The Morality Of Modern Medicine

 It seems like an eternity ago, yet I remember it like it was yesterday. My mother had been diagnosed with stage four cancer and was given about three months to live. My father had died from cancer nearly fifteen years earlier, and all those horrible memories came back vividly. I knew this would be rough because my mother had been sickly most of her life. Those illnesses, compounded by her advanced age, didn't leave her much strength to fight that most evil and dreadful cancer. She began declining rapidly. Soon, she was in the hospital unable to eat by mouth, and needed a peg placed in her stomach, and an IV in her arm so that nutrition and hydration could continue. The end couldn't be that far off, and I made sure before she lost her mental faculties, a Traditionalist priest gave her the Last Rites of Holy Mother Church.

 I had just come from seeing my mom, when her attending physician (whom I'll call "Dr. B"), saw me in the hallway of the hospital and asked if he could have a word with me in his office. "Your mother will not live much longer," he said. "I can see that, " I replied. "Many things she needs are not covered by Medicare. It's costing you lots of cash." "So what? She's my mother," was my firm response. He looked at me, quite matter-of-fact, and said, "Her quality of life is non-existent. Why don't you just sign a release as her Health Care Proxy, allowing us to remove her feeding and hydration tubes." I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I could feel the rage building inside me. "I wouldn't starve a dog or a cat, and you're asking me to starve and dehydrate my mother?" "Don't be upset," he continued. "It will only take a few days, and it doesn't cause any pain. It's less expensive than hospice." My blood pressure must have been so high at that point, it would be off the scale. I had to suppress the urge to reach across the desk, grab him by the lapels, drag him across the room, and send him head first out the window.

"Human beings are made in the image of God. You don't simply discard them, and you certainly don't starve them to death," I said with my voice trembling in anger. Dr. B didn't know when to stop. "Look, it doesn't hurt. I don't know how they know this, but the medical researchers know this to be true." I had enough. "You don't know how they know. Yeah, that makes sense. I'll make a deal with you. Since you claim it doesn't hurt, I'll lock you up in a room with nothing to eat or drink for a week. If you come out and tell me it didn't hurt, I'll let you do the same to my mother." "You don't understand," protested Dr. B. "No, you don't understand, " my raised voice cutting him off. "As far as I'm concerned, the only place you're qualified to practice medicine is Nazi Germany. You are no longer my mother's doctor. You are not allowed to see her or attend to her in any way, effective immediately. If you even think of going near her, I'm going to sue both the hospital and you. I'll make it my life's work to see to it that you never practice medicine again. Am I clear?" I was now shouting. He shook his head "yes" and I abruptly left.

I immediately went to hospital administration, to let my decisions be known. On the way there, I saw a doctor I had helped with a legal issue a couple of years back. He recognized me, and saw how upset I looked. "Tell them to put your mother under my care," he said. "I promise to treat her as my own mother." I knew "Mike" (not his real name) to be an ethical and kind physician, so I immediately felt better. I also decided to get my mother out of the hospital as soon as possible. Even with Mike taking care of her, just the thought of Dr. B being in the same building made me uneasy. I was going to ask for about a month off work to let my mother die at my home where I could personally care for her. With all the paperwork signed the following Friday, I was all set to have her transported to my house on Monday. I would request the time off Saturday morning. When I awoke, I received a phone call making it all moot. My mom had just passed away from a massive coronary.

All of us will (unfortunately) have to deal--to one degree or another-- with such life and death issues involving medical care for both the people we love, as well as ourselves. What's scary is not having a pope to decide certain issues. While Catholic principles don't change, the circumstances surrounding them do. Without someone to make authoritatively binding decisions, how can we be sure those principles were correctly applied? In 2005 we had the unfortunate situation of having some Traditionalist clergy defend the murder of Terri Schiavo by her adulterous husband. The Schiavo case demonstrates the need to examine the issue of modern medicine in the light of timelessly true principles of the Faith, so that we are prepared to make well-formed moral choices when needed. This post will examine the general principles and guidelines of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians, and some practical guidelines to which I adhere. I'm not a theologian or a canonist, and I have no Magisterial authority. It is not my intent to "bind" anyone (I can't), but at least you can be better informed and seek the counsel of a Traditionalist clergyman you trust.

Where The Problem Lies

 There are two fundamental principles upon which we have the unanimous consent of the theologians: (1) The refusal of everyday means of sustaining life, such as nutrition, hydration, and rest may never be denied to a sick or terminally ill person because it is a self-destruction which clearly violates the Divine dominion over human life; (2) Humans are not expected to sustain life at all costs, which would be extraordinary. The fate of death since the Fall is also part of nature. These two points are clear. Their application is much less so. The "ordinary vs. extraordinary" dichotomy (or "natural vs. unnatural") will yield different results with  the chronological development of medicine. What was considered "ordinary means" in 1600 AD will be much different from 1955 AD, and 1955 will differ significantly from 2019. 

