Monday, March 25, 2019

A Wealth Of Problems

 Last November. New York City elected arguably the most radical member of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (also known by her initials "AOC"). At 29, she defeated ten-term incumbent Congressman Joseph Crowley in the Democratic primary. In New York City, having the Democratic nomination is tantamount to election. She easily won in the general election becoming the youngest Congresswoman ever elected. She represents all that is wrong with the world. A self-identified Socialist, AOC wants to tax the wealthiest Americans at 70%--- up from the current 37%. She hates the wealthy, and blames capitalism for "racism, sexism, homophobia (sic), and environmental degradation." (See the Democratic Socialists' website, an ideology AOC endorses, at

She supports murdering unborn babies, "sodomite rights," and the redistribution of wealth. No Traditionalist worth the name could ever support abortion or sexual perverts. However, what about taxing the rich? Not to support Socialism, but don't the wealthy get everything and exploit the middle-class and poor? Don't rich corporations cause tremendous evils being motivated by greed? Even Christ told us, "and again I say unto thee, It is easier for a camel to enter a needle's eye than a rich man into the kingdom of God." (St. Matthew 19:23). In Christ's parable of the rich man and the beggar named Lazarus, the rich man dies and goes to Hell, but Lazarus was saved. (See St. Luke 16:19-31). What is the teaching of the Church on wealth? Are the rich doomed? This post will set forth Church doctrine on the topic.

The Teaching of Christ on Wealth

The Divine Redeemer does not condemn riches, rather He proclaims the dangers of them and teaches the advantages of their proper use. St. Paul tells us, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:10; Emphasis mine). It is not the wealth per se which destroys people, but the love of wealth and the material things of this world. While many rich people do oppress the poor (one of the Four Sins That Scream to Heaven For Vengeance), it does not follow that all rich people are evil, or that accumulating wealth is bad. 

  • Riches are not condemned. We read in the account of the rich young ruler: 
And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?
Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. (St. Matthew 19:16-23).
Therefore, whoever wishes to be perfect must not only keep the Ten Commandments, but also strip himself of all of his goods. This, however, is a counsel and not a universal precept. Religious Order Priests (like the Franciscans pre-Vatican II), as well as all brothers, monks, and nuns seek perfection in following the Master and keeping His counsel.

Jesus wanted His Apostles (the first pope and bishops of His Church) to abandon everything: home, belongings, wife and children, in order to follow Him. Nevertheless, among the disciples of Jesus during His Apostolic travels, we also find some pious women, "who used to provide for them out of their means." (St. Luke 8:1-3). To those women, He did not enjoin absolute poverty. Lazarus of Bethany was rich, yet Jesus calls him friend. (St. John 11:11). The Beatitudes extol those who are "poor in spirit" not merely materially poor. The Church distinguishes between effective and affective poverty. Effective poverty is the actual lack of material goods, whether voluntary or involuntary. Affective poverty is the detachment of  the heart from whatever wealth one may possess, be it small or great. All members of Christ's One True Church are called to practice affective poverty because it is necessary to perfection; effective poverty is not necessary. One who practices affective poverty is "poor in spirit," even with great wealth.

  • The Danger of Riches
Riches make it difficult to enter Heaven because: 
  1. it affords us many comforts on Earth so that we are apt to forget God and the things of Heaven
  2. it affords us the means to satisfy our most exigent and dangerous passions
  3. they tend to render people proud and covetous by making us neglect the grave duties riches impose
Rich people can attain heaven, and the Bible records several wealthy people who found favor with God. These include Abraham, Job, and even Joseph of Arimathea, who was wealthy enough to afford a tomb and used it for Jesus’ burial.

However, wealth can lead to the temptation to idolize money, and so it is a spiritual danger for people. Jesus said a person could not serve both God and money lest he end up loving one and despising the other. "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (St. Matthew 6:24; the word "mammon" is also used which means money). St. Paul included in his list of vices that can prevent someone from entering the kingdom of God "thieves," "greedy," and "swindlers."  "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Humanity's fallen nature is such that having money is a great temptation to evil, and it takes great Faith and graces from God not to give in.[If you doubt me, take a brief look at the immoral, narcissistic pagans on The Real Housewives of (Whatever location)] Hence, it is very difficult, but certainly not impossible, for wealthy people to be virtuous and go to Heaven.

  • The Proper Use of Wealth
In order to be saved, one must make proper use of riches. It is therefore necessary to do the following:

1. To keep one's heart detached from earthly goods, thereby remaining poor in spirit, even if not poor in fact. Christ never said you cannot possess wealth; as long as the wealth does not possess you as its master. There are many people who make an idol of money, sacrificing everything to it, including their conscience--which results in the eternal death of the soul in Hell

2. Before God we are to consider ourselves not as owners, but but only as tenants of our goods. St. Paul asks, "What do you have that you did not receive?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) The absolute Master of All is God, Who grants us the use of some of His goods. Of this we must render Him a strict account, "Give an account of your stewardship, because thou cannot be steward any longer." (St. Luke 16:2). Our Heavenly Father wants us to use His goods for legitimate needs, not to gratify our passions

