Going To Pot

 Governor Andrew Cuomo (b.1957) of New York State, is a pro-baby killing, pro-sodomite, adulterous apostate. Those are his good qualities.The egotistical bully is the son of notorious former NY Governor Mario Cuomo (1983-1995), infamous for his insistence that as a "Catholic" he was "personally opposed" to abortion, but he "wouldn't impose his views on others." He was also against the death penalty for reasons of conscience. When a reporter brought this internal inconsistency to his attention he responded that "capital punishment is taking a life, but abortion is giving you a choice."

The fact that pseudo-educated dolts like the Cuomo family can hold high positions in the government makes me fear for our future. Mario Cuomo was actually considered for an appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton, and Andrew's name has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 2020. Let it be known that the Vatican II sect, allowed both father and son to receive "communion." Andrew doesn't even pretend to have an "annulment" from his wife (he never even applied for one), yet he and his concubine are both given the Novus Bogus "mass" cracker.

Now, Mr. Cuomo has made one of his priorities the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in New York. As of this writing, ten states have legalized the use of so-called "recreational pot." The first states to do so were Colorado and Washington in 2012. They were followed by Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia ("Washington DC"). We are told by advocates of legalized marijuana that it is no different from drinking alcohol, it's hard to enforce laws against pot, and legal marijuana will bring economic benefits. The purpose of this post is to give the Church's teaching on the use of so-called recreational drugs, and to demonstrate why the legalization of marijuana is so insidious; what the powers-that-be don't want you to know and why. This issue has serious theological implications which will be discussed below.

The Teaching of the Church

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

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

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

Cannabis and the Family

We now know that the legalization of recreational marijuana promotes the drug’s usage among the very young, where it causes the greatest harm. After recreational cannabis was legalized in Colorado, their youth’s past-month cannabis usage 2013-2014 "was 74 percent higher than the national average." According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

"Coloradoans of all age groups (12-17, 18-25, 26 and older) rank first in the nation for past-month marijuana use. Before legalization they ranked fourth, third and seventh, respectively."(See https://cdapress.com/archive/article-6dac5ea8-7beb-546e-84fd-83deb36340f7.html)

Think about that for a moment. Twelve year olds will have ready access to legalized cannabis. Since 2016, a mere four years after Colorado legalized it, cannabis became easy to obtain. With sophisticated ways to take it such as vaping, it makes it harder to detect. Vaping refers to the inhalation of an aerosol produced by heating a liquid/oil or substance in a compact electronic portable vaporizer. Youth can vaporize marijuana – either the ground plant itself, waxes often referred to as dabs, or THC and CBD oils. (THC is the drug in cannabis that produces the effect of getting high).

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), cannabis use may have long-lasting or permanent effects on the developing adolescent brain. Negative effects include:

• Difficulty with critical thinking skills like attention, problem solving and memory

• Impaired reaction time and coordination, especially as it relates to driving

• Decline in school performance

• Increased risk of mental health issues including depression or anxiety and in some cases, psychosis where there is a family history of it

• Research also shows that about one in six teens who repeatedly use marijuana can become addicted, as compared to one in nine adults

How easy would it be for 18 year olds to supply young kids with cannabis and vaping paraphernalia? One out of every three Denver high school juniors and seniors surveyed identified as cannabis users; demonstrating a sharp increase of 20 percent from 2013 to 2015. (See https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/the-problem-with-pot/article_d9e0a8c1-41e4-5165-838f-6da2bcd0e6bb.html). According to former "Drug Czar" William J. Bennett, "We know we have a problem, and we have not managed to keep those things from kids. Colorado was supposed to eliminate the marijuana black market, but it did not." (See https://www.newsweek.com/problem-pot-306634). 

Candi CdeBaca, an education and community activist who lives next to a commercial marijuana growing operation in Elyria-Swansea, CO., told Politico Magazine:

"One of the things that we thought was going to happen when [recreational] marijuana was legalized was that drugs would be taken out of our community. What happened was that the drugs stayed—and the drug dealers changed." (See https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/what-works-colorado-denver-marijuana-pot-industry-legalization-neighborhoods-dispensaries-negative-213906). 

What we see here is the spirit of rebellion against authority. It's hard enough to raise kids in these perilous times without pressure (and the ability) to use a substance that will make them do poorly in school, open the doorway to other drugs, make them sin against God, and less likely to understand right from wrong (or the precepts of the Church) with the acquired impaired critical thinking skills.

Cannabis and Society

 Several studies have also concluded that driving while intoxicated with both pot and alcohol is far worse than driving drunk. Since millions of people get high with both alcohol and marijuana, the synergistic effect of these two drugs will prove to be a dangerous devil’s brew for drivers. The Democratic governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, said that legalizing marijuana in Colorado was "reckless." In 2014, the left-wing rag, the Washington Post published an op-ed by pro-marijuana author Radley Balko headlined, "Since Marijuana Legalization, Highway Fatalities in Colorado Are at Near-Historic Lows."

In typical Communist propaganda style, the article leaves the reader with the impression that legalizing marijuana might have something to do with less traffic fatalities in Colorado. Balko admits that the fatality figures "don’t suggest that pot had anything to do with" the lower numbers, but then says that if fatalities were going up, "supporters [of making pot illegal again] would be blaming it on legal marijuana." According to one author, "Colorado traffic fatalities have gone down since 2007, but they went up in 2012. More to the point, Colorado traffic fatalities between 2007 and 2012 involving operators testing positive for marijuana use increased 100 percent over that period—from 39 in 2007 up to 78 in 2012." (See https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/11/30/why-legalizing-pot-is-a-bad-idea/). 

