium et Spes, para. #22; Emphasis mine). Wojtyla (John Paul II) builds on this heresy, "What we have just said must also be applied-although in another way and with the due differences-to activity for coming closer together with the representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we know well, the members of these religions also are not lacking." (See Redemptor Hominis, para. #6; Emphasis mine). This means that Christ is somehow truly "within" all people regardless of whether or not they belong to the Catholic Church. How can anyone be damned if they are "in a certain way" united to Christ? Answer: They can't because Hell and Purgatory do not exist.  Dogmas can and must change with the times. God is within, so we are all connected to Him in some pantheistic way, building even more on the heretical teaching of Vatican II. Eastern philosophy and religions are embraced and extolled. Do yoga, transcendental meditation, and reiki. One can be "absorbed by the Divine," and perhaps even be reincarnated.  

 Conclusion

Without exaggeration, Modernism is the cause of all the major problems in our sick world today. With the Church driven underground, morality and truth have been obscured to a degree not seen since the days of Noah. Atheism is the logical and final outcome of Modernism. Atheism is on the rise like never before; and the "New Atheists" are denigrating religion and making disciples. Even the Vatican II sect rag, The National Catholic Register, admits: "Surveys show that atheism is growing at an alarming rate across the globe. In a very short time, countries such as France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Australia will lose their Christian majorities to those who consider themselves atheists or 'religiously unaffiliated." (See http://www.ncregister.com/blog/guest-blogger/dawkins-is-wrong-the-fastest-growing-religion-is-atheism). 

The total rebellion against God is nearly complete. As Fr. Lemius states on page 119 of his Catechism:

"Q: Describe the gradual descent of the human mind to the denial of all religion?

A. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism." 

Who Do You Think You're Talking To?

 I think everyone in my generation had their mother or father ask, "Who do you think you're talking to?" when you answered them in a tone of voice they didn't like. That quote came to mind, of all places, during a Continuing Legal Education ("CLE") course I had to take.

The Bar Association offered a class on dealing with frustration when interacting with difficult clients. Rather than the usual classes on legal issues, I decided I'd get the credit while obtaining tips for keeping my anger in check (I've always had anger management issues; thankfully, with prayer and trying hard, I've mellowed considerably). I never snapped at a client, but many times I walked away with elevated blood pressure.

The presenter was not a lawyer. He never said what he did for a living other than giving these talks he called "life changing, dynamic experiences." What qualified him for doing such was never stated, and he never answered questions as to his training in dealing with frustration. He was exactly my age, married with two teenagers (one of whom is developmentally disabled), helped many charitable causes, and was a "lector" at his Vatican II sect parish since 1988. I had a bad feeling about this man, and my hunch was quickly proven correct. The first thing he told us was that we needed to become vulnerable, and not to be afraid to cry. He said he cried frequently and uncontrollably and was proud of his "openness." (During two hours, he needed to stop six times to cry openly in front of us and took several minutes to compose himself each time).

What made him cry? It would be easier if you asked me what didn't make him cry. Every story he told us about his life caused him to cry (both happy and sad events), and the (alleged) secret to conquering your frustration was in following some sappy platitudes that sounded like rejected sayings meant to be printed in a Hallmark Greeting Card. "The mind protects, but the heart connects." "Glorify who you are today, do not condemn who you were yesterday, and dream of who you can be tomorrow." At this point, I felt I was in the wrong profession. Cry, spout mawkish claptrap, and get paid over two grand for two hours of nonsense; God Bless America.

Then, he made a statement that made me bolt upright from my slouching, "half-asleep in the chair" position. "Use God to help you. Not the 'small god' of Christians. Catholics think only they can get to Heaven, and evangelical Christians think only they have the truth. In fact, all of us can be saved, if we are open. I take my teachings from Neale Donald Walsch." I'm quite familiar with the teachings of Walsch. It's no wonder I felt I had heard all this before somehow. Neale Donald Walsch is a New Ager, an anti-Catholic bigot, and an occultist. His garbage is apparently still being peddled by members of the Vatican II sect. Lest you be caught unaware, I'm exposing this man and his evil teachings in this post.

