Monday, July 15, 2019

Rationality And The Church

The Catholic Church, for centuries, has wrongly been accused of being "irrational" and going "contrary to science." Worn out canards about Galileo being persecuted, and clerics stifling scientific progress continue to abound. The truth is so often quite different from popular portrayals. The Catholic Church has been the very bastion of rationality. It is the Protestants and Modernists who exalt emotion over reason. The Vatican II sect is all about "feeling good about yourself," and Protestants like to have so-called "revival meetings" whipped up into a frenzy, so people can cry as they scream out to be "saved by faith alone."

The so-called New Atheists and secular humanists never fail to harp on how allegedly "superstitious" all things Christian are, and how religion (Christianity in particular) must be eradicated. This post will show how the Church is in perfect accord with science and is supremely rational. The scientific method is actually demonstrated in the Bible.  Once, during a conversation with an atheist who considered faith "irrational," I was suddenly called to leave regarding an urgent matter. Rather than continue the debate regarding the Church and how dogmas are grounded in reason, I simply and suddenly told him he was entitled to his beliefs. "I have no beliefs, " was the (expected) reply. "Sure you do. You believe atheism is true, don't you?" There was only silence and a dumbfounded look as I left.

Defining "Science"

I have a love of science (and good knowledge of it), having been a science teacher for five years in New York City before going to law school. Before the 1800s, what we call science today was known as natural philosophy. The term literally means "the love of wisdom about nature." Therefore, science is a way of thinking about the natural world. When we were in school, we all learned that science is associated with making observations, looking for possible explanations (an hypothesis), and doing experiments to test your hypothesis. Arguably, one of the first scientists could be the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (for whose wisdom St. Thomas Aquinas had the greatest respect; calling him "The Philosopher"--always capitalized). Aristotle (born circa 384 B.C.) was famous for his observations of living things, and many consider him "The Father of Biology." (See, e.g. Armand Leroi, The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science (Bloomsbury Press, 2014).

Aristotle sometimes would reason from philosophical principles rather than from empirical observation, much to his detriment. One such example is that he believed that heavier objects would fall to the ground more quickly than lighter objects. Galileo devised an experiment proving Aristotle wrong. He rolled spheres down a ramp and discovered that the distance traveled was proportional only to the square of the time taken, and not at all to their masses. The experiment refuted the hypothesis that objects fall at different speeds if they are of different masses. This is how science works; it is a progressive human endeavor. Due to the dramatic increase in scientific technology where what was science fiction only fifty years ago is now commonplace scientific achievement, it has lead to the (dangerous) rise in what is called scientism, the belief that all knowledge comes to us exclusively through science. Since science is concerned with the measurable, visible world, it leads to the belief that talk of the supernatural is "untrue" and/or "unscientific." 

The Scientific Method in the Bible
Being rational is extolled in the Bible. When Our Lord  was asked what the greatest Commandments were, He said the first was to " the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." (St. Mark 12:30; Emphasis mine). Notice the inclusion of "mind" in the list. It is an absurd contention that God is anti-reason. He gives us the highest-level of encouragement to use our minds to think about Him and the natural world in which we live. By such observations, we can come to know the existence of God by reason alone. Hence, Scripture tells us, "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God..." (Psalm 13:1; Emphasis mine).

The Vatican Council in 1870 dogmatically defined:
The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. It was, however, pleasing to His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the eternal laws of His will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son. 

Canon 1 on Revelation: If anyone saith that the one, true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

From the Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):
...And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, His existence can also be demonstrated...

How different from the Protestants and Modernists! Modernists hold  faith as "an encounter," or a "blind sense of religion which comes forth from the secret places of the subconscious, morally formed under an impulse of the heart.." (as condemned in the Anti-Modernist Oath). The Protestants denigrate faith as blind confidence in the Divine mercy. The enemies of the Church are also the real enemies of reason.

In the Book of job, God challenges Job regarding his knowledge of science:

Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said:
Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words?
Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Upon what are its bases grounded? or who laid the corner stone thereof,
When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing out of the womb:
When I made a cloud the garment thereof, and wrapped it in a mist as in swaddling bands?
I set my bounds around it, and made it bars and doors:
And I said: Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves.
(Job 38:1-11).
The answers involve observations of the natural world and the realization it points to the Supreme Being.

People involved in science (medical research in particular) are familiar with the "controlled trial." We are told by the American Medical Association, or the Food and Drug Administration, that drug X has been shown effective in trials to combat disease Y. The Book of Daniel, chapter one, records one of the first (perhaps even the very first) such trial. Put simply, Daniel and his friends were captured by the evil pagan King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, during a siege of Jerusalem around the sixth century B.C. The four young men were enrolled in what today's world would be considered a state University, all expenses paid, to be the king's advisors.

They were to be fed from the King's table. Daniel did not want to defile himself with food and drink that had in all likelihood been offered to pagan "gods." He asked the Babylonian in charge to give them vegetarian food instead. The man told Daniel that if the King saw the four young men deteriorate in health and fitness, he--the one in charge--would be executed. Daniel proposed that he test them in secret for ten days and make a judgement based upon what he saw; he wanted to give him scientific evidence. The official agreed, and after the trial, the four looked much healthier than the other students. He therefore kept the arrangement. Even today, there is substantial evidence that plant based diets are healthier than those with large amounts of meat.

The Universe, the Church, and the Big Bang
Many people would be surprised that one of the greatest discoveries in modern science comes to us from a Catholic priest in Belgium. Fr. Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), was ordained a priest in 1923. Absolutely brilliant, Fr. Lemaitre was also a mathematician and astronomer.  He was the first to suggest (in 1927) that there had been an absolute beginning to the universe, including space and time itself. He based his theory on Einstein's theories, calling it The Primeval Atom Theory. Einstein said that his mathematics was sound, but his physics was horrible, and dismissed the theory. Astronomer Fred Hoyle referred to it as the "Big Bang Theory" while mocking Father in a 1949 radio broadcast.

At the time of Fr. Lemaitre's theory, the prevailing model in science was known as the "Steady State Theory," meaning that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place. There was no beginning to the universe, it always existed. On the theological front, those who didn't understand the Faith (as well as fundamentalist Protestants) objected to the idea, inherent in the Big Bang, that the universe was billions of years old based on their private interpretation of the Bible. The universe was only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and God made the world in six days of twenty-four hours each, and it must be true because "the Bible says so."

Fr. Lemaitre was never censured, warned, or condemned by Pope Pius XI or Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII actually praised his work, but Father asked the pope to please not "mix" science with religion by linking his discovery to the truths of Faith. Fr. Lemaitre rightly considered science and Catholicism not to be in any conflict (since God is Creator of Nature and Founder of the Church) and he wanted science and faith to be considered two separate and different (but equally valid) ways of looking at the universe. (See Simon Singh,  Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, HarperCollins, [2010], p. 362). Even though it was exceptionally bold for a priest to so speak to the pope, the Supreme Pontiff nevertheless agreed to his request and gave him a papal blessing. 

He was never censured for good cause: the Church does not teach that you must believe in a literal six days of creation.  On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").  

Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"

Answer: In the negative.

Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?"

Answer: In the affirmative.