Having several blood transfusions was impossible in 1600, extraordinary in 1955, but looked upon by physicians in 2019 as not being "extraordinary" any longer. Much of what the great theologians wrote before the Great Apostasy never envisioned the world in which we live, both in terms of not having a pope for an extended period of time to settle specific questions, and the enormity of medical advancement in a relatively short span of time. Medical practice has advanced more in the last 70 years (1949-2019) than in the prior 700 years (literally).

Certain terms have become abused because they are understood less on an intellectual level than on an emotional level. This is in no small measure because of the Modernist heresy that the world has been infected with for over fifty years now. The term "extraordinary means" is subject to no small amount of abuse. Keeping my mother alive with food and water was considered by her (immoral, unethical) doctor to be "extraordinary" because of her age, her other medical conditions, the expense of her treatments, and "quality of life." The crux of the argument seems to be that the surrounding circumstances can justify starvation and dehydration. Imagine if a State were to propose starving and dehydrating a convicted first-degree murderer as a means of execution. The ACLU and every left-wing organization would file a lawsuit claiming that it contravenes the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Yet these same godless humanists see nothing wrong doing it as "an act of mercy" on an innocent elderly woman like my mother.

There are some acts that are always wrong no matter what the surrounding circumstances. In the aftermath of Vatican II, there was a movement by apostate theologians which attempted to discredit any idea of an intrinsically evil moral object and sought to determine the morality of an action only by a simultaneous consideration of the motive of the act and the other circumstances. The Jesuit theologian Fr. Joseph Fuchs was one of the leaders of this movement. Once an approved theologian, he became a raging Modernist, especially after the publication of Montini's Humanae Vitae in 1968. Fuchs erroneously taught that no act could be considered intrinsically evil (malum per se---"evil in itself"). As a result of this teaching, all moral actions that are branded evil, such as theft, adultery, and even murder, may admit of exceptions, given some special set of circumstance and intention.

In 1977, a group of Modernist theologians put out a book published by Paulist Press called Human Sexuality. In the pages of this tome you will find a defense of fornication, adultery, contraception, and homosexuality as morally acceptable if done for the "proper" motives and under "sufficiently fulfilling" circumstances. The Episcopalian "priest" and philosopher, Joseph Fletcher, became the "Father of Situation Ethics" around the same time. Fletcher would allow the direct killing (i.e., murder) of a terminal patient for such reasons as saving money, alleviating family anxiety, and to "put [the patient] out of his misery." Fletcher and the Modernists make murder, one of the Four Sins that Scream to Heaven for Vengeance, a pretty excusable act.

As a result of such a Modernist onslaught, it is now commonplace to hear such emotional appeals for killing someone in the form of such statements as, "How would you feel if you had tubes hooked up to you and couldn't move?" Such statements carry with them two poisonous presuppositions: (1) life, as such, has no intrinsic value, and (2) there is no good purpose in suffering. If you don't think the second presupposition is purely pagan, repeat it while looking at the Crucifix.

The Teaching of the Church

According to theologian Jone, "For the preservation of life and health, one must employ at least ordinary means. Ordinary means are: proper food, clothing, housing, and physical recreation; likewise medicinal remedies which are not beyond the means of the sick person...Employing extraordinary means of preserving one's life is generally not obligatory." (See Moral Theology, The Newman Press, [1962], pgs. 135-136). 

According to theologian Connell, "A person is obliged to to use ordinary means to preserve his life, but not extraordinary means, such as a very expensive operation, the procuring of an 'iron lung' for permanent need, or the continued and frequent use of blood transfusions." (See Outlines of Moral Theology, [1958], pg. 124; Emphasis mine)

Notice that the terms are not very concrete. What, exactly, constitutes "very expensive"? Is it an absolute dollar amount, or relative to the person's wealth? If the latter, what percentage of money is considered "very expensive"--15% of their money, etc.? What does "continued and frequent" mean? Once a year for life? Four times a year for the foreseeable future? When Jone and Connell wrote (1962 and 1958, respectively), blood transfusions were much more risky and the need for them has abated in many cases due to developments in medicine.