According to The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 2006-2013; CDOT, 2014, cannabis-related emergency room visits increased from 8,197 in 2011 to 18,255 in 2014 and the percentage of Colorado vehicle operators who were found positive for marijuana increased from 7.88 percent in 2006 to 24.03 percent in 2014. Furthermore, we are promoting other drug usage, as cannabis is a "gateway drug."

According to a peer-reviewed study: "Exposing adolescent rats to THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) can lead to molecular and behavioral alterations in the next generation of offspring, even though progeny were not directly exposed to the drug. Male offspring showed stronger motivation to self-administer heroin during their adulthood. Damage in the glutamate pathway, which regulates synaptic plasticity, has been linked to disturbances in goal-directed behavior and habit formation." (See Henrietta Szutorisz, PhD, et al., Neurophychopharmacology, January 2014---https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2013352). 

Society will become more drugged-out, leading to fatalities, and fostering addicts to stronger drugs, thereby driving up the crime rate.

Cannabis and the Human Brain

 Drug expert Dr. CC. Nuckols stated, "The marijuana we have today is so much more potent, we’re seeing a new range of psychiatric problems and psychotic episodes. It’s really a new game." (See https://www.oxfordtreatment.com/blog/the-problem-with-pot/) The Oxford Treatment Center goes on to state, "At double-digit percentages, the standard THC content in marijuana today many times what it was in the 1960s." This results in lower IQs and an inability to function in society.

According to Drs. Ruby Grewal and Tony P. George, "Reports have shown a staggering increase in cannabis-related emergency department (ED) visits in recent years. In 2011, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) estimated a total of 1.25 million illicit-drug–related ED visits across the US, of which 455,668 were marijuana related. A similar report published in 2015 by the Washington Poison Center Toxic Trends Report showed a dramatic increase in cannabis-related ED visits. In states with recent legalization of recreational cannabis, similar trends were seen.

States with medicinal marijuana have also shown a dramatic rise in cannabis-related ED visits. Moreover, states where marijuana is still illegal also showed increases. This widespread increase is postulated to be in part due to the easy accessibility of the drug, which contributes to over-intoxication and subsequent symptoms. Overall, from 2005 to 2011, there has been a dramatic rise in cannabis-related ED visits among all age groups and genders." (Emphasis mine). 

Cannabis and the End Times?

Drugs, cannabis being no exception, put people into an altered state of consciousness. Those of you who read my ongoing series of posts called "Singing For Satan," (based on my research on rock, pop, and rap music) know that almost all of the musicians were drug users, and most claimed contact/inspiration from "spirits"--Eminem, The Eagles, etc. They used drugs and entered into an altered state of consciousness which makes one susceptible (like hypnosis) to demonic forces. So-called "shamans" (pagan "witch-doctors") take drugs for this very reason; it enables them to make "contact with the spirits."

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

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

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." (Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

Recreational marijuana, or cannabis, is yet another step towards the final breakdown of Christian civilization as it once was on Earth. The forces of evil are peddling it, and people are going for it. According to The Pew Research Center, as of October 2018, 62% of Americans support legalized cannabis. (See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/)

The facts show that it will damage families, and the upbringing of children. It will have harmful effects upon society, with more deaths from auto accidents and people having psychotic episodes--even as it induces people to take more dangerous drugs. It causes such psychotic episodes even in adults and lowers IQs, making one more gullible (and therefore more dependent upon) the government. Finally, it opens users up to demonic influences. A One World Church and a One World Government. Could legalized cannabis be taking us there faster? It seems so. Time will tell. 

Speaking With Forked Tongues

 On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception 2018, false pope Jorge Bergoglio announced the formation of "CHARIS," or "Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service." This new body within the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life will replace the two existing services known as the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Service and the Catholic Fraternity. (See http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-creates-new-office-to-serve-catholic-charismatic-renewal-movement). The so-called "Charismatic Movement" celebrated fifty years of its existence in 2017. The movement is heretical to the core, and has its origin in the Pentecostal Protestant sect of the 19th century. The Pentecostal sect revived what they believed to be glossolaly or "speaking in tongues." Such gifts, with rare exceptions, ended in early Apostolic times, as the True Church no longer needed them to show Her Divine origin.

The charismata or "special gifts" of the Holy Ghost such as prophecies, healings, miracles, etc., were given to prove the claims of the Church and to foster conversions. With the achievement of the Church’s moral universality, the need for such phenomena ceased because of the presence in the Church of people of every nationality and because of the Church’s proven record as the One True Religion. Likewise, speaking in tongues was given so that all could hear and understand the preaching of the Gospel. None of these gifts were given for the personal sanctification of the individuals who received them. St. Augustine, Tract. xxxii, states, "Whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks in the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost."

In 1967, during the nascent Vatican II sect turmoil of ecumenical frenzy and near universal apostasy, students at Pittsburgh’s Duquesne University began exposing themselves to Pentecostal influences because of "spiritual aridity." They were envious of the "changed lives" among many Protestant friends and decided to pray for similar "graces." A weekend "retreat"gave them what they wanted. Various people approached Protestant ministers, laity, and prayer groups. All received "Baptism in the Spirit" after having heretical hands laid on them in prayer. The movement began to grow in leaps and bounds. Today, they even call themselves "Charismatics" instead of Catholics, showing their disdain for even the name of the sect posing as the True Church. They despise anything associated--even remotely--with the beliefs and practices of authentic Catholicism.