3. We must give alms to the poor. St. John the Baptist said, "Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same." (St. Luke 3:11) The Divine Redeemer tells us, "But yet that which remaineth, give alms; and behold, all things are clean unto thee."(St. Luke 11:41) In other words, that which is not necessary for the support of oneself and one's family, according to each one's social condition should be given as alms to the poor

4. Pope Leo XIII explains in his encyclical Rerum Novarum, Therefore, those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles; that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ - threatenings so unwonted in the mouth of our Lord - and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess. The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one the heathen philosophers hinted at, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men's minds, but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. "It is lawful," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence."" But if the question be asked: How must one's possessions be used? - the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: "Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world... to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’" True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, "for no one ought to live other than becomingly." But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms." It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of alms-giving - ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive"; and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself - "As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me." To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others. "He that hath a talent," said St. Gregory the Great, "let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor." (para. #22)
  • The Advantages Derived from the Proper Use of Riches
1. The right use of riches opens the Kingdom of Heaven to us. "Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in.."(St. Matthew 25: 34-35) Jesus identifies Himself with the poor, and blessed are those of means who help them.

2. The right use of riches merits for us the grace and blessings of God. Jesus said, "Give, and it shall be given to thee..." (St. Luke 6:38). Here, it means you shall receive good things not in Heaven only, but also here on Earth, for God does not allow the charitable person to lack the necessities in life. The Holy Ghost says, "He that hath mercy on the poor, lendeth to the Lord." (Proverbs 19:17). Those who lend to the Lord put their money in a bank that never fails to yield high interest. 

3. However, the State has no right to take money, morally earned, away from those who have bettered their position in life. contrary to the evil doctrine of the Socialists. Pope Leo XIII taught: "Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life." (See Rerum Novarum, para. #5; Emphasis mine)

(The above was adopted and condensed in large part from theologian Civardi, How Christ Changed The World, [1961], and to whom I give full credit.)
Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) is an enabler of the wickedness embodied by the likes of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. Francis also harps on "the needs of the poor." And why not? This perfectly appeals to the millennials' sensibilities, who have grown up in a world devoid of the influence of the One True Church. They like the idea of making sandwiches for the needy without getting bogged down by "small minded rules" that require you to deny unnatural lust and protect unborn human life.

Francis makes giving to the poor the end all and be all of his version of "Christianity." He exalts the Corporal Works of Mercy over the Spiritual Works of Mercy, even though the latter are greater than the former. Corporal Works of Mercy only affect our neighbor's well being in this life, while the Spiritual Works of Mercy promote eternal interests. To those like the mindless bartender turned Congresswoman, Ocasio-Cortez, and the equally clueless "pope" of the Vatican II sect, who think all wealth is evil and must be redistributed, an aphorism attributed to the great G.K. Chesterton is in order: "Socialism can only work in two places; Heaven, where they don't need it, and Hell where they already have it."

Monday, March 18, 2019

Spaced Out

 Fred and Bobby Dimond of "Most Holy Family Monastery" have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs. I do believe that the approximately 5% of truly "unidentified flying objects"(those that are not hoaxes, have no scientific explanations, and are not reported by the delusional) are most likely demonic manifestations. However, just as they distort sedevacantism with their Feeneyite heresy, their harping upon UFOs distracts from a far more insidious problem. Many movies and television shows have been put out since the 1960s depicting science-fiction/fantasy revolving around aliens, space exploration, and galaxies "far, far away." Most people see them as harmless fun, and some are fanatics regarding, e.g., Star Wars or Star Trek. The men behind such productions have worked to advance their religious and philosophical beliefs while simultaneously denigrating Christianity. The real threat from space is not an alleged demonic UFO sighting in some relatively underpopulated region of  Kansas, but the doctrine of demons that millions let into their homes in the form of movies, TV shows, and even toys for their children. All of this is calculated to allow errors about God into the heart and mind, and can result in the loss of countless souls.

In this post, I will illustrate my point by examining the works of three men that have become household names worldwide: Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, George Lucas' Star Wars, and Steven Spielberg's E.T. the Extraterrestrial. 

Strange New Worlds Devoid of God
Eugene ("Gene") Wesley Roddenberry (d. 1991), was raised in a devout Southern Baptist household. He went to church every Sunday as a young teen and sang in his church choir. Around the age of 14, Roddenberry stated he had an "awakening to the truth." In his own words: "I remember complete astonishment because what they were talking about were things that were just crazy. It was communion time where you eat this wafer and you are eating the body of Christ and drinking his (sic) blood. My first impression was, '[God's name in vain] , this is a bunch of cannibals they've put me down among...', I guess from that time it was clear to me that religion is largely nonsense, was largely magical, superstitious things." (See Star Trek Creator by David Alexander, [1994], pgs. 36-37). This quote belies Roddenberry's ignorance of his own religion (Baptists don't believe in the Real Presence), and even the Dogma of Transubstantiation does not make one a "cannibal." [Not to digress, but in cannibalism, one only consumes a body, not a Person. The person would be dead and his soul departed.  In the Eucharist, we consume the entire Person of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. You are not consuming "one of your kind" due to the Hypostatic Union. Secondly, we consume Christ, but He is Living and unaffected--which obviously cannot be said of cannibalism.---Introibo]

Gene Roddenberry would go on to to openly declare himself an atheist and received an award from the American Humanist Association in 1991. He died later that year from his long-time drug and alcohol abuse. Roddenberry was the creator of the original Star Trek series (1966-1969), and various spin-off series followed such as Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994). To be brief, the original Star Trek takes place in the 23rd century on the spaceship ("Starship") Enterprise. It has a five year mission to "explore strange new worlds," and "to boldly go where no man has gone before."