Conversations with "God"

Neale Donald Walsch (b. 1943) was baptized and raised in the One True Church. He claims to have studied comparative religions for years, but was never a devout Catholic. In 1992, Walsch, then 49, was angry and despondent over the course his life had taken. His marriage ended in divorce, a fire then destroyed all his belongings, after which he was in a car accident wherein he suffered a broken neck. After he left the hospital, he was alone, broke, and living in a tent. He picked up aluminum cans for the deposit money in order to eat.
It was then he decided to write an angry letter to God asking why He allowed all this to happen to him. As he finished writing the last question, Walsch claims the pen moved on its own and he found himself writing words as though taking dictation (known as "automatic writing"). Walsch states he knew this was "God" dictating the responses, although he does not explain how he knew God was responsible. Later, he would deny automatic writing, and assert he was writing down what "God" told him.

In an interview with Larry King, Walsch claims he heard a voice saying, "Do you really want an answer to all these questions or are you just venting?" (See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zechner/cwg/lkl-ndw.html). He turned around he saw no one there, yet Walsch felt answers to his questions filling his mind and decided to write them down as his pen moved. The resulting "dialogue" became the best selling book Conversations With God in 1995. It spent an incredible 135 weeks on the New York Times Bestsellers List. There were eight other books in the series to follow, and Walsch is worth approximately $81 million dollars today.

Walsch's books suffer from several problems which demonstrate conclusively they do not come from God but from the "father of lies." Endemic among those purporting "new revelations" from God, or declaring themselves "spiritual teachers" (e.g., Marianne Williamson, Eckhart Tolle, etc) these days, are the following tenets: (1) sin is non-existent and morality is subjective; (2) God loves you as you are, there is no need to amend your life; (3) experience and feelings are superior to the intellect; (4) there is no True Religion, salvation comes to all; (5) Christ is not God; (6) Eastern pagan ideas such as pantheism and reincarnation are true. You can see the appeal. They tell people what they want to hear, and not the truth. Don't worry about sin, Hell, amending your life, etc. Just feel good and accept yourself. It is very much like modern psychology with religious verbiage thrown in. That's also the reason for the enthusiasts among the Vatican II sect with Bergoglio proclaiming, "There is no Catholic God," and "Who am I to judge?" The elements set forth above will be examined in Walsch's books. As there are a total of nine (9) books in the series, quotes will be culled from more than just the first book, and citations will be given accordingly (For example 3:27, means book 3 page 27 in the series). I obtained copies of originals years ago and the pages might be different from other editions, or pdf versions.

Demonic Dialogue

1. Sin is non-existent and morality is subjective. In his first book, pg. 152, we are treated to this gem: 

There’s nothing "wrong" with anything. "Wrong'" is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call "right." Yet, what is "right"? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are "right" and "wrong" simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?

I'm sure if Mr. Walsch's publisher refused to pay him the royalties on his book, I'm willing to bet he would see something very wrong with that and sue. The danger of this nonsense should be self-evident. We can't be truly objective about murder, lying, stealing, etc being immoral? It gives the green light to sin.

2. God loves you as you are; there is no need to amend your life. 
You must first see your Self as worthy before you can see another as worthy. You must first see your Self as blessed before you can see another as blessed. You must first know your Self to be holy before you can acknowledge holiness in another (1:26)

 Walsch claims "God" taught him Original Sin is a "myth," and we are all holy. Pure heresy.

3. Feelings are superior to the intellect.  
Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it. (1:13)

Notice the phrase "what's true for you"--as if each person can have a "different truth" because there is no objective, unchanging truth. If that's the case, why is Walsch (or "God") asking us to accept what is said in the book as true? Wouldn't that eliminate anything that contradicts it as objectively false? At the beginning of the book we are told by "God" that "Words are really the least effective communicator . . . merely utterances..." If true, why is "God" communicating words to Walsch and why should we believe these "mere utterances"? It's a self-refuting statement.

4. There is no One True Religion. 
No path to God is more direct than any other path. No religion is the "one true religion," no people are "the chosen people," and no prophet is the "greatest prophet." (7:98)

In one sentence, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam are denied. All organized religions are false according to Walsch's "conversations with 'God.'"  Furthermore, there is no Hell, and everyone is assured of eternal happiness. Your happy destiny is unavoidable. You cannot be "saved." There is no hell except not knowing this.-- (1:93).