The theologians had developed their principles as time progressed. For example, compare these passages from theologian Noldin in 1922, and then his work as revised by theologian Schmitt nineteen years later in 1941:

Noldin, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 14th Ed. 1922, vol. 2, no. 326: "There is no obligation to undergo a serious surgical operation, or a notable amputation: even though today the pains of many operations are not acute, due to anesthetics, nevertheless, the obligation is not to be imposed, both because many have a great horror of it, and because the success, especially the lasting success, ordinarily is uncertain, and finally, because it is a grave inconvenience to live with a mutilated body."

Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 27th Ed. 1941, vol. II, no. 328: "Today the suffering is vastly decreased through narcotics, the danger of infection is very remote, and moreover success is more frequent and assured, and even for amputated members, there are artificial limbs--and therefore, at least where certain danger of death would very probably be avoided through an operation, it does not seem that it can be called an extraordinary means, unless there is a great horror of it."

There was a major re-evaluation due to the progress of medicine. The 1941 edition still had its problems: what constitutes a "great horror"? Also, I think had the Great Apostasy not happened, even that would have changed as we now understand that mental imbalance can frequently accompany serious illness, therefore "great horror" (in my opinion) would have been dropped from the text. 

What are the certain principles? 

1. Ordinary means to preserve life must always be used. It seems best defined as those things associated with the basics of life (food, water, rest, clothing, etc.) and what modern medicine can provide. There is never a good reason to starve someone to death. Even in "brain death" or a PVS ("persistent vegetative state"), we cannot know if the person is capable of suffering--suffering we wouldn't want an animal to endure, let alone a human being. 

2. Most of the now commonly available techniques of modern surgery, medicines, and other medicinal practices/devices should be classified as ordinary means of preserving life. 

3. Extraordinary means of preserving life need not be used. Those would seem to include experimental surgery, untested or unproven medicines and the like which cannot be used without prolonged suffering, devastating financial consequences, and offer no substantial chance of recovery.

We must be very careful in what we consider "extraordinary means" of preserving life. In the medical profession, there is the ideal which demands fighting off pain and death until the last possible moment. There is much to be said for that attitude. Many of the great advances in modern medicine, as well as perfection in surgical skill and technique, have been due to what might have frequently been called a "useless prolongation of life/suffering." Modern surgery is only considered an ordinary means of preserving life because of its extensive use in those stages of its development when it was considered an extraordinary means. We must not be too ready to lower that medical ideal, and slow medical progress in the immediate interest of a present case. The future betterment of humanity is also served by attempting "extraordinary means."

Conclusion

I submit all I write to the decisions of Holy Mother Church if and when the papacy is restored. Until such time, I believe that what I've written is a good guideline for end of life decisions. Please make sure you have a Health Care Proxy. This post is not meant to be morbid. It's just a realistic look at the bridge we must someday cross--be it for ourselves, or someone else. Most importantly, keep yourself spiritually healthy.

 "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." (Sirach 7:40). 

The Case Against Roncalli

 I learn quite a lot thanks to my readers. Each week in the comments section, there are many good discussions. Most are on the same topic as the post, but not always, and that's fine by me. When I'm challenged on a topic I often re-think my position, to get a better understanding both for my own edification and that I may be of more informative value to my readers. I believe in the axiom,"He who does not understand his opponents' point of view, doesn't fully understand his own." Last week, a comment was made by someone who objected to my designating Roncalli (John XXIII) as a false pope. He had challenged me on this point about a year ago, and I was going to research my position more thoroughly, but alas, life so often gets in the way of our plans.

This time, I started to research the topic and my findings were most fruitful--resulting in this post you're now reading. Anyone who wishes to read the whole thread between my interlocutor and myself may do so by referring to the comments section of last week's post. In sum, he said, "Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you're not applying this standard to Roncalli...Again, I don't know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine. " (Emphasis in the original).

In this post, I will put forth the reasons, proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that Roncalli must be objectively dismissed as a false pope. There's so much that could be written, but I will confine myself as best as possible to make it terse and get the point across without delving into all aspects of his life. Hence, you will not see, for example, accusations that he was a Freemason addressed. I might touch on such issues in another post. This one will suffice for the stated purpose.

Angelo Roncalli: A Brief Background

Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the man who would convoke the Robber Council Vatican II, was born the fourth of thirteen children in 1881. He was born to a family of sharecroppers who lived in an Italian village. Roncalli studied for the priesthood, and completed his doctorate in Canon Law the same year as his ordination, 1904.  He became Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University in 1924, only to be relieved of his post within months "on suspicion of Modernism."