We discover that by the year 2201, Earth is a paradise where there is a one-world government that has solved all of our problems with technology. There is no more hunger, wars have been eliminated, and most diseases eradicated. Without saying as much, religion has disappeared. According to James Van Hise in The Man Who Created Star Trek: Gene Roddenberry, [1992], Roddenberry said, "How can I take seriously a God-image that requires that I prostrate myself every seven days and praise it? That sounds to me like a very insecure personality."(pg. 7). 

Here is but a sample of the treatment given to religion in Star Trek:
  • The ship's doctor, "Bones" McCoy, was originally meant to be a Christian chaplain, but Roddenberry balked,  stating that humanity would have no need of religion in the 23rd century
  •   Mr. Spock, the First Officer, is half human and half Vulcan (alien). His "religion" consists in some rituals where logic and reason is exalted and emotions rejected. There is no room for a Supreme Being which would be "illogical"
  • There were at least eight (8) episodes wherein advanced aliens or other life-forms would assert themselves as gods, only to be debunked by Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock and the crew of the Enterprise. The idea behind these episodes was to promote skepticism of religious beliefs. This theme carried through into the later incarnations of Star Trek
This treatment of religion was subtle yet strong for 1966. In the series that followed years later, the idea of God was openly mocked. Star Trek: The Next Generation, takes place 100 years after the original series and had Captain Picard on a planet where the primitive culture thought him to be a "god." Picard's response was telling:

"Horrifying… Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!" 

In the latest version of the series, Star Trek: Discovery (2017- ), the cast members are forbidden to say the word "God," and there was introduced an openly sodomite character. (See 

George Lucas and the Farce of "The Force"
George Walton Lucas Jr.(b. 1944) was born in Modesto, California and raised as a Methodist. Originally wanting to become a race-car driver, he was nearly killed while racing at 18 years old, and abandoned his career path. He went to college, got interested in cinematography, and wanted to bring the science-fiction he loved to read as a child to the movies. His Star Wars franchise is arguably the most profitable and influential series of science fiction movies ever. Lucas got involved in Eastern paganism and refers to himself as a "Methodist-Buddhist." According to George Lucas' biographer Dale Pollock, "The message of Star Wars is religious: God isn't dead, he's (sic) really there if you want him (sic) to be. 'The laws really are in yourself,' Lucas is fond of saying; the Force dwells within." (See Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, NY: Ballentine Books, (1983), pg. 139). 

Where did Lucas get his idea for Star Wars?  According to his aforementioned biographer, Dale Pollock, "Lucas's concept of The Force was heavily influenced by Carlos Castaneda's Tales of Power. This is an account of a Mexican Indian sorcerer, Don Juan, who uses the phrase 'life force.'" Kenneth Minogue, Professor of Political Science at the University of London states, "Castaneda's is entirely in the occultist tradition."  Lucas's biographer concludes: "Yoda's philosophy is entirely Buddhist--he tells Luke that the Force requires him to be calm, at peace, and passive; it should be used for knowledge and defense, not greed and aggression." (pg. 140; Emphasis mine) Star Wars parallels with Eastern religion and occultist views of pantheism; the view that God is everything, and everything is God. "God" is within. Pollack writes, "...when people die their life spirit is drained from them and incorporated in a huge energy force...joining the ethereal oneness of the Force." (pgs. 140 & 204) 

Star Wars (1977) is about a war in a galaxy "far, far, away." The Jedi Knights in this galaxy have practices that the first movie (now with the prequels it's renumbered the fourth movie; "A New Hope") that are directly referred to as "religion" no less than three times. A character named Tarkin states to Darth Vader, "The Jedi are, my friend, are all that's left of their religion."

The Force is an impersonal and universal energy field that permeates all things in the universe. It is neither good nor evil in itself, but it can be used for either purpose. While not omnipotent, it is the source of great power to perform feats that defy natural laws, such as gravity. All religions have an Ultimate of some kind. The Force is an omnipresent, supernatural power that surrounds all things and to which all things return. The Force is, therefore, the equivalent of God or a Supreme Being.

By means of the Force (always capitalized--like the word God) the Jedi disciple can perform miracles such as levitating a sunken ship, knowing when someone is nearby, guiding your physical movements, allowing you to see without using your eyes, etc. Religions have moral codes. The Jedi religion teaches you must use "the good side of the Force" and avoid "the Dark (evil) side" by getting rid of anger and hatred which lead to the Dark side.

The movies clearly portray life after death. At the end of  Return of the Jedi, we see the deceased Ben Kenobi, Yoda, and the former Darth Vader as spirits in a state of happiness. Ben Kenobi willingly dies at the hands of Darth Vader so he can guide Luke Skywalker as he "returns to the Force." It is implied there will be an absorption and end of personal existence at some point after death.