5. Christ is not God. 
In book 2 of his series, on page 244, we are told The Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus were spacemen. Yes, aliens from another planet! Walsch denigrates Catholicism by claiming "God" said: Wait a minute! This God of yours sent you to Purgatory if you ate meat on Friday? (2:44). In the first book we are told by "God" that drinking is not OK. But Jesus took alcohol! says Walsch. To which "God" replies, So who said Jesus was perfect? (1:192)

6. Promoting Eastern paganism. 
In book 3 of the series, Walsch asks "God" if reincarnation is a false doctrine, "God" replies that it is not. Walsch then asks why some religions do not know the truth about something so basic. In response, "God" says that we must understand that humans have many fear-based religions whose teachings surround the doctrine of a God who is to be worshiped and feared. This teaching means reincarnation is true, and other doctrines are false. Doesn't that contradict what God said earlier about there being only what's true for you? Reincarnation exonerates Hitler of wrongdoing (morality is subjective anyway). From book 2: The mistakes Hitler made did no harm or damage to those whose deaths he caused. Those souls were released from their earthly bondage. (2:42).

In addition to the above, the following are also worthy of mention in these books:
Disturbing features about God. 
"God" is an idiot who doesn't know about religions and needs to be taught by Neal Donald Walsch. "God" rejects Catholicism. Here is a sample of dialogue ("G" is "God" and "W" is Walsch, as supplied by me):

G: What's a "wrong church"?

W: Any church that is not Roman Catholic. You can’t be baptized in the wrong church, you can’t get married in the wrong church— you can’t even attend a wrong church. I know this for a fact because as a young man I wanted to go with my parents to the wedding of a friend—I was actually asked to be in the wedding as an usher—but the nuns told me I should not accept the invitation because it was in the wrong church.

G: Did you obey them?
The nuns? No. I figured God—You—would show up at the other church just as willingly as You showed up at mine, so I went. I stood in the sanctuary in my tuxedo and I felt fine.

G: Good. Well, let’s see now, we have heaven, we have hell, we have purgatory, we have limbo, we have mortal sin, we have venial sin—is there anything else?

Feelings, nothing more than feelings...
From his books:

• Open your mind, allow your feelings to be expressed, to be pushed out, and your heart will neither break nor burst, but be a free-flowing channel of the life energy in your soul.

• I do not communicate by words alone. In fact, rarely do I do so. My most common form of communication is through feeling. Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it... Hidden in your deepest feelings is your highest truth.

• Stop giving your power away and begin to trust that your feelings are in fact expressions of the deepest truths.

Does anyone even know what this gobbledygook means?

Conclusion

Stay away from anything written by Neale Donald Walsch. His conversations are not with God, but demonic forces. What he promotes is New Age pantheism (God and the universe are one) with relativism and an over emphasis on "feelings." This is necessary so the reader won't think critically about how Walsch's god contradicts himself and speaks nonsense. The series reads like a bad episode of the old Kung Fu TV series in the 1970s--unintelligible pagan sentiments that are supposed to be profound. It tells people what they want to hear, and you have Vatican II "lectors" promoting it. Since all Catholic doctrine has been eliminated from their temples, anything except the truth is permitted. I have no problem with men having, and expressing, their feelings. However, to cry at the drop of a hat isn't being "open," but just teaching men to be little more than emasculated dolts placing feelings above reason. Women as well should not think being overly emotional is some kind of "virtue." 

Neale Donald Walsch wants you to believe he's having conversations with God. Anyone who trusts him, has no idea of who he's really talking to, and had better wake up before (God forbid) it's too late. 

Singing For Satan---Part 15

This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

The Rolling Stones

One of the most overtly satanic bands, ironically not recognized as such, is The Rolling Stones. A total of nine men played in the band over the years, but the two most famous and successful are Keith Richards (b. 1943) and Mick Jagger (b.1943). Jagger and Richards were classmates and childhood friends from Dartford, Kent, England with a keen interest in music. They formed a garage band dedicated to playing mostly the blues. In 1962, the band took its name from a Muddy Waters song entitled "Rollin' Stone." They started playing rock music and a following quickly grew. In 1963 they were signed to a record label and became part of the so-called "British Invasion" of music to the United States along with The Beatles, The Dave Clark Five and The Kinks.