In February 1925, the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri summoned him to the Vatican and informed him of Pope Pius XI's decision to appoint him as the Apostolic Visitor to Bulgaria (1925–1935). He was subsequently consecrated a bishop in 1925 by Cardinal Porchelli. On 12 January 1953, he was appointed Patriarch of Venice and raised to the rank of Cardinal-Priest of Santa Prisca by Pope Pius XII. After the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, Roncalli was allegedly elected pope on the eleventh ballot occurring on October 28th. He took the regnal name of John XXIII. Interestingly, this was the first time in over 500 years that this name had been chosen; previous popes had avoided its use since the time of Antipope John XXIII during the Great Western Schism several centuries before. Both his name and his "reign" would be an appropriate foreshadowing of the Vatican II sect which he helped to create. 

Preliminary Considerations

1. A pope who falls into heresy--- as a private individual--- automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law.

 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

According to Wernz-Vidal, "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2:453). 

2. A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy. 

 According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)

3. If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order. 

According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine). 

Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on "specific and articulable facts," "taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances." Hence, if someone were elected pope, and coerced into resigning, he would remain pope. Any subsequent Cardinal "elected" could not attain to the papacy even if not a heretic. Moreover, with the death or true resignation of the man elected pope (at a time subsequent to the invalid election), it would not thereby automatically make the invalidly elected cardinal the Vicar of Christ. 

Was Roncalli a Heretic Prior to His Election?

• In the biography by Lawrence Elliot entitled I Will Be Called John:A Biography of Pope John XXIII,[Reader's Digest Press, 1973] it is recorded that as early as 1914, Roncalli was accused of Modernism while a teacher at the seminary at Bergamo. Cardinal De Lai, Secretary for the Congregation of Seminaries, formally reprimanded Roncalli, saying: "According to the information that came my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [an author of a three volume work placed on the Index of Forbidden Books  for teaching Modernist tenets---Introibo] and other unbridled authors, and that on certain occasions you had shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty out the value of tradition and the authority of the past, a dangerous current which leads to fatal consequences." (pg. 59)

• For ten years (1905-1915), Roncalli was secretary for Bishop Radini Tedeschi, a Modernist sympathizer. Roncalli describes him thus: "His burning eloquence, his innumerable projects, and his extraordinary personal activity could have given the impression to many, at the beginning, that he had in view the most radical changes and that he was moved by the sole desire to innovate...[Tedeshi] concerned himself less with carrying out reforms than with maintaining the glorious traditions of his diocese and with interpreting them in harmony with new conditions and the new needs of the times."(See Leroux, John XXIII: Initiator of the Changes, pg. 10) Bp. Tedeschi wanted to "update" traditions by re-interpreting them with the "needs of the times." Sound familiar? 

• He received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli's own insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an "honest socialist." Pope Pius XI had stated, "No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist."(See Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno [1931], para #120)

• While working in Bulgaria, Roncalli became well acquainted with Eastern Schismatics. His heretical ecumenism shone through "Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ." (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, [1998], pp. 18-19; Emphasis mine.) Do the schismatics share the same faith with the One True Church? Obviously not. 

• According to Renzo Allegri (translated from the original Italian Il Papa che ha cambiato il mondo, Testimonianze sulla vita private di Giovanni XXIII, pg. 66) a Bulgarian journalist named Stefano Karadgiov stated, "I knew Catholic priests who refused to go into an Orthodox Church even as tourists. Bishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity in some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies which were celebrated in the principle Orthodox church in Sofia. He put himself in a corner and devoutly followed the rites. The Orthodox chants especially pleased him. (Emphasis mine) 

• The import of Roncalli actively participating in false worship cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine)

• Nor is this an isolated report of Roncalli participating in prayer with those outside the Church. According to John Hughes in Pontiffs:Popes Who Shaped History [Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1994], "He [Roncalli] became good friends of the Reverend Austin Oakley, chaplain at the British Embassy and the Archbishop of Canterbury's personal representative to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch. Even more unusual were Roncalli's visits to Oakley's chapel, where the two men prayed together." (Emphasis mine). Furthermore, according to Kerry Walters in John XXIII (A Short Biography) Franciscan Media,[2013], Roncalli once proclaimed from the pulpit that Jesus Christ "died to proclaim universal brotherhood." (pg. 14)

Did Something Strange Happen at the 1958 Conclave?

 1.  There were several top contenders for the papacy after the death of Pope Pius XII. Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, made it known to me that his personal friend, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, was so certain he would be elected, that he had already picked out his regnal name as Pope Pius XIII. Other strong contenders included Cardinals Agagianian (Modernist sympathizer), Lercaro (Modernist sympathizer), and Siri (anti-Communist and anti-Modernist like Ottaviani). The U.S. government was very interested in the election, as the Cold War was in high gear, and they wanted another staunch anti-Communist like Pope Pius XII. 