Faith in the Force is the means of salvation. It is the source of deliverance in the universe. However, belief in absolutes is evil and "Only a sith (evil character) speaks in absolutes," says Yoda. (However, that statement is also absolute, which would make Yoda a sith too, but logic is not the strong suit of George Lucas). Even the religious benediction "May The Force Be With You" is a blasphemous deviation of "The Lord be with you."

 Here are the striking and irreconcilable differences between the religion of Star Wars and Christianity:

a) The Force is impersonal, God is personal

b) One is a cosmic force, the Other is a loving Heavenly Father.

c) The Force is not omnipotent, God is all-powerful

d) Lucas's Force has a good and evil side, God is omni-benevolent with no taint of evil whatsoever

e) The Force is a power to be felt but not to be thought; God is a Person to be known by reason and loved with all your heart (See St. Matthew 22: 36-37)

f) The Force is an energy field permeating all things; God is a Personal being that transcends the universe He created and upholds its very existence

g) The Force is generated by all living things, but God is the Creator of all things both living and non-living

h) The Force has no consciousness; God is omniscient

i) The Force fatalistically determines the future; God controls the future, but does not negate human free will

j) Lucas tells us that after death one is absorbed into the larger Force; God has willed all people to retain their personal identity, either with Him in Heaven, or (God forbid) without Him in Hell

The movies are seeped in Eastern and occult pantheism. 

Steven Spielberg: A Tale of a False "Christ"
 Steven Allan Spielberg (b.1946) was born an Orthodox Jew, and has been one of the most successful movie makers in history along with his friend, George Lucas. His first blockbuster was Jaws (1976). The scenes in the film terrified thousands of people and summer beach attendance dropped significantly after it hit the theaters. This is another incontrovertible proof that movies do shape lives and affect many life decisions. After seeing the film, how many people can relate to a time when the thoughts of a "Jaws-like" shark attack entered their minds? His movie, Poltergeist (1982), depicts a family which comes into contact with evil spirits that wreak havoc upon them and are ultimately exorcised by a psychic medium that tells the family they must do whatever she asks of them "even if it goes against your Christian beliefs." Spielberg no longer practices Judaism, but contents himself to the promotion of occult themes woven into his movies, Poltergeist being the most blatant example. 

Before E.T. (1982), aliens were depicted as ugly and scary. Spielberg's creature is shown as having three fingers and three toes, which is a common way "spirits" (demons) who manifest to witch doctors are described by them. Now, E.T. is found "lovable" and apes Christ. The alien is a false Messiah, who promises "to return" not for judgement of the good and evil, but to "save" (control) all humans. In the movie, his young friend Elliott becomes "connected" to E.T. who then controls him, and Elliott speaks of himself as "we." Even the movie poster (shown at the top of this post) is a blasphemous and twisted representation of Michelangelo's Creazione di Adamo ("Creation of Adam") where the ugly alien's finger replaces that of God, and a small child is an "Adam" for a new race to be subjected to the extra-terrestrials.  

Consider also that E.T.:
  • Came from out of the world, has to leave and promises to come back
  • Pointed to his friend Elliott and promised to live inside him always
  • Could heal people
  • Dies from the pollution on Earth, and resurrects himself
  • Ascends into the clouds in a spaceship with his followers looking up
Many science fiction movies and TV shows involving space travel and aliens are promoting false beliefs and religions, while downplaying or denying the Christian God. These evil messages are influencing millions; especially young children. As usual, the Vatican II sect does nothing to warn against them. Others, who rant and rave about UFOs, miss the real "alien invasion" creeping into the minds of many.Get rid of these movies and shows. What will happen to people (especially children) who are exposed to such false ideas? In the words of Han Solo, "I have a bad feeling about this."

Monday, March 11, 2019

Separation Of Sanity And State

 Recently, the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was attacked on the left-wing website A highly qualified jurist, Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Highest Court by a mere two-vote margin last year (50-48). The author of the article, Mark Joseph Stern, wasn't castigating him for the alleged rape of Christine Blasey Ford--the accusatory fiasco during his confirmation hearings when the left pleaded for us to "Believe Women." (I always thought we were supposed to believe evidence, of which Ford had none). Writer Stern in his article entitled Brett Kavanaugh Shows How Eager He Is to Tear Down the Wall Between Church and State, tells us that Kavanaugh wants to "...[rewrite] the First Amendment by creating a constitutional right to taxpayer-subsidized religion." (See the full article here:

 The United States was founded on the Masonic principle of separation of Church and State. The left is having fits because Justice Kavanaugh thinks it's OK for the government's historic preservation funds to be used to restore old churches. If this happens, Stern and his ilk believe we're on our way to becoming a theocracy. The article does bring to the fore some interesting questions: What is the proper relationship between Church and State? Can we have a purely secular State? Is it OK to fund all religions? This post will demonstrate traditional Church teaching on Religious Tolerance, and contrast it with the damnable and heretical teaching of Religious Liberty taught by Vatican II which has devastated the modern world.  