We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. The word "day" is an inexact translation of the word "yom", which was the word actually inspired by God and used by Moses. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.

In the scientific realm, the joke would soon be on Einstein and Hoyle. The scientific evidence of a beginning steadily increased, such as red-shift in the light coming from the galaxies, the expanding universe, and the discovery of the microwave background, have all contributed to our current understanding that the universe burst into existence at a single point.The Big Bang theory has near universal acceptance by scientists. Despite Fr. Lemaitre's reluctance to "mix" science and faith, he has given scientific validation to another form of a cosmological argument (such arguments were employed by the great Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas) as rational proof of the existence of God. The Communist countries refused to allow the Big Bang to be taught because they realized the theological implications set forth:

Major premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Minor premise: The universe began to exist (Big Bang)
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

Moreover, this cause must be immaterial (there was no matter), timeless (there was no time), without boundaries (there was no space), and of enormous power. God has just been described.

The Church has unjustly been attacked as "irrational" and "unscientific," when She is actually the greatest proponent of reason and science. In matters of Faith, the Church does not promote ridiculous "emotionalism" like Modernists and Protestants. She sets forth Her doctrines with intellectual rigor. In science, the scientific method is demonstrated in the Bible itself, and a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang Theory, which in accord with the dogmatic degrees of the Church, proves the existence of God by the use of reason. I might add that an Augustinian friar, Gregor Mendel, is the Father of Genetics. We should be grateful that Our Lord has given us a Church that urges us to think upon His creation rationally. In so doing we refute unbelievers. In the words of St. Paul to the Romans, "For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and Divinity: so that they [i.e., unbelievers] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20). 

Monday, July 8, 2019

Combating Cooties

There are Traditionalists that have nothing better to do than needlessly attack other Traditionalists. Truly, "when the shepherd is struck the sheep are scattered." I don't enjoy getting into squabbles that take our efforts off fighting Bergoglio, but there are times I must. On July 4th, Fr. Anthony Cekada wrote an article entitled Spiritual Cooties: The SSPV Sacramental Penalties After Thirty Years. It marks Fr. Cekada's 30 year departure from the SSPV, and it can be found here: Fr. Cekada is to be commended for his contributions in promoting sedevacantism and exposing the Vatican II sect. However, when he writes screeds like this he does a great disservice to all, especially himself.

The article (correctly) deplores the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) for refusing to give the sacraments to those who are ordained/affiliated with Thuc line bishops. Fr. Cekada likens this to the children's game "cooties," whereby you "catch" a spiritual cootie infestation (i.e., made up penalty) by receiving sacraments from a Traditionalist priest who the SSPV declared "cootie contaminated" (afflicted by that made up penalty). If you affiliate with Thuc line clergy, even if not ordained by them, you "catch" the alleged scandal. I'll pass over the fact that the SSPV thinks they are protecting people from dubious sacraments (even though the arguments against Thuc hold no water).  Fr. Cekada then goes on to claim that Bishop Clarence Kelly is like cult leader L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology. He accuses Fr. William Jenkins of:
classic cult manipulation techniques: long, rambling sermons and speeches (obviously unprepared) delivered in his trance-inducing basso profundo voice; public complaints about his supposed health problems that aimed at winning pity and sympathy; late-night phone calls to check up on the loyalty of supporters; heavy doses of empty bluster and indignation (“Can you imagine? Can you really imagine?”); not-so-subtle appeals for pats on the head (“I’ll leave the school if the people want me to!” “Oh, no, Father, please, not that!”), and habitual late starts for Masses and other public activities (because poor Father is just so busy or so sick).
(Those who have seen Fr. Jenkins in action even recently will recognize that his methods have not changed.)

Fr. Cekada seems incapable of disagreeing without ascribing the worst motives to his opponents, and resorts to puerile name-calling. I'd also like to know, for example, how Fr Cekada is certain Fr. Jenkins does not have any health problems. Was he there every time Fr. Jenkins was diagnosed by a physician? Did he obtain his medical records in violation of HIPAA law?  These attacks on good Traditionalist clergymen are deplorable. Is the SSPV wrong on their position? Yes. Are they a "cult"? Not in the least. I know most of the SSPV clergy, and they are pious Traditionalist Catholics.

Ironically, if the SSPV is a "cult" then so is Bp.Dolan's and Fr. Cekada's St. Gertrude the Great Church. They deny Communion to those who attend "Una Cum" Masses of, e.g., Society of St Pius X (SSPX), which Fr. Cekada defends--since he invented that "cootie." I've written about this issue before, but this time I will approach it differently. I will assume, ad arguendo, that a Traditionalist priest (validly ordained, not in actual union with the Vatican II sect, rejecting Modernism and V2 errors, and using the Traditional Catholic Mass) becomes "in union with" Bergoglio and all his heresies by adding the name "Francis" to the Canon of the Mass. I will even concede, ad arguendo, that this priest himself becomes a heretic for doing so. Is the Mass Una Cum off limits? In a word: NO.

Undeclared Heretics

 In Fr. Cekada's own article he cites Canon 2261 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which allows a Catholic to receive a sacrament from even an excommunicated priest "for any just cause." Yet Fr. Cekada assures us in his anti-Una writings that an Una Cum Mass offered by a Traditionalist priest, as I just described above, is so horrible:

1) It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in his chapel/church while such a Mass is being offered.

2) You can't receive Holy Viaticum from such a priest since It were consecrated during such a Mass.

3) It's OK to go to Confession to that priest where the Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal.

That's pretty bad--and very infectious! Yet I credit Mr. John Daly for his insightful analysis of Cardinal De Lugo, one of the greatest approved theologians of the twentieth century. This work and its analysis appear below in red. It shows that Fr. Cekada's opinion (which he enforces like dogma), is far from certain (to say the least).

On Communication in Religious Rites with Heretics--Cardinal De Lugo
Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1.
The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs, or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in a Catholic rite, etc.
This is denied by Basil. Pont. […] where he says, “one may not celebrate in the presence of a heretic on any grounds, not even by virtue of very grave fear,” and he takes this for granted and offers no proof of his claim. I am astonished that such a learned man should have failed to notice that the authority of all the Doctors is against him, and that they are followed by Sanchez […], Suarez […], Azor […] and others, followed by Hurtado […], and this [sc. the opposing view] is certain from what has been said, because an undeclared excommunicate who is not notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, need not be avoided even in sacred rites, as is established by the said litterae extravagantes (2), and the fact that he is a heretic is not a special reason why it should be unlawful unless on some other grounds there be scandal or irreverence against the faith, or some other such factor, all of which are extrinsic and not always found.
Thirdly however an object of greater doubt is whether Catholics may receive the sacraments from heretics who have not been declared to be such. This is denied by Azor. […], though he is scarcely consistent as to his grounds, for in the first place he says that this is due not only to the excommunication, but also to the heresy; but in the second place he says that it is on account not of the heresy but of the excommunication, inasmuch as every excommunicate, even occult, lacks jurisdiction. Soto agrees with him […], though on different grounds, since he thinks that all heretics and schismatics are deemed to have been excommunicated by name and to be vitandi.
But the opposite view is generally held [communis] and is the true one, unless it should be illicit in a given case for some other reason such as scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez […], Suarez […], Hurtado […] and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance […] and of matrimony and the other sacraments […]. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes(3) in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.
So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds it may often be illicit to do so unless necessity should excuse as I have explained in the said places.
Cardinal de Lugo holds that the law forbidding Catholics to participate in worship together with heretics or schismatics does not apply unless those in question have been declared to be such by the Church (or belong to a condemned sect). And de Lugo also shows that the majority of theologians hold his view on this subject, against a minority who disagree.