For the 50th anniversary of the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement in June 2017, Francis asked the Charismatics to organize the celebration at the Circus Maximus in Rome. On this occasion, Bergoglio quoted the late Belgian "Cardinal" Leo Suenens, the strongest episcopal promoter of the movement in its early days, who called it "a current of grace, a renewing breath of the Spirit for all the members of the Church." (Ibid)  This post will focus on one of the Church's greatest enemies, the infamous Leo "Cardinal" Suenens, and the evil he unleashed in the world.

The Charismatic Cardinal

  Leo Suenens was born in 1904 of a pious Belgian family. Belgium was one of the most Catholic countries in the world, with numerous vocations and large families. Suenens' family wanted him to go into economics and manage their large fortune, but he decided to become a priest. Ordained at age 23 in 1927, Suenens would obtain a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, and was consecrated auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Mechelen in 1945 by order of Pope Pius XII. He became the new Archbishop in 1961 under Roncalli, and the archdiocese was renamed Mechelen-Brussels. Suenens received the "cardinal's hat" from false pope John XXIII in 1962. 

At Vatican II, he would reveal himself to be one of the most influential Modernists, hell-bent on destroying the One True Church. Suenens was a close friend of Masonic pervert Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI), and was one of the leaders of the Modernists with Cardinals Alfrink and Frings. It was Suenens who named the first heretical document of Vatican II Lumen Gentium, as he had crafted much of the language in the opening paragraphs, which contained the false ecclesiology of the newly spawned Vatican II sect he helped to create. Here is a very unflattering picture painted of Suenens from his autobiography Memories and Hopes, his work on collegiality Co-Responsibility in the Church, Vatican II Revisited--Reflections by One Who was There, by Bp. Aloysius Wycislo, and Twelve Council Fathers, by W. Abbot.

 Suenens:

• Was inspired by Modernist theologian Edward Schillebeecxk, a Dominican priest who was suspect of Modernism prior to Vatican II. After the Council, Schillebeecxk denied Transubstantiation, and derided the bodily Resurrection of Our Lord as a "crude and naive realism" that has "nothing to do with a corpse."

• Was motivated by ecumenism in everything he did. He rejected the idea there was only One True Church of Jesus Christ

• Supported the heretical idea of a "democratic" collegial Church, which destroys both the hierarchical structure of the Church instituted by Christ, and denigrates the pope to an Eastern Schismatic status as "first among equals" 

• Worked most closely at the Council with periti (theological experts) Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the future "Pope" Benedict XVI--both arch-heretics

• Had a meeting with four Anglican "bishops." He knelt before them and asked for their "blessing"

• Gave the opening address at the second session of Vatican II, blasphemously comparing Roncalli to St. John the Baptist, with the speech entitled There Was a Man Sent by God Named John

• Asked Montini (Paul VI) to reject the traditional teaching condemning artificial contraception and was furious when his former friend didn't. Montini was told by Cardinal Ottaviani that he would lose all credibility if he did so, and he listened to him instead, issuing Humanae Vitae. Too bad Cardinal Ottaviani did not reject Montini's false "papacy"

•   Did all he could to undermine Church teaching on contraception which earned him praise from Planned Parenthood

• Spoke in favor of a "new understanding of marriage" at Vatican II whereby the sexual union of the spouses could be considered legitimate without any reference to procreation

• Rejected unchanging Catholic moral standards when he said, "Morality is first and foremost alive, a dynamism of life, and therefore subject to interior growth that rejects any kind of fixity." (Emphasis mine)

• Trimuphantly proclaimed, "Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church..."

We see a despicable Judas, but why was he so intent on promoting the "Catholic" Charismatic Movement at every opportunity? In a word: ecumenism. 

Leading the People into a One World Religion

There are four major problems with the Charismatic Movement:

1. It implicitly denies there is only One True Church. 

If these "gifts" of the Holy Ghost (allegedly speaking in tongues, "healings," etc.) are true in the "Catholic" Church and they also happen in various Protestant denominations, then it stands to reason that there are "elements of truth and sanctification" outside the True Church by which people can achieve holiness and salvation. (Sound familiar?).

2. It replaces the hierarchy with an alleged direct contact with God, and denies the Indefectibility of the Church.

Priests are seen as "one of the guys." Being able to roll on the ground "speaking in tongues" is more important than the ability to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Charismatics will also say things like, "God has put it on my heart that I should..." Or, "God told me..." If you have direct contact with God, why do we need the Church and Her hierarchy as intermediaries between God and people? If the Church teaches one thing, but God has supposedly told you something different, guess which one will be obeyed. The charismatics also deny Indefectibility by claiming that an integral part of the Church (charismata) was absent for centuries, so the Church was somehow deficient. This is impossible if the Church is Indefectible.

3. It denies traditional Catholic spirituality and leads to deception (and even possession) by evil spirits.

Say goodbye to the Rosary, novenas, and The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. St. John of the Cross, one of the greatest masters of the spiritual life had this to say:

• "And I greatly fear what is happening in these times of ours: If any soul whatever after a bit of meditation has in its recollection one of these locutions, it will immediately baptize all as coming from God and with such a supposition say, 'God told me,' 'God answered me.'  Yet this is not so, but, as we pointed out, these persons themselves are more often the origin of their locution."  (See St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 29) 
• "Through the desire of accepting them one opens the door to the devil.  The devil can then deceive one by other communications expertly feigned and disguised as genuine.  In the words of the Apostle, he can transform himself into an 'angel of light' (II Cor. XI:14). (...)  Regardless of the cause of these apprehensions, it is always good for a man to reject them with closed eyes.  If he fails to do so, he will make room for those having a diabolical origin and empower the devil to impose his communications.  Not only this, but the diabolical representations will multiply while those from God will gradually cease, so that eventually all will come from the devil and none at all from God.  This has occurred with many incautious and uninstructed people."  (See St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 11)