The Teaching of the Church
 The Church teaches that people are only free to choose that which is good and to believe what is objectively true. Many people, nevertheless, do make evil/wrong choices and embrace false religions. Society can never praise, encourage, or support such decisions. It can, however, tolerate these individual abuses of liberty in order to maintain temporal peace while encouraging the adherents of false religions to understand the errors of their ways and convert to the One True Church. 

The pronouncements of the popes are clear:

Pope Gregory XVI: "...We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained...This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. (See Mirari Vos, para. #13 & 14; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius IX: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION # 15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true (See The Syllabus of Errors).

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #77: In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship (Ibid).

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #78: Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship (Ibid)

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #79:  Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism (Ibid)

Pope Leo XIII: The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief. (See Immortale Dei, para. #25; Emphasis mine).

Pope St. Pius X: That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious form of worship, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (See Vehementer Nos, para. #3; Emphasis mine).

All of the above is well summarized by theologian Cahill: "The Church and State recognize each others prerogatives. The State while allowing freedom of conscience and thus tolerating such non-Catholic religions as may exist within its territory, itself publicly professes the Catholic Faith. It recognizes also the higher importance of the Church's functions and engages to fulfill its own part in the union [between itself and the Church] according to Christian principles...This system existed over all Europe before the 16th century. It is...the system which exists at present in Italy, Spain...Belgium, Poland, as well as the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, and practically in Columbia. [Union of Church and State is] the system most in accord with Divine Law; and the nearer the actual arrangements approach it the betterfor the spiritual interests of the people and for their peace and well-being even in temporal matters." (See The Framework of a Christian State, [1932], pgs. 610-611; Emphasis mine). 

1. There is but One True Church of Christ which is for the eternal salvation of humanity.

2. Every State should be a Catholic State because error has no rights. Only that which is true and good has a right to exist. Only within the Catholic Church can salvation be found, so the public good demands that only She be recognized and promoted.

3. No one should ever be forced to accept the True Faith. Christ wants us to come to Him freely.

4. In private, people may profess error, but not publicly. The State should profess the Catholic Faith, and only Her True worship of God (and Her moral teaching) should be permitted in public. To do otherwise is to put falsehood on par with the Truth and lead souls to Hell when people are exposed to false religions. Just as those who are highly contagious with a deadly disease are quarantined to protect the people from exposure, so too with false doctrine and morals, which can infect and destroy the soul which is infinitely more valuable than the body.

5. In countries where there is no Catholic majority, the members of the Church have a duty to try and convert as many to the Faith, so as to one day effectuate a Catholic State. 

Enter Fr. John Courtney Murray
Fr. John Courtney Murray was born in 1904 in New York City. He entered the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1920, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1933. He earned a Doctorate in Sacred Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome in 1937. He returned to the United States where he taught theology, and in 1941, was named editor of the Jesuit journal Theological Studies. At first, Murray was orthodox, but he soon became a dedicated Modernist.

Eventually, Murray began to advocate religious freedom as defined and protected by the Masonic First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and he eventually argued that Catholic teaching on Church/State relations no longer served contemporary society. Murray began promoting his ideas in theological journals, where he met with heavy criticism from some bishops and many fellow theologians, most notably the eminent Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was strongly anti-Modernist. Theologian Fenton was Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Catholic University of America and was the editor of the influential American Ecclesiastical Review. Fenton attacked Murray's teachings as being irreconcilable with Church teaching (most notably Pope Leo XIII) on Church-State relations.

Murray taught that the West had developed the "fullness of truth" (sound familiar?) on "human dignity." This alleged "truth" demanded that people be given "moral control" over their own beliefs in religious liberty. In 1954, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office censured his teachings, demanding that he stop all writing and teaching on the topic of religious liberty. Even when censured, Murray continued to write privately on religious liberty and submitted his works to Rome, all of which were condemned.

In 1963, he was rehabilitated under Roncalli, and was brought to Vatican II as a peritus (theological expert) so that his condemned doctrines could be accepted. While at the Council, he became a friend of Archbishop Karol Wojtyla--the future "Pope" John Paul II. Murray drafted the heretical Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae which officially adopted heretical religious liberty as the doctrine of the newly founded Vatican II sect. After the Council, he taught that Catholics who "arrived at new truths(!)" about God would have to do so in conversation "on a footing of equality" with non-Catholics and atheists. He suggested greater reforms, including a restructuring of the Church, to become "less authoritarian" and more "democratic." (See He died of a heart attack in 1967, less than two years after Vatican II ended.

"Dignitatis Humanae:" Bringing Masonic Principles to the World
  At the heart of the problem lies a dangerous, false, and heretical notion of "human dignity." Murray and his fellow Modernists believe "truths" can be discovered "more fully." This implies that if religious toleration was evil or not sufficient because of "human dignity," it was always wrong and could not "become wrong." People have not "developed more human dignity." Human beings were, from the very beginning, made in the image and likeness of God. It doesn't become "more true" or "less true" with the passage of time. It is an implicit denial of the Indefectibility of the Church; the Church was somehow "deficient" in not teaching the "full truth" or gave something evil. However, this is impossible. This exact "human dignity" argument is being pushed by Bergoglio in his rejection of capital punishment. 