This teaching is supported by Pope Martin V's Ad Evitanda Scandala which expressly allows communion with excommunicates until they have been condemned by the Church. Naturally this does not apply to what is certainly forbidden by divine law – as would be participation in a rite which itself contained heresy or which exposed oneself or others to grave scandal.

It should be noted that there has been no noteworthy change in ecclesiastical law on communication in sacris since de Lugo wrote. The law forbidding communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics remains in force (Canon 1258). And the law authorizing the reception of the sacraments from uncondemned excommunicates (Canon 2261) remains in force also.

The purpose of drawing attention to this text is not to encourage Catholics to frequent uncondemned heretics or schismatics for the sacraments.

It is to show those who have written on this topic without even discussing this distinction are insufficiently well informed about the matter and are unworthy of trust. The whole issue needs to be re-examined.

It seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that in our days de Lugo would have considered it not intrinsically illicit to assist at Mass offered una cum the Vatican II pseudo-popes, since he allows what is in fact a greater departure from the principle of assisting only at a fully Catholic Mass.

A Contemporary Theologian Weighs In

Fr. Martin Stepanich (1915-2012), an approved pre-Vatican II theologian and sedevacantist had much to say in response to the non-Una Cum position. From Fr. Stepanich:
 We naturally had to wonder if there is some kind of teaching of popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times that would help clear up things for us on that thorny una cum Benedicto issue.(Ratzinger/Benedict was false pope when Fr Stepanich wrote this letter--Introibo). A determined and well-meaning attempt to settle things on that issue has indeed been made, although the purpose was decidedly one-sided, inasmuch as the idea was to prove that in no way could traditional Catholics ever lawfully attend una cum Benedicto Masses. Research, described as "exhaustive research," has come with the statement that "various popes and pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the laity who assist actively at mass, in so doing manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the Sacrifice," but also to his adding of the name of B16 to the Canon of the Mass.

However, it is as plain as could be that there is no indication whatsoever, in the above quote, that the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians referred to gave any thought at all to Masses with the name of a false pope in the una cum phrase of the Canon. They undoubtedly had in mind the kind of Mass they knew, that is, the traditional Latin Mass of the ages, not anything like the una cum Benedicto Masses that we know today.

The unquestionable fact is that the popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times did not see with their own eyes the Modernist popes promoting a plainly new un-Catholic religion, the way we have been doing, nor did they hear with their own ears the false teaching of modernist popes and theologians, nor did they ever get to read their modernist un-Catholic writings. So they did not have occasion to warn against, and condemn, Masses like the una cum Benedicto Masses that today’s traditional theologians, as well as informed lay Catholics, have been obliged to condemn repeatedly in these Vatican II times. Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians did not address the una cum Benedicto Mass issue, of which they knew nothing first hand the way we have known it.

If we try to use the words of popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, as already quoted above, and make them say that attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses is always absolutely forbidden under any and all circumstances, it is we who are really doing that kind of forbidding, not the popes and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Just try to find anything in the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians that totally and absolutely forbids any and all attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses by traditional sedevacantist Catholics. It just isn’t there! (Emphasis mine---Introibo)

Historical Examples that Weigh Against The Una Cum Cootie

1. On December 20, 1949, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office promulgated the decree Instructio ad locorum Ordinarios, “De Motione Ecumenica” which declared that the recitation in common by a mixed group of Catholics and non-Catholics of the Our Father or of a prayer approved by the Church does not constitute a forbidden act of communicatio in sacris (loosly, "communication in sacred things" or worship/sacraments in common with non-Catholics). Divine Law does forbid communicatio in sacris if the minister is not validly ordained, if the rite used is not wholly Catholic or if the circumstances are such that sacramental communion is equivalent to a profession of heresy — or on grounds of scandal. In regards to "scandal" it must be noted that it does not mean people would be "shocked" ("oh, my goodness!"), nor does it mean "shocking to the senses" as in civil law ("how dare someone do that"!). In theology, it means something that provokes others to commit sin.

2. The example of Blessed Noel Pinot in Revolutionary France speaks volumes. When the clergy were summoned by the Revolutionary Government to subscribe to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, this parish priest observed three essential facts: (a) it was clear to him that the document was heretical and schismatic; (b) it had not yet been condemned as such by the Holy See, and (c) not all priests shared his severe judgement. Hence, he steadfastly refused to sign the text himself, come what may, but he continued to share the ministry of the church of which he was pastor with his curate, Fr. Garanger, who, despite Pinot’s remonstrances, did sign.

“In any event,” writes Blessed Noel’s biographer, “as the Pope had not yet pronounced on the subject of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Fr. Garanger had not incurred any censure as a result of taking the oath of fidelity to it. Fr. Pinot trusted that the instructions Rome was expected soon to issue on the subject would open his eyes and meanwhile he allowed him to continue his activities in the parish as before…” (See Mgr Francis Trochu, Vie du Bienheureux Noël Pinot, p. 65). [Once more I give full credit to Mr. John Daly for the historical examples---Introibo]

Why is it not possible to give the same benefit to those R&R clergy who seem sincerely to intend to adhere to the Catholic faith and wrongly imagine that Vatican II and Bergoglio are in some way compatible with that faith?  

Fr. Cekada attacks the good clerics of the SSPV as a "cult" because of wrongly held theological opinions, and derides these opinions they enforce as "spiritual cooties." Yet Fr. Cekada himself has become the very "follow me or die" cleric he once abhored. Here is a list of his cooties:

  • Attending the Revised Holy Week Rites of Pope Pius XII gives you the "Masonic-BUGnini" Cootie 
  • Receiving Holy Viaticum from an SSPX priest is wrong because the Sacred Host was consecrated during an Una Cum Mass. 
  • You can't make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament where the Una Cum Mass is offered. 
  • You can deny Holy Communion to a member of the SSPX or who attend Mass with another R&R priest.
  • You can't go to Confession to a Traditionalist priest where the Una Cum is offered if it causes "scandal"
 That Una Cum is one powerful spiritual cootie!! I also wonder how he reconciles only being able to confess to an SSPX or R&R priest if there is "no danger of  scandal," yet he told one of my readers it was OK to confess to a Vatican II sect priest, outside the danger of death and in the V2 sect church, as long as the priest was validly ordained pre-Vatican II. The Novus Bogus "mass" is said there. That's not scandalous? That's not being in union with an priest who broke his Anti-Modernist Oath to join the Vatican II sect?