4. It has the same goal as Modernism and Masonry: A One World Church Without Catholicism

Charismaticism is pan-denominational, with an alien and non-Catholic theological idea of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" as if you come into direct contact with God. It vitiates the need for the Mass and Sacraments. It is also rooted in the Modernist ideal of experience over reason. Charismatics cannot give a reasoned theological explanation of how jumping, dancing, rolling on the floor, laughing uncontrollably, and (allegedly) speaking in tongues brings one closer to God or even why God would manifest Himself in behaviors usually associated with mental patients. Finally, your beliefs don't matter. As long as you profess belief in some vague form of "Christianity" (The Great Architect of the Universe, perhaps), you are all part of "the Church" and can have an "experience of God." 

Conclusion

My spiritual father, the late, great canonist Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, showed me a picture taken at Vatican II with himself standing between Bishop Blaise Kurz and "Cardinal" Suenens. Father was one of the theological experts (a peritus) at Vatican II who helped Bp. Kurz and the other traditional prelates who fought the Modernists. Fr. DePauw was heartbroken that a fellow Belgian would work to destroy the very Church he loved so much and served so well. He and Bp. Kurz spoke in private with Cardinal Suenens in a long meeting during which they implored him to repent of his Modernism and return to the Catholic Faith. Suenens turned a deaf ear and showed them the door, asking that they never come back to talk to him. 

Today, as a result of Vatican II and the Charismatic movement, the percentage of Belgians who claim to be Catholic (V2 sect) is less than 60%. Only 5% attend the Novus Bogus "mass" on Sundays, and nearly one-third of Belgians declare themselves atheists or agnostics. The ravages of the Charismatic movement are not limited to Belgium. What Suenens started and Bergoglio is promoting enthusiastically, is nothing less than the rejection of anything even remotely Catholic, and to be replaced by a One World Church of "direct experiences of God." They may profess Christianity, but they will be told by Our Lord:

 "Not everyone that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the Will of My Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in Thy Name, and cast out devils in Thy Name, and done many miracles in Thy Name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity." (St. Matthew 7:21-23). 

Unless they repent and find the True Church, they will find out too late that they were deceived by the disciples of Suenens, who--like the serpent in the Garden of Eden--spoke with a forked tongue. 

When Harry Became Sally

 I once worked with a woman who was a recovering anorexic. She was 5'3" tall and weighed 92 lbs. She could not look at herself in the mirror. Her sister had to pick out her clothes, brush her hair and teeth, and tell her that she looked fine. If this lady looked at herself in the mirror, she perceived her body as being morbidly obese. She had starved herself to the point of having heart problems, yet still thought she was vastly overweight. Thankfully, with years of therapy, she could maintain a weight that wouldn't put her in the hospital, and she could work as a paralegal. 

Getting professional help was the right thing for her to do. Notice what did not happen; she was not told that if she "identified as being morbidly obese" that's fine, and everyone must consider her as such. If you don't recognize her as morbidly obese, there is something wrong with you. You have a mental disorder---an "anorexicphobe" --who is afraid of (and discriminates against) people who identify as a different weight class. You should attend sensitivity training and march in the "Transweight Rights Parade." The scenario seems ludicrous, but it's really analogous to the insanity taking place today with the "Transgender Rights" movement. Traditionally, if someone had a baby, you would ask, "Is it a boy or a girl?" The answer you might get in 2018 to that question is "maybe." Orwell's 1984 has arrived 34 years later.

Gender dysphoria is defined as the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex. It is a mental disorder which we are being asked to accept as normal, while those who oppose it are to be considered bigoted (at best) or having a neurosis or "phobia" (at worst).  I rarely recommend books in my posts, but I highly recommend the erudite book When Harry Became Sally published earlier this year, and authored by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D. Some of the material in the rest of this post is culled from his excellent work, and I give him full credit for his incisive analysis of this latest threat entering our Sodom and Gomorrah society. Dr. Anderson's book title is a humorous spin on the hit 1989 comedy movie When Harry Met Sally starring Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan. The reason for the title lies in the fact that the movie attempted to answer the question, "Is it possible for a man and woman to really be 'just friends'?" Now, we are being asked to consider if it's possible for a woman to be a man and vice-versa. 

Transgenderism is Based on the Heresy of Gnosticism

Gnosticism flourished during the second century and taught that the material world is bad and dominated by evil and ignorance, but the spirit world is good. Since a good God could not have created an evil world, Gnostics taught that the world must have been created by a flawed "God." Yet within this corrupt world remains a spiritual component, fragments of the true and good God.

In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word "create" is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) "emanated" or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshiping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence. (See http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm). 

This distorted worldview had a profound impact on how Gnostics perceived the human person. They believed most people possess a "divine spark," a piece of the true God, within them. However, this spark is trapped within a corrupt body, which few people recognize, and as a result, live in ignorance and attachment to the material world. A person can achieve salvation, however, by attaining secret knowledge of his or her true self and eventually leaving the prison of the body at death (If a person fails to become sufficiently enlightened, this spark again becomes imprisoned in another body.)

Some Gnostics were pagan, but many others combined it with Christianity and considered themselves to be higher and more enlightened Catholics. These "Gnostic Catholics" denied the Incarnation of Christ. After all, how could a good God possess an evil body? Instead of salvation coming through Christ's death on the cross, they taught it came through attaining secret spiritual knowledge, or "gnosis." Gnostics, therefore, would agree that what you think and feel is more real and important than your material body, and determines what's "real."