Dignitatis Humanae (hereinafter "DH") states in paragraph #2: 
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

This plainly flies in the face of all that was taught prior to the Council, and only one devoid of reason could say otherwise. DH teaches that the right to religious liberty, founded on the "dignity of the human person," persists even if the person misuses his right to religious liberty and denies the One True Church. Human dignity replaces God as the measure of what is good. Humans become "god."

DH para. #6: The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government. Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means.

Vatican II teaches here that all religions must enjoy the right to religious liberty. Implicitly, the prime value to be defended in human society is no longer the Truth, but liberty.

DH para. #7: ...that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

This is an implicit denial of Original Sin. Give people religious liberty, and their minds and morals will be corrupted, as Pope Pius IX taught. Vatican II assumes the opposite--all will be well with religious liberty. The propagation of error is no longer considered a sin against the common good. This is the subversion of the common good and the subversion of true morality.

DH para. #11: God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.

Really? Immorality and heresy are to be "enjoyed" as "freedom"? When people are damned as a result of the misuse of freedom, enjoyment will be gone forever in Hell.

The Effects of Religious Liberty
In once Catholic Europe, countries such as Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal no longer have to adhere to Catholic morals. As a result, they have legalized sodomite "marriage," abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. The Vatican II sect considers proselytism as "solemn nonsense." False sects (especially Islam) are growing in leaps and bounds. Nevertheless, should anyone wants to see the effects of religious liberty in the extreme, look no further than the United States. 

Besides all the immorality and growth of sects listed above, a hatred for God in general and Christianity in particular, is evident. The following are just a few examples of religious liberty at work. The acts below were considered "unconstitutional" by the courts. I have printed only the name and year of the case and left out the citation for brevity.

  • It is unconstitutional for a public cemetery to have a planter in the shape of a cross because someone might see it and experience "emotional distress"(Warsaw v. Tehachapi, 1990)
  • It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments in public schools since they might meditate upon them, obey them, or respect them (Stone v. Graham, 1980)
  • It is unconstitutional for a Nativity scene to be displayed on public property unless surrounded by sufficient secular displays in order to not appear religious (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 1989) This rule does not apply to a menorah
The Return of the Pagan Temple in Rome
This past Saturday, March 9, 2019, Bergoglio met with Russell M. Nelson, President of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" commonly called the "Mormons." Francis was there to greet him and "celebrate" the opening, on the First Sunday of Lent, of a Mormon Temple in Rome. Following the 33-minute meeting, President Nelson and President Ballard met with members of the media. "We had a most cordial, unforgettable experience. His Holiness, he was most gracious and warm and welcoming," said President Nelson. He continued, "What a sweet, wonderful man he is, and how fortunate the Catholic people are to have such a gracious, concerned, loving and capable leader." (See 

Here are the disturbing facts about the Mormons:
  • They are polytheistic. Mormons believe that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods. According to Mormonism, there are potentially many thousands of gods besides these
  • Mormons believe that humans, like God the Father, can go through a process of exaltation to godhood
  • Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit-child of the heavenly Father and a heavenly Mother. Jesus then progressed to deity in the spirit world. He was later physically conceived in Mary’s womb, as the literal "only begotten" Son of God the Father in the flesh. Christ was conceived naturally between God the Father and Mary--rank blasphemy of the highest order
  • Jesus is brother to Lucifer and had at least three wives
  • Joseph Smith, who founded this cult in New York State during the 19th century, was a bigamist, liar, fraud, and Freemason
  • Most of the ceremonies in their wicked temple are based on the rites of the Masonic temple
  • Smith was involved in many occult practices, including "money digging." This involved special rituals and ceremonies which were performed for the purpose of obtaining buried treasure thought to be guarded by evil spirits
  • Smith considered the U.S. Constitution to be "divinely inspired" just like the Bible, and taught that when God established His Kingdom, it would be multi-denominational and democratic.
  • The president of the sect is considered to be a living prophet and successor of Smith, and whatever he says is a "new revelation" from God the Father
(See Journal of Discourses, in 26 volumes, compiled by F.D. Richards, 1885-1886; See also Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, 1981; Mormonism, Kurt Van Gorden, 1995). 

The pagans are back, and this would be unthinkable even 30 years ago. The "new springtime" of Vatican II and religious liberty. The "prophet" Nelson said, "We talked about our mutual concern for the people who suffer throughout the world and want to relieve human suffering. We talked about the importance of religious liberty, the importance of the family, our mutual concern for the youth [and] for the secularization of the world and the need for people to come to God and worship Him, pray to Him and have the stability that faith in Jesus Christ will bring in their lives." (See link cited above; Emphasis mine).

What "God" does Nelson want people to worship, and in what "Jesus Christ" do they place their trust; the one whose brother is Lucifer? Notice that Bergoglio, the false pope, cares naught for their beliefs. Whatever you believe is fine, as long as you care about human suffering in the present world and not the salvation of souls from eternal suffering in Hell. Bergoglio is a complete apostate, and Vatican II's religious liberty which he completely supports, will now permit the Mormons to convert the Italian people to polytheistic-Masonic paganism.

 Francis and Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, a leading authority for many Sunni Muslims, signed a document on "human fraternity," and improving Christian-Moslem relations. (See "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in his wisdom, through which he created human beings," the document said. Some have tried to defend this, including the Modernist Vatican, by claiming God wills false religions permissively (like other evils) and not positively. 