Fr. Cekada longs for the day the SSPV stops the nonsense they created. So do I. Furthermore, I also long for the day all Traditionalists are sedevacantists. Until then, I hope Fr. Cekada stops doing the very thing he accuses the SSPV of doing; enforcing made-up rules.I'm not R&R, but to tell people who have no where else to go it's mortal sin to attend Una Cum (thereby depriving themselves of many graces staying away) when there is no Magisterium to decide the issue is wrong. I have seen Fr. Cekada attack the clergy of the SSPV with much vitriol.  To their credit, they don't give it back to him. They act with the decorum one would expect of a Traditionalist priest or bishop. I hope Fr. Cekada will start behaving as a priest should, and he can look to Bishop Santay and Fr. Baumberger as examples.

The "spiritual cooties" do have a cure: Stop enforcing theological issues upon which there can be honest disagreement, and there is no Magisterial authority to decide. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."

Monday, July 1, 2019

Singing For Satan---Part 24

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.

Led Zeppelin

Zed Zeppelin was an English rock band formed in 1968. Only The Beatles and Elvis Presley had a greater impact on rock music, and I dare say that they, just like Satanist Aleister Crowley whom they emulated, were "the wickedest men" in music. Their music is demon-inspired, and they wished to lead souls, like a Satanic Pied-Piper, to the depths of Hell. If you think this is all hyperbole, and I'm exaggerating to make a point, guess again. The amount of material I have on this group is enormous; so much so I could easily have written four posts on this band. I left Led Zeppelin until near the end of this series of posts, because I kept going back to parse down the information. Nevertheless, I wanted to retain enough to make the inherent evil of their songs evident. I hope I've succeeded in this endeavor. 

The group consisted of Robert Plant (b. 1948) lyric-writer and lead singer, Jimmy Page (b. 1944) on lead guitar, John Paul Jones (b. John Richard Baldwin in 1946) on keyboards/bass, and John Bonham (d. 1980) on drums. The band is cited as one of the progenitors of heavy metal music. Their style drew from a wide variety of influences, including blues, psychedelia and folk music. Originally calling themselves The New Yardbirds, they changed their name when a music critic told them their music "would sink like a lead balloon." Hence, they changed the spelling of "lead," and "Balloon" became "Zeppelin," as they wanted to prove him wrong. The four united by chance when Jimmy Page wanted to form a "rock and roll super-group." Of those who applied, Plant, Jones, and Bonham were chosen. 

Zeppelin released eight studio albums, after signing with Atlantic Records. They were generally disliked by the music critics, but unexpectedly became wildly popular. Their untitled album (commonly called Led Zeppelin IV), contained the song Stairway to Heaven, which to this day is considered one of the greatest rock songs of all time. (See According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as of 2000, the song had been broadcast on radio over three million times. The sheet music sells approximately 15,000 copies per year, and over one million copies have been sold since 1971, making it the the best selling single piece of sheet music in history. It remains the #1 most requested song on rock radio stations.

The band was known for absolute debauchery, as they became the most successful and popular band of the 1970s. In 1980, drummer John Bonham (ranked by Rolling Stone magazine as number one in their list of the "100 Greatest Drummers of All Time") consumed over 47 ounces of Vodka on September 24th, beginning with his "breakfast." He passed out later in the day, and was placed in his bed. He choked on his own vomit while he slept, a condition known medically as pulmonary aspiration.  The band announced that they would not replace him, but disband because "the sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were"--the letter was singed "Led Zeppelin." The band sold approximately 200 million albums, and in 1995, they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. 

A Deal with the Devil
In 2018, author Lance Gilbert came out with a book entitled The Led Zeppelin Curse: Jimmy Page and the Boleskine House, which ties together (with decent sources) all the rumors and writings in the past which claim that three of the four members made a pact with Satan to sell their souls in return for fame and fortune. It is undisputed that in 1969, Jimmy Page became deeply involved with the teachings of Satanist Aleister Crowley. He couldn't get enough of his books on Satanism and the occult. Eventually, Page would buy Crowley's house (known as the Boleskine House) in 1970. Although he didn't live there, he would go there to get his "inspiration for songs." He hired one Malcolm Dent as caretaker. Dent reported he awoke one night to hear what sounded like a wild animal snorting and banging outside his bedroom door. It went on for some time and it wasn't until morning that Dent dared open the door, and there was nothing there. Dent added "whatever was there was pure evil."

Due to the harsh criticisms of their music, Page suggested that the band participate in a "magick" ritual (Magick, spelled with a "k" at the end, is the attempt of causing change to occur through the calling up of supernatural forces, as opposed to "magic" which is harmless sleight of hand parlor tricks). This ritual was taken from Crowley's work and was meant to bring fame and fortune. All agreed except John Paul Jones who wanted no part of it. It was right after the ritual that their albums skyrocketed in sales and they became a sensation. The unnamed album (unofficially called Led Zeppelin IV) was a tribute to the occult and released in 1971. 

Led Zepplin IV contained the mega-hit Stairway to Heaven. According to Led Zeppelin biographer Stephen Davis, the song was the result of automatic writing, i.e., writing that is said to be produced by a spiritual entity rather than the conscious intention of the writer. 

". . . Robert [Plant] described the 'automatic' nature of the lyric: 'I was just sitting there with Pagey [nickname for Jimmy Page] in front of a fire at Headley Grange. Pagey had written the chords and played them for me. I was holding a paper and pencil, and for some reason, I was in a very bad mood. Then all of a sudden my hand was writing out words. 'There's a lady who's sure, all that glitters is gold, and she's buying a stairway to heaven.' I just sat there and looked at the words and then I almost leaped out of my seat.'" (See Hammer of the Gods, [2008], p. 164; Emphasis mine)

"He [Robert Plant] often remarked that he could feel his pen being pushed by some higher authority." (Ibid, p. 262; Emphasis mine)

Problems for the group began in 1972, when Page agreed to do the soundtrack for Lucifer Rising, a short movie being created by Satanist/occultist Kenneth Anger, who was another ritual magick practitioner. Page didn't deliver on the music, which led to Anger denouncing Page in the media. Anger reportedly told people in private (circa 1975)  that he placed a curse on Page and Led Zeppelin (after all, they were supposed to be in Satan's service). The next five years were non-stop tragedy. First, Robert Plant and his family were nearly killed when their car went off a cliff in Greece. The accident forced the band to cancel the rest of their Physical Graffiti tour and delayed the recording of their next album.

Plant got laryngitis when the band arrived in the U.S. to tour, leaving fans disappointed in the quality of the music, and they got ripped in the media. In 1977, Plant's five year old son, Karac, died from a simple stomach virus. The group had just finished a performance where a mini-riot had broken out, and Plant received a call from his wife informing him that their son got suddenly ill and died. He was totally healthy up to that point. Page and Jones didn’t attend the child's funeral, prompting Plant to consider leaving the band. He wrote the song All of My Love in honor of Karac. Then in 1980, Bonham died, and that's when the band called it quits. The speculation is that the break-up was due to the "Led Zeppelin Curse" and not the stated "undivided harmony." Interestingly, the only band member who was left unscathed by tragedy dring 1975-1980, was John Paul Jones--the solitary member who refused to have anything to do with the Satanic magick ritual performed by the others in the band.