Dr. Deanna Adkins, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015), has stated, "From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity." Does this rule apply to all mammalian species? Why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? If medical science holds that gender identity determines sex in humans, what does this mean for the use of medicinal agents that have different effects on males and females? Does the proper dosage of medicine depend on the patient’s sex or gender identity?

The American Psychological Association (APA) defines "gender identity" as “a person's internal sense of being male, female, or something else." This clearly indicates there is more than just "male and female." There are (literally) bathroom signs which read "Whichever" and show a half-male, half-female body as shown at the top of this post. The APA still classifies Gender Dysphoria (or "GD")---formerly Gender Identity Disorder (or "GID")--- as a mental disorder. Yet they tow the line of the "LGBT" activists and promote it. These LGBT perverts used massive PR and political pressure to have the APA remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. Can the removal of GID/GD as disorders be far behind? We've come a long way---away from sanity, morality, and the One True Faith. 

Transgenderism is Child Abuse

 The American College of Pediatricians issued an incredibly brave statement in 2017. Daring to oppose the new pagans and the PC crowd, they stated the following salient points:

• The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

• Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder.

• No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

• A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. Gender Dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5). The psycho-dynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.

•  Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.

•  According to the DSM-5, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

• Rates of suicide are nearly twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries.

• Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

(signed) Dr. Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.

President of the American College of Pediatricians

(See http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children)

Transgenderism: Against God and Nature

 As theologian Ott teaches, "The primary purpose of Marriage is the generation and bringing up of offspring." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 462). This Catholic doctrine is also enshrined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1013, section 1. People who are mentally ill and are transgender, see their gender as a "feeling" that is "fluid."  Therefore, the differences between male and female, much like the clothing we wear, are separate from our identity and are constantly in flux. Manhood and womanhood are mere societal constructs used to describe what we see but lack any substantial basis in reality. Transgenderism seeks the destruction of marriage and the proper raising of children, as well as the reality of manhood and womanhood necessary to both.

Don't be surprised to see "Trans-Species" people as the next "victim" group seeking "rights." People with Species Identity Disorder ("SID") consider themselves non-human and are featured at sodomite parades.  The arguments used by the trans-species movement to question their human status are essentially the same as those of the transgender movement. We see the unholy alliance of homosexuality and transgenderism leading us away from God and reason. They seek to eliminate the human race as God created it. 

Bergoglio: Promoting Evil

 Bergoglio knows that he must throw an occasional bone to the "conservative wing" of his sect. However, God's Moral Law and the dogmas of His One True Church never change and must be vigilantly upheld and affirmed. Someone who, for example, states his belief in the Divinity of Christ at one time, and denies it at another time, is no Catholic. The denial of a truth need not be specific and in words. As theologian Merkelbach teaches, heresy consists of dictis vel factis  or more precisely in "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

Here's just some of Bergoglio's promotion of the Gnostic, child abusing, family and humanity destroying transgenderism and "LGBT issues"

• December 2013: Francis is named "Person of the Year" by both Time and the sodomite rag The Advocate, in large part because of his welcoming tone on so-called LGBT issues
• January 2015: Francis met at the Vatican with a transgender man from Spain who had been rejected by his local parish after undergoing sex change surgery. Diego Neria Lejarraga reported about his/her/its meeting with the "pope," saying Francis called Lejarraga in response to a letter that had been written, and Francis invited Diego and his "partner" to the Vatican
• November 28, 2015: While on an apostolic visit to Uganda, a country with strong anti-sodomy laws, Francis called on Christians: "to build a more just society which promotes human dignity, without excluding anyone, defends God’s gift of life, and protects the wonders of nature, his creation, and our common home." Afterwards, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said that the line "without excluding anyone"---"would also include people with homosexual tendencies."
• October 2, 2016: Referring to a transgender man with whom he met at the Vatican, Francis said, "He that was her but is he." He also suggested church ministers to accompany LGBT people, saying this is "what Jesus would do today."
• July 10, 2017: Through a letter from a papal aide, Francis sends a congratulatory blessing letter to a Brazilian sodomite couple on the occasion of the baptism of their three adopted children.
• July 2017: An Argentinian nun who organized an outreach ministry to transgender woman receives a supportive note from Francis for her "innovative work"
• April 2018: A French "priest" claims that in a private meeting with the Francis, he approved of the priest’s work blessing "same-gender couples"

The above was taken from "New Ways Ministry" a self-described group of Vatican II sect clergy and laity who "Through research, publication and education about sexual orientation and gender identity, we foster dialogue among groups and individuals, identify and combat personal and structural homophobia and transphobia, work for changes in attitudes and promote the acceptance of LGBT people as full and equal members of church and society. New Ways Ministry is a member of "Equally Blessed," a coalition of faithful Catholics (sic) who support full equality for LGBT people both in the Church and in civil society." (See https://www.newwaysministry.org/resources/pope-francis-lgbt-issues/)

Conclusion

Transgenderism imposes a perversion of the mind, denying basic reality for Gnostic ideology. Indeed, transgenderism is seeking to eliminate the human race as God created it. Sociologists tell us to qualify as a religion, a group needs to have a creed (beliefs), a code (moral precepts), and a cult (means of worship). 

The whole LGBT rights movement has a Gnostic creed, a code that anything taught by God through His One True Church must be eliminated, and a cult of self-worship and self-deification. A modern day false religion of sorts, spawned from Hell. 