Don't be fooled. Read the context. Diversity of religion is listed with color, sex, language, and race. God positively wills male and female, as well as different colors, races, and languages. Yet we are to believe that religion was meant to be understood differently than the others in the same sentence? That God would positively will false sects with their false morals is the logical conclusion of religious liberty. The Vatican II sect has given power to the false sects of the world, especially Islam. That declaration means nothing to them, as they continue to multiply while the Vatican II sect uses contraception on grounds of "conscience." Moslems (like Mormons) aggressively proselytize, while Bergoglio proclaims converting others as "solemn nonsense."  There are plenty of Moslem countries, but not one truly Catholic State left. Don't be surprised if in the near future we witness the Grand Imam of the Islamic Republic of Italy issuing fatwas from the erstwhile St. Peter's Basilica. 

No wonder Pope Gregory XVI once called religious liberty "insanity." 

Monday, March 4, 2019

Singing For Satan---Part 20

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.

Jim Morrison  and The Doors
This is just one of Jim Morrison's mug shots. A man who wanted people to rebel against lawful authority, he was no hypocrite. He was arrested on many charges by the age of 27. The charges included Lewd and Lascivious Behavior, Indecent Exposure, Public Profanity and Public Drunkenness. 

James Douglas Morrison (1943-1971) was born in Florida, and was a troubled person his entire life. He embodied the "hippie" counterculture movement of the 1960s. He was a "military brat," the son of a Rear Admiral, and had to relocate around the country. At the age of four, Morrison claims that there was a road accident wherein he witnessed a truck overturn, and there were bodies of Native Americans all over the road bleeding to death. He said the incident always stuck with him, and even influenced his songs. The veracity of the incident is challenged by his own parents and sister. In Morrison's biography No One Here Gets Out Alive, his father claimed they drove past some Native Americans who were in a vehicular accident, and one was crying, upsetting young Morrison. There was no mention of bleeding, dying Native Americans (or "Indians") along the road.  His sister is quoted as saying, "He enjoyed telling that story and exaggerating it. He said he saw a dead Indian [singular--Introibo] by the side of the road, and I don't even know if that's true." (See The Doors:The Illustrated History, [2012], pg. 12). I can't help but wonder if these were lies and exaggerations, or if perhaps young Morrison had a demonic encounter--a foreboding of when he would give himself over to Satan.

Morrison was a voracious reader, and took such notable atheists as Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus as his literary and philosophical "heroes." He attended UCLA and graduated in 1965 with a bachelor's degree in cinematography. He lead a bohemian lifestyle, ingesting large amounts of LSD. Fancying himself a "poet," Morrison wrote many poems which would become the lyrics to his songs. He had a chance encounter with Ray Manzarek (d. 2013), a fellow student at UCLA who soon became a close friend. Manzarek was a keyboard player interested in forming a rock band, and he loved Morrison's poems, wanting them to be used as songs. Morrison went along with Manzarek, and the keyboard player also brought in guitarist Robert Kriege (b. 1946), and drummer John Paul Densmore (b. 1944).

The band got its name from the title of Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception, and it was a reference to the "perceptions" opened up by the members' unceasing use of drugs. Morrison would write the lyrics and sing, and all of them (except for Morrison at the beginning) were into the teachings of the pagan guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (d. 2008). They got their break when they signed a record contract with Elektra Records, and released eight albums in five years. In 1967, the song Light My Fire, would become their first smash hit, selling over one million copies.

The band broke up in 1971 after the mysterious death of Morrison on July 3rd. The cause of his death was never determined (no autopsy was performed) and lead to the urban legend that (like the late Elvis Presley) Morrison "faked his death." The legend was a powerful one for quite some time. In the 1980s, here in New York City, you would often see graffiti that proclaimed "Jim Morrison Lives."  The Doors sold over 100 million records to date and Rolling Stone magazine lists them as #41 on "The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time." They were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1993.

Possessed from a Young Age
Morrison never recanted his tale about the dead Indians (Native Americans). Did he perhaps see demons? I believe he did. According to Morrison himself, "The reaction I get now, thinking about it, looking back--is that the souls of the ghosts of those dead Indians...maybe one or two of 'em... were just running around freaking out, and just leaped into my soul. And they're still in there." (See lyrics of The Doors song Fragile Eggshell Mind). The biography Break on Through: The Life and Death of Jim Morrison[1991], has Doors producer Paul Rothchild quoted as saying, "...(the) spirit entered Jim's body. That was the pivotal event of his life. He always viewed himself as the shaman, having mystical powers..." (pg. 193; Emphasis mine). A shaman is a pagan "witch doctor" who uses drugs and forms of meditation designed to reach altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with the "spirits" (i.e., demons). The shaman will then channel them to ostensibly help others, but ultimately lead these souls to perdition. Morrison and The Doors did this, not in some isolated part of Africa or Asia, but to the masses of Catholics; especially in Europe and America. 

This experience manifested itself in Morrison the singer during his shows when he would often "channel" a Native American shaman on stage, performing Indian dances and chanting.You can see him screaming and dancing like a shaman here: (You will also notice him sporting what appears to be a cross--what sacrilege!). The song The Soft Parade claims prayer to God is useless and you should "slay a few animals at the crossroads"--a reference to a Satanic ritual. 