In October of 1958, there were only 55 Cardinals in the world, the lowest number in decades because Pope Pius knew so many bishops were suspect of Modernism. It was the "second wave" of resurgent Modernism. Pope St. Pius X had driven the Modernists underground, but had not extirpated them. So why did Pope Pius XII give the red hat of a Cardinal to Roncalli? Contrary to what many think, the Church doesn't simply excommunicate clerics on a whim. The fact that they were censured or held suspect of heresy is the Church doing Her job. The hope is to reform those who go astray and bring them back into the fold. Even the great St. Pius X gave the worst Modernists time to reform before excommunication. To be clear, the Church is in no way infallible when it comes to ecclesiastical appointments. Choosing someone as a Cardinal does not relieve their censure or suspicion of heresy automatically. 

Pope Pius XII had a back-stabbing Judas as his confessor; Fr. Augustin Bea. Bea was thought to be anti-Modernist, but at Vatican II he worked for the passage of Nostra Aetate, the heretical document on non-Christian religions. He was an ecumenist to the extreme and wanted the Jews "absolved" for their crime of Deicide. Could he have protected Roncalli, having the ear of Pope Pius and convincing him he was "reformed" and/or not electable as pope? This is one of many possibilities, but the crux of the matter is it does nothing to absolve Roncalli of his false teachings and even without ecclesiastical excommunication, he would have been removed from the Church by Divine Law for profession of heresy. 

2. Confusing white smoke signals appeared and American intelligence had allegedly found out that Cardinal Siri had been elected pope. Then the smoke was black. White smoke signals mean that a Cardinal had been elected and accepted his election as the new pope. This has lead some to speculate that Siri was elected pope ("Gregory XVII") and was forced to resign. Therefore Roncalli's election was null and void. I don't accept the "Siri Theory" for good reason.

 See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html for my thoughts on the "Siri Theory." Is it possible some other Cardinal was elected, forced to resign (which made Roncalli's election null and void), and then lost office by going along with the Modernists? It's a possibility. Lest anyone say there is no evidence of seriously confusing smoke, according to Kirk Clinger, "The partly white, partly dark smoke confused even the Vatican radio announcers. They had to apologize frequently for their error. The column of smoke which rose from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel was first whitish, then definitely white, and only later definitely black." (See A Pope Laughs: Stories of John XXIII,Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, [1964], pg. 43) 

3. The most convincing report I heard was that both Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri were unable to muster the two-thirds plus one vote to be elected. As a result, a group of "moderates" convinced most Cardinals to give their votes to Roncalli as a "transitional" pope. He was 77 years old, and (so the reasoning went) wouldn't do much. Could there have been threats to a Cardinal that got elected and he was forced to resign? At least two Cardinals present made disparaging statements about what transpired at that conclave, which is highly suggestive that there was something seriously wrong. They were Cardinals Ottaviani and Spellman. 

4. Does this give us a reasonable suspicion, such that we may doubt Roncalli's election? Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of evidence, so I'd say definitely so. However, there is more than ample proof Roncalli was a heretic prior to his election and therefore could not attain to the papacy. Finally, let's not forget that a cause can be discerned by examining the effects. For example, the intelligent design of the universe points to a Creator. Likewise, if the man who came out of the conclave did what a true pope would not (indeed could not) do, we can safely say he wasn't elected pope.  

5. Roncalli, as "pope" rehabilitated every major heretic that had been censured under Pope Pius XII and had them as approved periti (theological experts) at Vatican II. These heretics included the likes of Congar, de Lubac, and Hans Kung, among many others, none of whom were required to abjure any errors. Roncalli promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism." He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase "perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews." He modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar. He was friends with Socialists, Communists, and Freemasons, none of whom he sought to convert. Are these the actions of a true Vicar of Christ? 

Pacem In Terris: Heresy On Earth

The death-knell for those who wish to consider Roncalli pope lies in the fact that he professed heresy in his encyclical Pacem In Terris, published April 11, 1963. This section of my post is taken from the work of Mr. John Daly called John XXIII and Pacem in Terris. I give full credit to Mr. Daly for his incredible research  and incisive analysis. I have condensed the pertinent parts of his article in this section and included some of my comments and research, which I mixed in.---Introibo

The encyclical Pacem in Terris, was about "establishing universal peace in truth, justice, charity, and liberty," and in addition to the Church, it was addressed "to all men of good will." The heretical proposition is the opening sentence of paragraph #14. The official Latin version, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis ("AAS" --Acts of the Apostolic See), No. 55, 257-304 is as follows:

In hominis juribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectum conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim et publice profiteri. 