Houses of the Unholy
The Occult Symbols of Led Zeppelin: (from RIGHT to LEFT because Crowley wanted things done backwards):
Robert Plant, John Bonham, John Paul Jones, and Jimmy Page

Zeppelin's songs are full of the occult. The infamous Stairway to Heaven was exposed in April of 1982 for having "backward masked messages" on it. I was listening live when WPLJ-FM played the vinyl backwards, and I could clearly hear the words "My sweet Satan."  There were other words allegedly spoken, but those were unmistakable. The band denied doing it, and basically said it was just random sounds and active imaginations. Yet it was Page who said of Satanist Crowley, "...I've employed his system [of the occult] in my day to day life." (See Paul Kendall Led Zeppelin: In Their Own Words, pg. 109). You can hear a recording of the song backwards here: 

For a time, Page even owned an occult bookstore and publishing house called The Equinox. Containing rare, expensive occult books, it was a source of knowledge for serious initiates only. The album Led Zeppelin III  had on the first pressings the words "So mote be it" and "Do what thou wilt," a line coming from Crowley's guiding philosophy: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." It's interesting to wonder what Page imagined he might accomplish, sending this wicked teaching spinning over turntables around the world. 

Led Zeppelin IV got more elaborate with its occult promotion. The hermit on the cover was a Tarot symbol ("The Hermit") with whom Page often identified. Those strange symbols shown above are taken from Rudolf Koch's 1955 Book of Signs, which collected occult images from around the world. Robert Plant is represented by the feather in the circle. John Bonham is represented by the three interlocking rings. John Paul Jones is represented by the circle with three flower-petal-like shapes. "ZoSo," meanwhile, belongs to Page. (The band always describes them backwards from right to left, as Crowley always said to do things backwards to honor Satan)

As to Plant's symbol, it is specifically the feather of Ma’at, the Egyptian goddess of justice. The feather is the same one referred to in Egyptian belief when the heart of the deceased is weighed against a feather by Anubis, the Jackal-headed guardian of the underworld. A heart heavy with sin would preclude the individual from joining Osiris in the underworld. It is pagan and shows Plant as "full of sin." Bonham's symbol is taken from the "Heriophant Tarot card of the Thoth deck"  representing Isis, Osiris and Horus in a blasphemous mockery of the Christian Trinity.

Jones' symbol is a circle with three intersecting Vesica Pisces and is known as the Triquetra. This symbol has been found on early Germanic coins and Northern European Rune Stones. It was used by Christians and "baptized," so to speak, in order to represent the True Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. It is best known in modern times as a Pagan or Wiccan symbol for the trinity of Maiden, Woman, and Hag. The popular television series Charmed, about three Pagan sisters, uses this symbol as its logo and is seen upon the Book of Shadows used in the show. Finally, Page's symbol does not show up in Koch's book, but contains "666" hidden both in its regular appearance and upside down--a sign of the Antichrist. 

Do We Even Need the Lyrics?
With all the occult influences, the lyrics to the songs are almost superfluous; we know they can't be any good. Played forward or backwards, the messages are evil. Two songs will suffice. The best and most accurate description, in my opinion, of the meaning behind Stairway to Heaven, comes from an anonymous gentleman who left it on the Internet, and it comports with my research. I take no credit for the interpretation.

There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven.
When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed
With a word she can get what she came for.
Ooh, ooh, and she's buying a stairway to heaven. (Occult alchemy.  Some people like shiny things and think they have value. Some believe they can buy, with money or sex, whatever they want.)

There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
In a tree by the brook, there's a songbird who sings,
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven. (Two meanings: the occult use of certain words and symbols to mean something sinister)

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder.

There's a feeling I get when I look to the west,
And my spirit is crying for leaving.
In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees, (Ritual sex or sacrifice with incantations by the fire outdoors)
And the voices of those who stand looking. (In ancient times, the west, the direction of the sunset, was the direction of hell - children of darkness long to return home to their master where death and destruction awaits them--Christ is said to return from the East and all altars face east. The sun (Son) also rises in the East).

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder.

And it's whispered that soon, if we all call the tune,
Then the piper will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long,
And the forests will echo with laughter. (The New Age Anti-Christ is the piper that will lead all who will follow the tune of Satanic music into hell - the new day is the New Age )

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now,
It's just a spring clean for the May queen.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on.
And it makes me wonder.

Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know,
The piper's calling you to join him,
Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow, and did you know
Your stairway lies on the whispering wind?

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul.
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything still turns to gold. (Wind down the road like a snake or like the devil; the shadow is evil; the the devil who appears as an angel of light or even the Queen of Heaven [false apparitions in our times]-occult alchemy turning metals into gold)

And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last.
When all are one and one is all (Trying to convince you to listen to the evil spirits and hear the tune of the devil, The Antichrist, when the one-world government and one world religion where "all are one")
To be a rock and not to roll.

And she's buying a stairway to heaven.

In Houses of the Holy the lyrics are pure evil once more:

Let me take you to the movies.
Can I take you to the show?
Let me be yours ever truly.
Can I make your garden grow? (This verse is a reference to a man asking a woman to go out with him and have sex)

From the houses of the holy
We can watch the white doves go. (The man is introducing her to Satanism. As Satan's influence increases, the "white doves" [symbol of the Holy Ghost and His Grace in the souls of the just] will "go" as He does not abide in the souls of the unjust)
From the door comes Satan's daughter.(A blasphemous parody of Christ--The Son of God)
And it only goes to show.
And you know. (It only goes to show gullibility on the part of many)

There's an angel on my shoulder. (A fallen angel)
In my hand a sword of gold.
Let me wander in your garden.
And the seeds of love I'll sow. (More sexual reference)
You know.

So the world is spinning faster.
Are you dizzy when you stall?
Let the music be your master.
Will you heed the master's call?

Satan and man. (Does this even require interpretation?!?)

Said there ain't no use in crying
'Cause it will only, only drive you mad.
Does it hurt to hear them lying?
Was this the only world you had?

So let me take you, take you to the movie.
Can I take you, baby, to the show?
Why don't you let me be yours ever truly?
Can I make your garden grow?
You know that's right.

Led Zeppelin is a band who sold their souls to sing for Satan. One of the wickedest groups of all time, the facts speak for themselves. There used to be a segment every night on WPLJ-FM here in NYC back in the 1970s, called "Get The Led Out;" a half-hour of only Led Zeppelin songs. I agree that anyone who ever listened to them should get (and keep) the music of Led Zeppelin out of their lives. 

Monday, June 24, 2019

Eunuchs For The Kingdom Of Heaven

 We live in a sex-saturated world. Television, movies, popular books, magazines, songs, advertisements and fashions all promote sex. Even the most perverse deviant behaviors are no longer taboo, but openly discussed, flaunted, and even glamorized. Prior to the Great Apostasy, the Roman Catholic Church stood apart from the cares of this world, most notably in Her promotion of consecrated virginity and celibacy. Priests, brothers, monks, and nuns all gave up marriage and family in imitation of Our Lord, in complete dedication to the things of God. Members of the Vatican II sect blame celibacy, instead of homosexuality, for their clerical sex abuse scandals.