When I was back there in seminary school
There was a person there
Who put forth the proposition
That you can petition the Lord with prayer
Petition the Lord with prayer
Petition the Lord with prayer
You cannot petition the lord with prayer...

You gotta meet me
Too late, baby
Slay a few animals
At the crossroads
Too late

The song Break On Through encourages the listener to "break on through to the other side." It has a double meaning. It encourages necromancy (condemned by the Church and in the Bible), and according to Morrison, "I like ideas about the breaking away or overthrowing of established order. I am interested in anything about revolt, disorder, chaos, especially activity that seems to have no meaning."

You know the day destroys the night
Night divides the day
Tried to run, tried to hide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
Chased our plea here
Dug our trea there
Still recall, time we cried
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
Break on through, yeah
All right
Everybody loves my baby
Everybody loves my baby
She get
She get
She get
She get high

His demons made use of the other band members. According to Break On Through (cited above) Morrison's friend and keyboard player, Manzarak said, "Fifteen thousand people would be hushed, stopped, not even breathing. Man, when I was on stage with the guy (Morrison), I don't know who was playing the organ. Sure, it was my fingers, but..." (pg. 187; Emphasis mine). From No One Gets Out Alive (cited above) we read: "It was like Jim was an electric shaman, and we were the electric shaman's band, pounding away behind him. It would take him over...You could see every once in a while--twitch--I could hit a chord and make him twitch. And he'd go off again." (pgs. 159-160).

In Break On Through, Morrison agrees he is playing the part of a pagan shaman: "In the seance the shaman lead...A sensuous panic,deliberately evoked through drugs, chants, dancing, hurls the shaman into a trance. Changed voice. Convulsive movement. he acts like a madman." (pgs. 197-198).

The Shaman "Marries" A Witch
Patricia Kennealy, a Wiccan (witch), married Morrison in a Celtic-pagan "hand fasting" ceremony. Kennealy wrote a book Strange Days: My Life With and Without Jim Morrison in 1992. She reveals that on June 21, 1970, the ceremony took place wherein the Wiccan marriage ceremony had blood spilled and a knife was used for that purpose. Kennealy wrote, "...there were ceremonial cuts upon himself in the handfasting" (tying of the couples hands together). (See Strange Days, pg. 383) She relates how she and Morrison made cuts inside of their left wrists, carefully over the bone and "...blood wells up immediately." (pg. 172) Jim Morrison and Patricia Kennealy then mixed their blood. (pg. 173).

The Celtic hand-fasting ceremony was realistically dramatized in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie The Doors as Kennealy acted as a consultant on the film and also played the part of the "high priestess." In the ceremony, a circle is drawn with a "consecrated" sword, invocations are made to the four quarters (east, west, north and south), and everyone involved in the ceremony is purified by earth, air, fire and water. Morrison and Kennealy then stepped into circle, took the vows and cut their palms and dripped the blood into "sacramental" wine. Their hands were then bound together with a red cord and they drank the wine. Like a traditional wedding they exchanged rings, and Irish Claddaghs, of which Kennealy wears both to this day. The couple then stepped over fire and a sword and Kennealy blew out a candle to conclude the ceremony, at which point Morrison fainted. (See; year of film and quotation marks, mine). 

The Doors most popular song, Light My Fire, was written not by Morrison but by guitarist Kriege, who wanted to write about "one of the elements." The worship of Earth and the elements is a common theme among shamans and Wiccans. It also tells of a funeral pyre--a pagan practice of burning dead bodies; an ancient cremation. "Light my fire" is also a sexual innuendo, and the lyrics talk about "we couldn't get much higher"--a blatant drug reference.

You know that it would be untrue
You know that I would be a liar
If I was to say to you
Girl, we couldn't get much higher
Come on baby, light my fire
Come on baby, light my fire
Try to set the night on fire
The time for hesitation's through
There's no time to wallow in the mire
Darling we could only lose
And our love become a funeral pyre
Come on baby, light my fire
Come on baby, light my fire
Try to set the night on fire

Jim Morrison and The Doors were modern day pagans. Constantly high on drugs, and using himself as a shaman for demons to possess, Morrison had said religion was "bulls*it" even as he influenced millions with his paganism. He wanted young people to get high and give themselves over to spirits on the "other side" while being in open rebellion against society. Morrison practiced what he preached. He was arrested for criminal behavior more than once, and on March 1, 1969, he was arrested during a concert in Florida for "lewd and lascivious behavior, indecent exposure, public profanity, and public drunkenness."

What did Jim Morrison do? While high (and in a demonic inspired frenzy) The Doors launched into the song Touch Me. Morrison suddenly stopped the band and started a long speech about love and hate. After someone from the audience poured champagne on him, Morrison took his shirt off, held it over his crotch and simulated masturbation. Many people at the concert alleged he also exposed his genitals, was using foul language, and was visibly very high (probably LSD as well as alcohol). This is the man the world deems one of the greatest musical artists. If you value your soul, slam The Doors to Hell shut, and keep their music/influence out of your life.