In English it means, "We must include among the rights of man that he should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience and to profess his religion privately and publicly."
Those who defend Roncalli will point out (correctly) that the Church teaches humans have the right to profess and practice only the Catholic religion which is the One True Church, outside of which no one is saved. Error has no rights. There is nothing wrong with this statement in Pacem (they contend) because the word rightful modifies the "prompting of his conscience" such that it implies that one is not simply entitled to follow his conscience in the worship of God unless his conscience is rightful (i.e., in accordance with the One True Church). What no Catholic can declare is that each person should be able "to profess his religion privately and publicly." This implies (as we shall see) that one can profess any religion, be it the True Religion or any of the myriad false religions, both privately and in public; which idea is heretical and condemned by the Church.

Here's where it gets interesting. The possessive adjective "his" does not appear in the official Latin text published in the AAS. However, its interpolation by translators (including the official English text available on the Modernist Vatican's website) is by no means unjustified for two reasons:

(a) Latin very rarely includes such adjectives, frequently showing them to be  understood from the context.
(b) Abundant evidence shows that John XXIII's true meaning is represented by the inclusion of "his"--which evidence will be examined.

If you read the sentence without the word "his" it admits of an orthodox interpretation: i.e., people have the right to profess religion publicly and privately provided it's the Catholic religion. Nevertheless, we cannot omit that word without altering the intended sense of the encyclical; a sense that is unabashedly heretical. Let no one protest that this is an exercise in mere semantics. The semi-Arian heretics, under pressure from the Emperor, were prepared to submit to every syllable of the Nicene Creed except they rejected the statement that Our Lord was consubstantial (homo-ousion) with the Father, but He was merely (homoi-ousion) of like substance, not the same substance. One letter marked the all important line between Catholic doctrine and heresy.

It is beyond dispute that the meaning Roncalli wished to convey, and to which he consciously lent his (alleged) "authority," was that each person has the right to profess his religion---whatever that religion may be--both privately and publicly. Here is the evidence:

1. The encyclical was not, as traditionally done, addressed only to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, but to "all men of good will." If it was only addressed to Catholics, one could argue that they would know that "his" religion is the Catholic religion, because only the Truth may be openly professed and preached. After all, he would then only have Catholics as his intended audience. It is completely unreasonable to expect Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, and Eastern Schismatics (among other non-Catholics) to obtain that understanding from the context. The only reasonable conclusion at which they would arrive is that the encyclical guarantees every single one of them the objective moral right to practice and profess his particular false religion in public.

2. The 32nd edition of Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum [The Enchiridion is a compendium of all the basic texts on Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostolic Age. Commissioned by Pope Pius IX, it has been in use since 1854, and has been regularly updated since] was edited by Fr. Schonmetzer and has the offending sentence tagged with a footnote referencing the Masonic United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This passage is irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, yet it is linked to the very sentence that would make a reader believe that everyone is free to express his religion in public, no matter if it is the true religion or not. It would suggest that Roncalli was conscious of that portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as he penned Pacem in Terris. If this does not contradict Catholic teaching, nothing does.

As Pope Gregory XVI taught: "Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care...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." (See Mirari Vos [1832], para. #13 and 14).

The defenders of Roncalli will protest that there is a "lack of evidence" that Roncalli authorized the footnote; but such objection fails miserably. The authors of the Enchiridion are selected precisely to ensure that their references and explanations will meet with official approval of the Holy See, and any remark misrepresenting the mind of same would meet with a public rebuke and a retraction demanded by Rome, which was far from the case. Moreover, the involvement of the editors of the 32nd edition is more demonstrable than in any prior edition. It was the first time that the passage of Pope Pius IX's condemnation of religious liberty was omitted.  The startling omission is explicable only on the basis that it was intended to conceal the explicit contradiction between Pacem in Terris and Quanta Cura. 

This passage was omitted: From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity" viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (See Quanta Cura [1864], para. #3).

Clearly, it cannot be reasonably maintained that those who took such great care to arrange the suppression of the "offending" part of Quanta Cura were not also responsible for the footnote to Pacem in Terris which concerned the same subject.

3. That fact that the sentence from Pacem in Terris must be understood in connection with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is confirmed by the fact that in Pacem itself, the Masonic United Nations and its Declaration are commended and praised in paragraphs #142, 143, and 144. Roncalli said of the Declaration "It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone's right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these." (para. #144; Emphasis mine). An encyclical is carefully read over by the Pontiff before signing and promulgating it. Moreover, high ranking theologians craft it at the direction of the pope. Each word is carefully chosen. If these "other rights" written in the Declaration did not include the infamous "right" to religious liberty, is it not obvious this would have been made clear?