The band became enormously successful and continue to tour today. They have released 30 studio albums in 56 years, and were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989.  Rolling Stone magazine ranked them fourth on the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time" list and their estimated record sales are above 250 million. Jagger (b. Michael Philip Jagger) as a solo artist produced 32 Top Ten singles and 70 Top Forty singles.He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as an individual, along with his group in 1989. In 2003, he was knighted for his "services to popular music" by the Queen of England.

Pushing Promiscuity and Opposing Sexual Morality

During the 1970s, Mick Jagger would appear on stage singing his perverted songs in front of a giant inflatable penis

 The Rolling Stones (aka "The Stones" or "Stones") wanted an image opposite of the early Beatles, who wanted to portray an "innocent group of clean-cut boys" image. Jagger and Richards relished a "bad boy" appearance which they easily obtained through sexually charged lyrics. Let's Spend the Night Together is a typical Stones' song from 1967, and was one of the earliest to get banned. When appearing on the Ed Sullivan Show, The Stones were asked not to play Let's Spend the Night Together unless they changed the chorus to "let's spend some time together." Jagger and Richards were furious, but Sullivan said he wouldn't let them perform unless they agreed.  Realizing what a big deal appearing on Ed Sullivan meant in the 1960s, they reluctantly agreed to make the change. According to Dick Clark’s 25 Years of Rock and Roll, shortly after the performance the Stones went backstage, and came back on stage dressed in Nazi uniforms with swastikas, which caused an angry Sullivan to tell them to go into their dressing rooms and change back into their performing outfits.

Keith Richards is quoted as saying, "We receive our songs by inspiration, like at a seance." (See Rolling Stone magazine, May 5, 1977, p. 55). A brief survey of their music will show the songs are indeed inspired by evil sent from Hell. The tunes immediately below are a sampling of the promotion of sexual immorality.  

The song Honky Tonk Woman is about a drunken encounter with a prostitute:

I met a gin-soaked, bar-room queen in Memphis
She tried to take me upstairs for a ride
She had to heave me right across shoulder
Cause I just can't seem to drink you off my mind
It's the honky tonk women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
I laid a divorcée in New York City
I had to put up some kind of a fight
The lady then she covered me with roses
She blew my nose and then she blew my mind

Little T & A refers to a woman's breasts and buttocks:

She's my little rock 'n' roll
My t**s and a** with soul, baby
She's my little rock 'n' roll
Oh, she's my little rock 'n' roll, yeah
You got to shock them, show them
She's my little rock 'n' roll, yeah
Shock, shock, shock, oh my, my, my (Vulgarity censored by me)

The song Sparks Will Fly describes a man who can't wait to get beck to his old lover and sodomize her:

When I finally get myself back on you, baby
Sparks will fly
When I finally get myself back on you, baby
I'm gonna step on the gas
I want to get there really fast
I want to f**k your sweet a**
Sparks will fly
Sharks will cry
Sparks will fly
I had a good sniff around
Along old hunting grounds
But I have never found
A woman so hot
Sparks will fly (Vulgarity censored by me)

The song Under My Thumb is about a misogynist who dominates women. He is in control, as she is under his thumb and is a "squirming dog," "A Siamese cat of a girl" who is "the sweetest pet in the world," because "The way she talks when she's spoken to, down to me, the change has come, she's under my thumb - take it easy babe."

Under my thumb
The girl who once had me down
Under my thumb
The girl who once pushed me around
It's down to me
The difference in the clothes she wears
Down to me, the change has come
She's under my thumb
And ain't it the truth babe?
Under my thumb
It's a squirmin' dog who's just had her day
Under my thumb
A girl who has just changed her ways
It's down to me
Yes it is
The way she does just what she's told down to me
The change has come
She's under my thumb
Ah, ah, say it's alright
Under my thumb
It's a Siamese cat of a girl
Under my thumb
She's the sweetest, hmmm, pet in the world
It's down to me
The way she talks when she's spoken to
Down to me, the change has come
She's under my thumb
Ah, take it easy babe
Yeah

In Their "Satanic Majesty's" Service

On the album cover of Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967), it features the group as Wiccans (witches). Jagger originally wanted to appear naked on a cross to mock Christ, but the record company refused to publish it, calling it "in bad taste."