Last week, Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis), "cracked open the door to ordaining married, elderly men to the priesthood to meet the pastoral needs of Catholics in remote areas of the Amazon." (See While the Argentinian apostate seems to favor celibacy, the fact remains that his "predecessor" he "canonized"---John Paul the Great Apostate--taught heretical doctrine regarding celibacy and virginity. Make no mistake, the Vatican II sect is out to slowly have married clergy like the Protestants, and deal another blow to consecrated celibacy/virginity, which gives witness to the things of God.

This post will explore Church teaching on consecrated virginity and celibacy, and expose the forces of Hell which hate it so much.

Church Teaching

 While recognizing the innate goodness and necessity of Holy Matrimony (raised to the dignity of a sacrament by Our Lord Jesus Christ), it is a defined dogma that virginity and celibacy are superior to matrimony. The Council of Trent, Session 24, in its decree regarding Holy Matrimony, infallibly pronounced:

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

In his 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas, Pope Pius XII teaches:
It is first and foremost for the foregoing reasons that, according to the teaching of the Church, holy virginity surpasses marriage in excellence. Our Divine Redeemer had already given it to His disciples as a counsel for a more perfect life. St. Paul, after having said that the father who gives his daughter in marriage "does well," adds immediately "and he that gives her not, does better."Several times in the course of his comparison between marriage and virginity the Apostle reveals his mind, and especially in these words: "for I would that all men were even as myself. . . But I say to the unmarried and to widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I."Virginity is preferable to marriage then, as We have said, above all else because it has a higher aim: that is to say, it is a very efficacious means for devoting oneself wholly to the service of God, while the heart of married persons will remain more or less "divided." (para #24; Emphasis mine)

In regard to the clergy, it makes sense that those who choose to dedicate themselves completely to Christ should also emulate His absolute purity.The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) has this to say:

Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Savior, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry. In Matthew 19:12, Christ clearly commends those who, "for the sake of the kingdom of God", have held aloof from the married state, though He adds: "he who can accept it, let him accept it". St. Paul is even more explicit:

I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

And further on:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35)

Further, although we grant that the motive here appealed to is in some measure utilitarian, we shall probably be justified in saying that the principle which underlies the Church's action in enforcing celibacy is not limited to this utilitarian aspect but goes even deeper. From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jews and pagans the priesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in the Church of Christ, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was imparted by the Holy Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood. Virginity and marriage both holy, but in different ways. The conviction that virginity possesses a higher sanctity and clearer spiritual intuitions, seems to be an instinct planted deep in the heart of man. Even in the Jewish Dispensation where the priest begot children to whom his functions descended, it was nevertheless enjoined that he should observe continence during the period in which he served in the Temple. No doubt a mystical reason of this kind does not appeal to all, but such considerations have always held a prominent place in the thought of the Fathers of the Church; as is seen, for example, in the admonition very commonly addressed to subdeacons of the Middle Ages at the time of their ordination. "With regard to them it has pleased our fathers that they who handle the sacred mysteries should observe the law of continence, as it is written 'be clean ye who handle the vessels of the Lord?' "(Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II, 242).---(See

 In the above cited encyclical Pope Pius XII reminds all that the Latin Rite's celibate priesthood is superior to that of the Eastern Rites who allow men (already married) to become priests. The Holy Father wrote:

There is yet another reason why souls desirous of a total consecration to the service of God and neighbor embrace the state of virginity. It is, as the holy Fathers have abundantly illustrated, the numerous advantages for advancement in spiritual life which derive from a complete renouncement of all sexual pleasure. It is not to be thought that such pleasure, when it arises from lawful marriage, is reprehensible in itself; on the contrary, the chaste use of marriage is ennobled and sanctified by a special sacrament, as the Fathers themselves have clearly remarked. Nevertheless, it must be equally admitted that as a consequence of the fall of Adam the lower faculties of human nature are no longer obedient to right reason, and may involve man in dishonorable actions. As the Angelic Doctor has it, the use of marriage "keeps the soul from full abandon to the service of God."

It is that they may acquire this spiritual liberty of body and soul, and that they may be freed from temporal cares, that the Latin Church demands of her sacred ministers that they voluntarily oblige themselves to observe perfect chastity. And "if a similar law," as Our predecessor of immortal memory Pius XI declared, "does not bind the ministers of the Oriental Church to the same degree, nevertheless among them too ecclesiastical celibacy occupies a place of honor, and, in certain cases, especially when the higher grades of the hierarchy are in question, it is a necessary and obligatory condition. (op. cit. para. # 21 and 22; Emphasis mine)

The Heretical Teaching of John Paul the Great Apostate

In his Allocution to Spanish Delegations on April 14, 1982, Wojtyla said:

And now, as in previous weeks, we are going to continue our reflections upon the theme of continence for the Kingdom of Heaven. In the words of Christ we ought not to see a superior evaluation of virginity or celibacy with respect to matrimony. Continence and matrimony are two basic situations, two ‘states’ of life, which differ from one another and complement one another within the Christian community. It is precisely this which in its unity and in all of its members has an eschatological orientation and in this distinct tendency is realized for the Kingdom of Heaven... (Emphasis mine)

On that same day, in his General Audience, he stated:

In Christ’s words on continence ‘for the kingdom of heaven’ there is no reference to any ‘inferiority’ of marriage with regard to the ‘body’, or in other words, with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage, thus becoming ‘one flesh’ (Genesis 2: 24: ‘The two will become one flesh’). Christ’s words recorded in Matthew 19: 11-12 (as also the words of Paul in his first Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 7) give no reason to assert the ‘inferiority’ of marriage, nor the ‘superiority’ of virginity or celibacy inasmuch as by their nature virginity and celibacy consist in abstinence from the conjugal ‘union in the body’. Christ’s words on this point are quite clear. He proposes to his disciples the ideal of continence and the call to it, not by reason of inferiority nor with prejudice against conjugal ‘union of the body’ but only ‘for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Emphasis mine) Virginity and celibacy are intrinsically superior states, as St. Paul reminds us, and Wojtyla rejects it. Everything is good only if done for the the sake of the Kingdom of God, including marriage. Virginity and celibacy are superior, and all Catholic tradition, including the dogmatic definition of Trent, cite to these two passages of the New Testament to prove the superiority of virginity by its very nature.

Nevertheless, Bergoglio had the trail blazed for him to undermine this Catholic dogma in the wake of Vatican II. Once the perverts came in the seminaries, decent men stayed out. With their clergy reduced to mere social workers, fewer men even wanted to "celebrate" the Novus Bogus bread and wine service. I was personal friends with the late, great Fr. Paul Wickens of New Jersey who left the Vatican II sect in 1989, and soon thereafter opened an independent Traditionalist Chapel. He was assisted by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Although he was sympathetic to sedevacantism, he remained in the "recognize and resist" camp until his death in 2004. He was a good priest who was trying to do what was right. 

In one of our conversations, he told me his brother was a former priest. After Vatican II, his apostate bishop made all the clergy attend many seminars in which celibacy was denigrated and marriage made the ideal. The bishop allowed his priests to apply for laicization ( a release from the clerical state, although the sacerdotal power remains forever, they give up all recognition and use of their priestly duties). His brother became depressed, "felt like less of a man" for not being married, and left via laicization (which the bishop pushed through the Modernist Vatican for "expedited approval"). Fr. Wickens said his brother married and had a large family (very pro-life), but felt that his true calling was the priesthood years later. This self-created clergy shortage by the Vatican II sect was the gateway to eventually having a married clergy (as well as priestesses), so as to advance the cause of ecumenism and a One World Religion.