4. The encyclical was roundly praised by the Masonic lodges and the secular media both of which promote religious Indifferentism and religious liberty through supporting separation of Church and State.

5. The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed "heretical by defect." This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:
"After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith...insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question."

Summation: It is impossible to excuse Roncalli (John XXIII) from the charge of heresy by arguing that this sentence can admit of an orthodox interpretation, because it does not. Even if, ad arguendo, it could so admit of an orthodox interpretation, Roncalli would still be guilty of heresy by defect because it has been shown that the obvious sense of the sentence, taken in both text and context, is incontrovertibly heretical.

Conclusion

What, then, are the practical and objective conclusions we can deduce from the so-called pontificate of "Good Pope John"? 

• He was influenced and kept friends with Modernists, Masons, Socialists and other sworn enemies of the Church from his earliest days in the priesthood
• He was removed from his teaching post on suspicion of heresy (Modernism)
• He worshiped and prayed with heretics and schismatics 
• He made an overtly heretical statement regarding Catholics and Eastern Schismatics having the "same faith"
• The conclave of 1958 was surrounded by suspicious activity and lead many to believe that someone else had been elected pope prior to Roncalli
• After his "election" Roncalli rehabilitated all the living censured theologians under Pope Pius XII and had them actively serve as theological experts during Vatican II
• Roncalli taught the heresy of religious liberty in Pacem in Terris; he paved the way for its adoption at Vatican II in the heretical document Dignitatis Humanae

Therefore,

1. It is morally certain that Roncalli was not pope since at least the promulgation of the heretical encyclical Pacem in Terris of April 11, 1963. A true pope cannot teach heresy.

2. Was Roncalli "pope" from October of 1958 until April 11, 1963? In a word: No. We know a cause by the effect it produces. If you see someone who's sick, you know it's caused by an illness, even if you can't diagnose exactly what illness it is. Pope's do not rehabilitate heretics, promote ecumenism and teach heresy. It is highly more probable than not that Roncalli was a heretic at the time he entered the conclave and never attained to the papacy in the first place. It is also possible (but not likely) that someone else was elected pope and resigned under duress, making Roncalli's subsequent "election" invalid. There's more than sufficient evidence prior to the promulgation of Pacem in Terris that we can suspect the validity of his election (due to heresy, election of another, or both) to treat him as a dubious pope --which is no pope in the practical order.

I could write dozens of posts on "Evil Pseudo-Pope John." However, I hope this one will be sufficient to put to rest the arguments of those who are "agnostic" about his "papacy" and think he might have been pope. Finally, for those who have even the slightest qualm of conscience or scintilla of doubt remaining, let me add that Bergoglio "canonized" him a "saint." The same Argentinian apostate who gave us "St." John Paul the Great Apostate and "St" Paul VI, gave us "St" John XXIII. If that's not enough to make you realize the destruction he caused, and for which the Vatican II sect praises him, no amount of information can wake you from your denial. 

The Anti-Father

 If you ever heard the Vatican II sect "priests" talk about the Gospel in their "homily," you would get the idea that the books of the Bible are more or less a bunch of nice stories that teach us to be kind because "God is good all the time." They denigrate "born again" Protestant ministers, not for their many and genuine heresies, but because they "falsely" believe the Bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God. At the same time, (so we are told), in the days pre-Vatican II, Catholics were "not allowed" or "discouraged" from reading the Bible on their own. In this way, they were prevented from seeing that the Bible is a nice collection of myths, stories, and some truths to encourage us to believe in a nice God and His Son Who was "the greatest man (sic) on Earth."

If you're wondering how we got to this sorry state of affairs, modern Biblical scholarship was infected by the Modernists in the wake of Vatican II. The seeds were sowed in the late 19th century, and one man in particular did more damage than all the others. Alfred Firmin Loisy was born in France on February 28, 1857, and died June 1, 1940. He was ordained a priest on June 29, 1879, but was off-course in his spiritual life. He obtained his theology degree in 1890. Loisy claimed in his journal that he had a "fever for glory" and wanted to become a "Father of the Church."(See McKee, The Enemy Within the Gate [1974], pg. 23). His arrogance and diabolical hatred for all things traditional Catholic, led to him becoming one of the "Fathers of Modernism" and of the Vatican II sect, which his influence helped to spawn in 1964.

As we shall see in this post, Loisy was particularly critical of the Bible, and is even called in some circles the "Founder of Biblical Modernism in the Catholic (sic) Church." It is because of him, and his intellectual/spiritual disciples, that the true teaching regarding the Bible was discarded.