Woe to anyone who opposes them. Persecution through "anti-discrimination" laws will target anyone with decent moral standards. I can't help but think of Pope St. Pius X who (perhaps being given a glimpse of what is happening today) proclaimed: "...the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. [...] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are Traditionalists. (Emphasis mine). 

The Schizophrenic Church Of R & R

 All Traditionalists believe what has been defined and taught by the Church. One of the most basic and ancient expressions of the Faith is the Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and revised with additions by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Recited at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church proclaims, "Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam." (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Do the "recognize and resisters" (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), or Bishop Richard Williamson's St. Marcel Initiative, or their apologists (John Salza, Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, etc.) really believe it?

 Of course they profess it, and would (correctly) state that the denial of such is heresy. However, upon closer inspection, their refusal to acknowledge sedevacantism has lead to a de facto ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) which denies the unity of the Church. They believe in a Schizophrenic "Church" whereby there are two distinct--and even contradictory-- modes of belief and worship, yet they remain mysteriously unified. Don't believe me? Let's examine what the R&R camp says and see if it squares with authentic Church teaching.

The Church Teaching On Unity

 According to theologian Van Noort, "[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity...unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original). 

1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith

"The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church's teaching office." (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, "Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ...Furthermore...it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles" (Ibid:128). 

2. Communion

"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession." (Ibid:128)

3. Government

"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority." (Ibid:130)  

Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don't have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order. 

In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)

According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

R&R Ecclesiology

1. There exists "Eternal Rome" and "Modernist Rome," of which the pope is the head of both. When he speaks for Eternal Rome, you obey. When he speaks for Modernist Rome, you resist.

The Society is fond of quoting from a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which seems the starting point for their schizophrenic "Church:"

"We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it."

They put this into practice with disastrous results.

From "Frequently Asked Questions About The SSPX" ("FAQ")

 (available online at http://archives.sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm): 

"We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries." 

How can a true pope "implement a new religion"? It's one thing to say that a pope is not without sin and can do morally evil acts. This is true and in this he is to be resisted (e.g., the pope asks someone to "murder one of my enemies for me"). However, it is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false or evil to Her members, such as imposing a "new religion."

Therefore, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

Yet the SSPX and the other R&R recognize Bergoglio, a man they claim is "implementing a new religion" (along with the other post-Vatican II "popes" before him), can be pope over both Modernist Rome (new religion) and Eternal Rome (true religion) simultaneously. Moreover, the true and the false religion seem to "subsist" together in the same overarching "Church" (sound familiar?).

2. The Eternal Rome Can Refuse to Have Communion with Modernist Rome
The SSPX: "Now, the Novus Ordo Missae [New "mass"] assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness...If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)." (See FAQ cited above).

According to theologian Szal, to be schismatic, one must meet four requirements:

• one must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one's actions) from obediance to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatic sect
• one's withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion
• the withdrawal must be made in relation to such things by which the unity of the Church is constituted
• despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff 

(See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2)

The Church is thereby in schism with itself. The SSPX is part of Eternal Rome with Bergoglio as "pope" and yet they cannot participate in public worship with Modernist Rome which also has Bergoglio as "pope" because their "mass" is Modernist and evil. The idea of an evil "mass" given by a real pope would contradict the dogma of Indefectibility as stated above, and in this case, they are refusing communion in worship with members alleged to be Catholic, just as they are. Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome form the same Church, but somehow have different religions and can't have unity in communion with each other.  

3. The Magisterium of Modernist Rome Needs to be Corrected by Eternal Rome 

The teaching authority of BOTH Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome resides in Bergoglio. However, if Bergoglio (or his "bishops") make a decision regarding, e.g. annulments and canonizations, the members of Eternal Rome (SSPX) must "correct" his teaching authority.

 A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article "Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?" in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject.  Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:

"Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act."

Father claims..."it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters."

He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. To assert that canonizations may not be infallible due to some procedural misstep is to admit the possibility that the "saint" might actually be a damned soul held up to be emulated and venerated. That would mean the Church can give evil to its members, which is impossible.  

Conclusion

R&R ecclesiology results in a schizophrenic "church," with two separate faiths lead by the same "pope" in which you must decide for yourself what is good and bad, true and false. Bergoglio's Vatican II ecclesiology just adds to the confusion by "giving jurisdiction" for SSPX priests to hear confessions and perform marriages for members of his sect. They're in "partial communion," after all. The SSPX bishops are also in some strange state with Bergoglio; neither excommunicated, yet without Sees or ordinary jurisdiction. 

All of this cannot be reconciled with authentic Church teaching. How much longer before the SSPX seeks to go into "full communion" with Bergoglio, and end the self-created "church within a church"? How much longer can we assume good faith on the part of R&R clerics and their apologists before we can no longer look upon them as Catholics? The only way out is sedevacantism. Being a true Traditionalist means being in the ONE True Church, not some divided concoction that gives both good and evil with clerics speaking out of both sides of their mouths.  

Singing For Satan---Part 17

 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.

Queen and Freddie Mercury

Queen's logo, known as the "Queen's Crest" was designed by Freddie Mercury. It depicts a pagan Phoenix with the equally false and occult Zodiac signs of the band members surrounding the letter "Q." The lions are for astrology sign Leo, the crab is for the sign Cancer, and (appropriately) two fairies for Virgo--the astrological sign of bisexual Mercury. 