The Strange Case of "Archbishop" Milingo
Emmanuel Milingo was born in Africa in 1930. He was validly ordained a priest in 1958, at the age of 28. Eleven years later Montini (Paul VI) "consecrated" him a "bishop" in the new and invalid rite of Holy Orders. Montini made him "Archbishop" of the Diocese of Lusaka. He was known for performing exorcisms at the drop of a hat. The True Church does not randomly go about performing exorcisms without the necessary investigation, which takes time to rule out non-supernatural causes.

Dabbling in such endeavors is dangerous. Wojtyla removed him as "Archbishop" as a result in 1983, and made him a "delegate" of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers. Milingo saw Satan in the Vatican II sect, but wrongly considered the sect as the Catholic Church. He teamed up with "Fr." Nicholas Gruner of the "Fatima Industry" claiming the hierarchy was doing Satan's work. Then in May of 2001, the almost 71-year-old somehow got deeply involved with the cult called the "Unification Church"--or the "Moonies," so called because they followed the teachings of Sun Myung Moon (d. 2012), a Korean man claiming to be the "Messiah." Milingo "married" a 43-year-old acupuncturist named Marie Sung in a "group wedding," comprising many couples getting "married" by Moon simultaneously. Sung was chosen by Moon himself for Milingo, and he only met her two days before the "wedding." (See

In short, the teachings of the Unification "Church" are:

  • The Bible is untrustworthy and Moon's book Divine Principle is to be followed as authoritative
  • God is dualistic in Nature ("yin and yang")
  • The crucifixion of Christ was an "alternative plan," and it only "partially saved" humanity. Moon is the Messiah to complete the plan, and all must seek salvation from the Unification Church
  • The Trinity is an "invention of Jesus"
  • The Holy Ghost is the female spirit (!) aspect of God
The cult sought respectability after multiple allegations of using brainwashing techniques on lonely people to get them to join. In an effort to rehabilitate their image, they own and operate several generally respected businesses, including the politically right-leaning newspaper The Washington Times. Milingo participated in mass-marriages organized by the sect in Japan in 1999, and in Korea in 2000, yet the Modernist Vatican never censured him. After his "wedding" he was told by "Cardinal" Ratzinger to leave Sung. Milingo said, "For 43 years as a celibate priest ... I only knew God as a male. Now, through my union with Maria, I have come to see the other side of God's heart, which is female." (See; Emphasis mine)

He briefly reconciled with Wojtyla, but then rejoined his "wife." He targeted celibacy. "Secret affairs and marriages, illegitimate children, rampant homosexuality, pedophilia and illicit sex have riddled the priesthood to the extent that the UN Commission on Human Rights has investigated the church for sexual abuse, and the western media is filled with stories of lawsuits and scandals surrounding the Church," Milingo said.(See

Just like the Modernists, he is right about the scandals but wrong about the source; it is not celibacy but Vatican II. Milingo began an organization urging Vatican II sect "priests" to marry, calling it Married Priests (sic) Now! It still took until 2006, after he "consecrated" four so-called priests as "bishops" that he was "excommunicated" by Wojtyla, and in 2009, he was reduced to the lay state (he is no longer referred to or recognized as a member of their clergy--being called "Layman" Emmanuel Milingo. [See]).

Now, at age 89, he has made many "bishops" all with the same desire--to end celibacy and draw "priests" into their movement. In 2010, he was pronounced "patriarch" of his own sect, "The Ecumenical Catholic Apostolic Church of Peace." (See
I believe Milingo is being used by the very Satanic forces he denounces to promote the denigration of celibacy.

  • He is an apostate priest having broken his Anti-Modernist Oath, and was "consecrated" by Montini himself
  • His so-called exorcisms were accused of being "indigenous"--using African pagan elements, which would attract, not repel, demons
  • He met Moon through a doctor he went to for a knee problem, and the doctor was alleged to be using "Reiki healing" which is pagan 
  • The Moon sect "Unification Church" has many occult practices that open one to demonic forces
The Unification cult (I don't hesitate to employ the appellation "cult" as it uses manipulation, deceit, etc. to get members to enter and prevent them from leaving), has direct occult connections. The Divine Principle itself supports occult practices. "Thus, the spirit men pour out spiritual fire on earthly men, give them the power to heal diseases, and help them do many mighty works. More than that, they enable earthly men to see many facts in the spirit world in a state of trance, give them the gift of prophecy, and inspire them spiritually. Through such activities, substituting for the Holy Spirit, they cooperate with earthly men to fulfill the will of God." (pg. 182; Emphasis mine). Further, Moon said, "If you are a should know whether your spirit guide is higher than you in spirit. If he is higher, it is all right. If he is not higher than you and you consult him, you lose…. They want to control you…. It is always dangerous, and you don’t gain anything, to be controlled by spirit. By understanding the Principle, you are in such a position that you can control and use and guide them." (See Unification publication, The Master Speaks, pg. 16)

Moon is clearly a medium. He has urged his followers to engage in mediumistic contacts as part of their "spiritual growth." This is in direct contradiction to Church teaching and Biblical warnings that tell us such activity is an abomination to God: "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord,…" (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Satan hates purity. Pope Siricius (334–399), described his opponent Jovinian as a tool of "the ancient enemy, the adversary of chastity, the teacher of luxury," because he had attacked the celibacy of the clergy.

The attack on clerical celibacy and virginity as a superior state to marriage, is yet another Satanic maelstrom, intended to bring the world farther from the truth and deeper into perversion. The man or woman who chooses virginity or celibacy for the Kingdom of God is doing the opposite of Satan; giving up what is natural for the supernatural love of God, in imitation of Christ and His Immaculate Mother. Satan gave up the supernatural life of grace to focus on his own wants--Non serviam--"I will not serve." Bergoglio is busy breaking down, slowly but surely, the celibacy of his sect's clergy, the theological basis of which was undermined by Wotyla's heretical ravings. He rejects the teaching of Our Lord, "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. He that can take, let him take it." (St. Matthew 19:12)


Monday, June 17, 2019

Somewhere Under The Rainbow

 Traditionalists celebrate the month of June by dedicating it to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Secular society now "celebrates" sexual perversion and mental illness by making June "Gay Pride Month." Every time I see the rainbow flag, I'm reminded of how we are living in a time of oppression, in some ways similar to those in Europe who lived for a time under the Swastika. We must accept that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. So too is "transgenderism," bisexuality, and every other aberration deemed "normal." In fact, it is so "normal" that any suggestion to the contrary must be suppressed, ridiculed, attacked, and eventually made subject to civil fines and imprisonment as a "hate crime." This is the result of the forces of evil in society.