Whereas the glorification of sex by the band was well known, their glorification of Satan was not. Unlike bands such as AC/DC, or artists like Marilyn Manson, they somehow flew under the radar for promotion of Satanism. The 1968 album Beggars Banquet, produced one of the most horrid songs in history; Sympathy for the Devil. The song is listed by Rolling Stone magazine at #32 in its list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time." (The magazine, founded in 1967, attributes its name to the group as well as the Muddy Water's song, and the aphorism "a rolling stone gathers no moss"). Originally, the song was to be titled Fallen Angels, and then changed to The Devil is My Name, before settling on the final nomenclature. It tells the story of history, including the Crucifixion of Our Lord, from Satan's point of view while he boasts of his role in history. 

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man (sic) of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul to waste
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt (sic) and pain
Made da*n sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his (sic) fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made...

The song has been used (without objection) by Satan worshipers associated with Anton LaVey's  Church of Satan. In 1973, the band released the album Goats Head Soup. The goat head has long been associated with Satan worship. Goats were also the symbol of reprobates, while sheep represented the faithful. "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." (See St. Matthew 25:31-33). The album's first cut is the song Dancing With Mr. D, "Mr. D" being the Devil.

Down in the graveyard where we have our tryst
The air smells sweet, the air smells sick
He never smiles, his mouth merely twists
The breath in my lungs feels clinging and thick
But I know his name, he's called Mr.. D.
And one of these days he's gonna set you free
Human skulls is hangin' right 'round his neck
The palms of my hands is clammy and wet

Lord, I was dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', Lord, keep your hand off me
Dancin' with Mr. D., with Mr. D., with Mr. D.

Will it be poison put in my glass
Will it be slow or will it be fast?
The bite of a snake, the sting of a spider
A drink of belladonna on a Toussaint night
Hiding in a corner in New York City
Lookin' down a forty-four in West Virginia

I was dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', Lord, keep your hand off me
Dancin' with Mr. D., with Mr. D., with Mr. D.

One night I was dancin' with a lady in black
Wearin' black silk gloves and a black silk hat
She looked at me longin' with black velvet eyes
She gazed at me strange all cunning and wise
Then I saw the flesh just fall off her bones
The eyes in her skull was burning like coals
Lord, have mercy, fire and brimstone
I was dancin' with Mr. D.

Lord, I was dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
I was dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', dancin', dancin' so free

Dancin', dancin'

In 1994, the Stones released another occult-themed album, Voodoo Lounge, which contains the song I Go Wild. The song is pure vulgar filth:

 And the doctor says you'll be okay, And if you'd only stay away; 
From femme fatales and dirty b*tches, And daylight drabs and nighttime witches, 
And working girls and blue stockings, And dance hall babes and body poppers,
And waitresses with broken noses, Checkout girls striking poses, 
And politicians' garish wives, With alcoholic c*nts like knives (Emphasis and censorship of vulgarity mine)

Conclusion

 The Rolling Stones are yet another despicable group of evil people who demean women, glorify promiscuity/perversion, and pay homage to Satan himself. Mick Jagger has fathered eight children with five women, but has only been married (and divorced) once. His oldest child is 48, and his youngest is 2, having sired Deveraux Jagger with his current concubine, American ballet dancer Melanie Hamrick (46 years Jagger's junior). Jagger has been jailed for vandalism and is a raging drug addict/alcoholic. He is also bisexual, having had a homosexual encounter with rocker David Bowie (d. 2016). In spite of all this, The Rolling Stones are billed as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World." The band would want you to believe, as Jagger sings in one their songs, "It's only rock and roll, but I like it." For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the music they produce is not merely rock and roll, but messages from Hell made by those on their way there.