 In 1968, a young student at Imperial College, London, named Brain May decided to form a rock band with his friend Tim Staffell. They put out an ad for a drummer, and a young dental student named Roger Taylor was chosen for the job. The band was named Smile ostensibly due to the influence of aspiring dentist Taylor. When Staffell dropped out to join another band, they recruited a friend of Staffell, Farrokh Bulsara (who went by the name Freddie) to replace him. Bulsara, a notorious bisexual, convinced the band to change their name to Queen (a term for a flamboyant male sodomite). In his own words, "I was certainly aware of the gay connotations, but that was just one facet of it."  In 1970, the band would reinvent itself as Queen with the line up of  Brian May (b. 1947), Roger Taylor (b. 1949), a bass guitarist named John Deacon (b. 1951) and Bulsara (d. 1991 from AIDS). Freddie Bulsara would change his last name to "Mercury" after a line he wrote in the song My Fairy King, which reads: "Mother Mercury, Mercury/ Look what they've done to me." He claims the line is about his mother, but as the song is so full of esoteric imagery, it's hard to believe. 

 Queen, for all intents and purposes, ended with the death of sodomite Mercury in 1991. The band has sold approximately 300 million records, making them one of the world's best-selling musicians. In 2001, they were inducted into the "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame." 

Freddy Mercury: Helping Evil Fight Good

Freddie Mercury quote in an interview given only a few years before his death. 

Freddie Mercury, was born on the East African island of Zanzibar in 1946 when that island was a part of the British Empire. At the age of eight, Mercury attended boarding school in Bombay, India–which was also a part of the British Empire at the time. At 17, Mercury’s family fled Zanzibar as a result of a violent revolution and lived the rest of their days in England. Mercury comes from a race of Afro-Asian people called Parsees. Their religion is Zoroastrianism, a very old pagan creed that originated in modern-day Iran. 

According to scholar Richard Cavendish, "The founder of Zoroastrianism was the man Zoroaster (a Greek corruption of the old Iranian word Zarathushtra). His time and place of birth are unknown, but it is generally believed that he was born around 650 B.C. in Persia (present-day Iran). However, as Richard Cavendish observed, there is much doubt as to when and where Zoroaster was born:

The early history of Zoroastrianism is much in dispute. The religion was founded by Zoroaster (the Greek form of his name, which is Zarathushtra in Persian), but it is not certain when he lived, where he lived or how much of later Zoroastrianism came from him. Tradition puts him in western Iran in the sixth century B.C., a little earlier than the Buddha in India, but it is now thought that he lived in northeastern Iran, in the area on the borders of modern Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. An alternative theory dates him much earlier, somewhere in the period from 1700 to 1500 B.C., and places him in the plains of Central Asia, perhaps before the first groups of Aryans moved south from the plains into Iran and India." (See The Great Religions, New York: Arco Publishing Company, [1980], p. 125).

Zoroastrianism teaches a form of dualism. "Ahura-Mazda" is the supreme deity, and he is opposed by another powerful force known as "Angra Mainyu," or "Ahriman," the bad spirit which is equal to Ahura-Mazda. From the beginning of existence these two antagonistic spirits have been at odds with each other. It is up to the individual to help Ahura-Mazda and be rewarded, or Ahriman and be punished. Zoroastrianism is therefore polytheistic, and involves astrology, numerology (the occult belief in a  mystical relationship between a number and  an event which allegedly can be used to tell the future), and a Bergoglio-like undue emphasis on nature/ecology.

At the age of eight, Mercury was officially initiated into the Zoroastrian faith, and his parents were devout throughout their lifetime. However, Mercury didn’t talk about his religion even though he remained a Zoroastrian for the duration of his life, and Zoroastrian "priests" officiated his funeral. That paganism is a dead end, can be seen in the following quotes taken from the biography The Show Must Go On:The Life of Freddie Mercury, [1994] by Rick Sky. Mercury lived for sodomy and money, yet he found very little happiness. He did Satan's work leading people astray with his music. 

Apart from music Freddie Mercury was torn between two passions--sex and spending money... In a few minutes of ecstatic shopping Mercury was capable of spending more money than most people earn in a lifetime. When I asked him once how he coped with his wealth and whether he ever felt guilty at the millions he made, Mercury was bemused by the question. Throwing his hands dramatically in the air, he declared, "I've always coped extremely well with wealth. I don't believe in hoarding my money away in a bank. I love to spend, spend, spend. After all, that's what money is there for. I'm not like some of these stars who are obsessed with counting their pennies." (pg. 89; Emphasis mine)

In one of his more dramatic moments Mercury confessed, "I have everything that money can buy except happiness." But like many of the things he said, it was a white lie that sounded much better than the truth. In those halcyon days of never-ending shopping and sex, Mercury was thrilled by every new acquisition. A more accurate comment was his confession "I'm fortunate enough to be rich. Sometimes I believe the only bit of happiness I can create is with my money." (pg. 93; Emphasis mine)

"I'll go to bed with anything," [Freddy Mercury] once admitted. "And my bed is so huge it can comfortably sleep six. I prefer my sex without any involvement. There are times when I just lived for sex." And during one interview he told me, "I am a very sexual person. I [have sexual intercourse] all the time, though I am much more choosy now than I used to be." According to his friends, Mercury went to bed with hundreds of men. Many who knew him said he had a great fear of spending time alone--especially at night...(pgs. 102-103; Emphasis mine). 