In the days before the Great Apostasy, the Roman Catholic Church stood as a bulwark against perversion. Then the infiltration began. Bella Dodd told of thousands of Communists that were placed in seminaries to subvert the Church beginning in the first half of the twentieth century. A friend of mine asked me, "Don't you think that exposure to the True Faith in the seminary would have converted at least some of them and they would have 'blown the whistle'"? Based on several reasons (which I will not elaborate upon in this post), I believe that the infiltrators were not rank and file ideological Communists. They sent in men who were known to be sodomites. They would get to associate with men and (at that time) have easy access to boys, all the while using the prestige of the priesthood to deflect any accusations of impropriety. In rebellion against both God and nature itself, sodomites are most hateful towards God, and least likely to be moved by grace.

The plot worked. With the last obstacle removed in 1958 (the papacy, by the "election" of Roncalli), the perverts came out in full force. The Vatican II sect is run by sexual deviants, and since 2002, the scandals keep growing. As a young teenager, prior to my conversion to the True Church at age 16, I attended a Vatican II sect high school on a scholarship. One of the brothers (Society of Mary), told jokes to 14 year old boys and girls that were so vile, I can't write them in this post. I was shocked and scandalized. I repeated one of his filthy "jokes" to my father (God rest his soul), a former World War II U.S. Army Sergeant. His jaw nearly hit the ground and he was visibly uncomfortable. He knew that such jokes were sinful, and when told to teenage girls and boys, their malice was incalculable. "Are you going to complain about this Dad?" I asked him. After a long pause, he said, "Well, no, he is a brother..." Using the heightened respect accorded to clerics and religious, these fiends were able to get away with things no layman ever could.

Later in my freshman year, it was announced that the renowned priest, Fr. Bruce Ritter (ordained 1956), who had started Covenant House (an organization dedicated to helping runaway and homeless youths in New York City), would be coming to give a talk to the Freshman Class. As we were waiting for him to arrive for the talk, I needed to go to the bathroom. On my way out of the door I (literally) bumped into Fr. Ritter, who was hailed as a "model Franciscan and priest." I looked up into his eyes, and a shiver ran up and down my spine. I can't explain it, but I knew I had just looked at someone who was pure evil. He must have seen my expression, because he grimaced at me, said nothing, and went to give his talk. After going to the bathroom, and trying to calm myself down, I returned to where he was speaking.

When I told some of my friends what I experienced, they laughed it off. My parents were incredulous; just "a meaningless reaction." In 1990, Ritter was forced to resign from Covenant House and the Franciscan Order after several young men had reported that he had engaged in sexual relations with them as young boys in the care of the charity, and that he had embezzled funds. He was never charged with a crime despite all the accusations, and got himself incardinated into a Diocese in India, continuing to function as a Vatican II sect priest in upstate New York until his death in 1999--- three years before the widespread abuse scandal began to be reporte. I had a glimpse into the sodomite/pervert infestation--and I believe that for some reason, God let me know this priest was bad news.

The Vatican II sect is now doing the exact opposite of the True Church; defending sodomites and denying the indisputable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. This is especially true in the wake of the study underwritten by the Vatican II sect "bishops" in the United States and performed by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. The report is entitled The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, commonly known as the John Jay Report. It was published in 2004, and is available online (See

 Last October, the Jesuit-run heretical rag, America magazine, published an essay entitled No, Homosexuality is Not a Risk Factor for the Sexual Abuse of Children, authored by one Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychiatrist and residing scholar at Santa Clara University who is also an adjunct professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Plante and the Vatican II sect are trying even harder to normalize the sexual deviants and one of the Four Sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance. (See

Plante vs. The Truth About Sodomites and Pedophilia

 In his error-laden tract, Plante makes several startling assertions:

  • banning homosexual men from the priesthood would not prevent victimization
  • it is a false belief that men with homosexual orientations cannot be trusted around male children and that their sexual impulse control is poor
  • that “sexual orientation is not a risk factor at all," for sexually abusing children
  • more boys are molested by V2 sect "priests" than girls because they are "more available"
What does the empirical evidence show? (Much of the section below is from research complied by Dr. Paul Cameron).

1. Sodomites have more overall serious problems than heterosexuals
According to a 2015 federal survey (See Medley G, Lipan RN, et al (2016) Sexual orientation and estimates of adult substance use and mental health: results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. SAMHSA Data Review, October), homosexuals have higher proportional rates of :

  • criminality, including sex offenses
  • illegal drug use
  • driving under the influence
Please note the higher incidence of sex offences, yet Plante would have us believe sexual orientation is "not at all" a risk factor for sex crimes.

2. Sodomite V2 Sect "Priests" are not predators due to a lack of females
 There are not only "altar boys" ("table servers" would be the more apt appellation in the Novus Bogus "mass") but just as many (and in some cases more) altar girls. Moreover, according to the John Jay Report, nearly 4% of U.S. Vatican II "priests" were documented to have molested at least one minor, and nearly 80% of the molestations by these so-called priests involved boys. Plante claims that "most of the clergy sex offenders during the last half of the 20th century… viewed themselves as more likely to be heterosexual than as homosexual."

I'm still shaking my head over the statement that these predators "viewed themselves" as more likely heterosexual than homosexual. Is this guy serious? I'm sure Stalin and Hitler didn't "view themselves" as mass murderers, but that's objectively what they were, and it is based on what they did.  A murderer is one who commits murder. Likewise, a homosexual is one who commits homosexual acts.

3. The disproportionate number of homosexual predator-"priests" is indicative that they cannot be trusted around male children, and banning them would drastically reduce the number of victims
Plante suggests between "22% to 45%" of U.S. "priests" are "gay." Let's take the low end of the range and assume 22%. Based on the John Jay Report 3.06% of the documented sex abusers engaged in homosexuality, that translates to an estimate of nearly 14% of homosexual priests being caught for sexual abuse of a minor. Given that less than one percent of priests were caught molesting girls (0.87%), barely 1% of the heterosexual priests (comprising 78% of the total) would have been caught. Unless heterosexual priest offenders are much better than homosexual priests at not getting caught, something that seems quite unlikely since it is known that boys are less apt than girls to report being molested (See Hall RC & Hall RCW (2007) A profile of pedophilia: definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82(4), 457–71), homosexuality is a very significant risk factor for child sexual abuse.

The Wisdom of the True Church
St. Bernadine of Sienna:
"No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God's law. ... "

St. Jerome
"And Sodom and Gomorrah might have appeased it [God’s wrath], had they been willing to repent, and through the aid of fasting gain for themselves tears of repentance." (See

 St. Augustine
"Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust." (See

Didache, A.D. 80 - 130 (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)
"Commit no murder, adultery, sodomy, fornication, or theft."

There is an incontrovertible connection between sodomites and pedophilia. The secular pseudo-science of researchers with an agenda, using small samplings to reach predetermined outcomes, fuels societal acceptance of homosexuality. They ignore both the body of reputable research, and the disproportionate numbers of homosexual child molesters, which show the danger sodomites pose to society in general and children in particular. The Vatican II sect, having been infiltrated and driven by sodomites, leads innumerable souls to Hell. They join the world in trying to normalize perversion. If you should dare oppose the sodomite agenda, be prepared for persecution.

The Rainbow Flag is slowly but surely becoming the modern day Sickle and Hammer of oppression. Maybe we need a counter-manifesto against them: "Decent people of the World Unite--You Have EVERYTHING to lose if the sodomites are not stopped now."