After he finished his relationship with his only longtime girlfriend, Mary Austin, Mercury explored his homosexuality to the fullest, often having a different male lover every night. The Queen front man told his closest friends that he first had a homosexual relationship at boarding school in India at the age of fourteen. But if Mercury was promiscuous during his wilder days, he always liked to have a regular boyfriend to share whatever part of the world he had chosen as his base, and the conflict between his promiscuity and his need for a steady relationship propelled him into some furious rows with his lovers. (pg. 103; Emphasis mine)

Songs of Iniquity

By far, the most infamous song of Queen is Bohemian Rhapsody. It is the third highest selling single of all time, and the only single to hit number one on two separate occasions, due to the its resurgent popularity when featured in the comedy movie Wayne's World (1992). Many of the words used in the song appear in the demonic Koran. "Bismillah" is one of these and it literally means "In the name of Allah." The word "Scaramouch" means "A stock character that appears as a boastful coward." "Beelzebub" is one of the many names given to Satan. Mercury begins by telling his mother he "just killed a man"--a possible reference to killing his heterosexuality (one of his sodomite lovers agrees with this meaning). He then speaks of Islam, another false and demonic religion, and tells us that Beelzebub has "a devil [demon] put aside for me." 

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality

Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see

I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy

Because I'm easy come, easy go, little high, little low

Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me, to me

Mama, just killed a man

Put a gun against his head

Pulled my trigger, now he's dead

Mama, life had just begun

But now I've gone and thrown it all away

Mama, ooh, didn't mean to make you cry

If I'm not back again this time tomorrow

Carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters

Too late, my time has come

Sends shivers down my spine, body's aching all the time

Goodbye, everybody, I've got to go

Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth

Mama, ooh, I don't want to die

I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all

I see a little silhouetto of a man

Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango

Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very fright'ning me

(Galileo) Galileo, (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo figaro magnifico

(I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me)

He's just a poor boy from a poor family

Spare him his life from this monstrosity

Easy come, easy go, will you let me go?

Bismillah! No, we will not let you go

(Let him go) Bismillah! We will not let you go

(Let him go) Bismillah! We will not let you go

(Let me go) Will not let you go

(Let me go) Will not let you go

(Let me go) Ah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

(Oh mamma mia, mamma mia) Mama mia, let me go

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me

So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye?

So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby!

Just gotta get out, just gotta get right outta here!

Nothing really matters, anyone can see

Nothing really matters

Nothing really matters to me

Any way the wind blows

The song Hammer to Fall is about the inevitability of death, and there are pointless prayers that you can say but the hammer (death) will fall (on you). The song is written from a point of despair and nihilism. 

Here we stand or here we fall

History won't care at all

Make the bed, light the light

Lady Mercy won't be home tonight.

You don't waste no time at all

Don't hear the bell but you answer the call

It comes to you as to us all

We're just waiting for the hammer to fall

Oh, every night and every day

A little piece of you is falling away

But lift your face the Western Way

Build your muscles as your body decays.

Tow the line and play their game

Let the anesthetic cover it all

'Til one day they call your name

You know it's time for the hammer to fall.

Rich or poor or famous for

Your truth it's all the same

(Oh, no! Oh, no!)

Lock your door but rain is pouring

Through your window pane

(Oh, no!)

Baby, now your struggle's all in vain.

For he who grew up tall and proud

In the shadow of the Mushroom Cloud

Convinced our voices can't be heard

We just wanna scream it louder and louder and louder

What the hell are we fighting for?

Just surrender and it won't hurt at all

You just got time to say your prayers

While you're waiting for the hammer to—hammer to fall.

Hey! Yes.

It's going to fall! Yeah!

Hammer!

You know

Yeah!

Hammer to fall!

Hammer!

Yeah!

The song We Are The Champions, used at sporting events and even during Trump's campaign, is really about the triumph of the sodomites over heterosexuals. The band members deny this, but would you really believe someone (Mercury) who told Circus magazine, "We want to shock and be outrageous." (April 1974)?

I've paid my dues

Time after time

I've done my sentence

But committed no crime

And bad mistakes 

I've made a few

I've had my share of sand kicked in my face

But I've come through

(And I need to go on and on, and on, and on)

We are the champions, my friends

And we'll keep on fighting 'til the end

We are the champions

We are the champions

No time for losers

'Cause we are the champions of the world

I've taken my bows

And my curtain calls

You brought me fame and fortune

And everything that goes with it

I thank you all

But it's been no bed of roses

No pleasure cruise

I consider it a challenge

Before the whole human race

And I ain't gonna lose

(And I need just go on and on, and on, and on)

We are the champions, my friends

And we'll keep on fighting 'til the end

We are the champions

We are the champions

No time for losers

'Cause we are the champions of the world

We are the champions, my friends

And we'll keep on fighting 'til the end

We are the champions

We are the champions

No time for losers

'Cause we are the champions

Get Down, Make Love is about a homosexual romp and drugs:

 Get down make love

Get down make love

Get down make love

Get down make love

You take my body

I give you heat

You say you're hungry

I give you meat

I suck your mind

You blow my head

Make love

Inside your bed everybody

Get down make love

Get down make love

Get down make love

Get down make love

Everytime I get hot

You wanna cool down

Everytime I get high

You say you wanna come down

You say its enough

In fact its too much

Everytime I get a

Get down get down get down

Make love

you can shake me

(Get down) I can feel, (make love) you can break me

(Get down) come on so heavy (make love)

(Get down) when you take me (make love)

You make love you make love you make love you make

Love

You can make everybody get down make love

Get down make love (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

Freddy Mercury really seems to have made a deal with the devil. He chose evil, got fame and fortune, yet was not happy most of the time. He was a pagan who wanted to be damned, and most likely got his wish. Hell will not be found as a place to meet "interesting people." It's eternal torment away from God forever. So if you're looking for true happiness both here and hereafter, dump Queen and listen to He Who is the King of Kings.