Ridding The Bible of "Myths"

Loisy argued against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the reliability of Genesis’ creation accounts, and against the historical dependability of the Bible in general. As a result, he was removed from his teaching position at the Institut Catholique.  After his dismissal, he was made a chaplain at a girls school at Neuilly. In 1900 Loisy became lecturer at Ecole des hautes Estudes at the Sorbonne, where he was able to continue spreading his ideas as a Modernist. Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893 condemning the errors of Modernist Biblical criticism. 

 Undaunted, Loisy continued to write heretical books, using Modernist Biblical criticism. In particular, Loisy:

• Denied the authority of God, the Scriptures, and Tradition
• Denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ
• Denied Christ was omniscient 
• Denied the Redemptive death and Resurrection of Christ
• Denied the Virgin Birth
• Denied Transubstantiation
• Denied the Divine Institution of both the papacy and the Church

 In December of 1903, Loisy's books were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office with the full approval of Pope St. Pius X, who had just been elected pope in August of that year. On January 24, 1904, Loisy wrote to the saintly and thoroughly Anti-Modernist Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val. The Cardinal was the right hand man of Pope St. Pius X, and with good reason. Cardinal Merry del Val was everything Loisy was not: humble and pious. Moreover, the Cardinal was an intellectual giant, having not only a Doctorate in Sacred Theology as an approved theologian, but he also earned a doctorate in philosophy and licentiate in Canon Law. He did not fancy himself a "Father of the Church" but actually penned a "Litany of Humility." Some ascribed the authorship to another, but the Cardinal recited it daily, nevertheless.  His cause for sainthood was introduced in 1953, and in my opinion, had Vatican II not happened, he would have an "St." before his name.

Loisy told the Cardinal in his letter that "I accept all the dogmas of the Church." This was an unabashed lie, because at the same time in his journal he wrote, "I have not been Catholic in the official sense of the word for a long time...Roman Catholicism as such is destined to perish, and it will deserve no regrets." (Ibid, pgs. 32-33). The wise Cardinal was not satisfied, as he knew all too well how Modernists lie and conceal their true intentions by giving different meanings to dogmas. A Modernist could say, "I believe in the Resurrection of Christ (insofar as he lives on; not materially, but in the minds of His followers)." The part in parentheses is never said aloud. Cardinal Merry del Val continued to advise Pope St. Pius that more stringent measures needed to be taken. 

Finally, in 1907, His Holiness Pope St. Pius X condemned 65 Modernist propositions in his famous declaration Lamentabili Sane. Of those 65 propositions, fifty (50) were taken from the works of Loisy. Enraged, Loisy realized that there was no reconciliation possible with the Church and his heresy. He now made plain what he had heretofore keep close to his vest when he wrote publicly, "Christ has even less importance in my religion than he does in that of the liberal Protestants: for I attach little importance to the revelation of God the Father for which they honor Jesus. If I am anything in religion, it is more pantheist-positivist-humanitarian than Christian." On March 7, 1908, Loisy was solemnly excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X. He became a college professor, forsaking his clerical status, and died unrepentant in 1940. 

The Condemnations of Lamentabili Sane

Here are just some of the propositions (all solemnly condemned by St. Pius X) which Loisy propagated in regard to Holy Scripture:

4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s Magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.

7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments She issues are to be embraced.

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete[interpreter of the Bible] must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

In Defense of God's Word

The attacks of Loisy and the Modernists on Sacred Scripture lack merit, even apart from a theological perspective. The following is taken and condensed from the work of A. Anderson, a lawyer who attacked the alleged logical basis of the Modernists' faulty exegesis. Anderson shows that the Modernists cannot maintain their position in regard to Sacred Scripture being "unreliable"--- even in the purposeful absence of theological proof. What makes his work, entitled A Lawyer Among the Theologians, (Hodder and Stoughton, [1967]) truly masterful, is how he demonstrates that the Gospels are historically reliable while fighting Modernists "on their own turf" by using the best secular evidence, and not invoking any theological authority. 

Reasons for Accepting the Gospels as Historically Reliable

As a form of literature, the Gospels are unique, for they were written by believers to confirm the readers in their faith or to bring to faith those who did not yet believe. Since the Christian faith is rooted in history, the Evangelists were concerned in reporting what actually happened, and therefore the religious aim of the Gospels is not a valid reason for rejecting them as historically inaccurate or unreliable. 

1. Two Evangelists explicitly claim they are reporting historical facts. St. Luke begins his Gospel by telling us that he has been at pains to gather reliable information about the events he plans to chronicle in order that Theophilus, for whom he is directly writing, may rest assured that his faith in Christ is based on well-established fact. The order in which he recounts the facts is not strictly chronological, but in its main outlines Luke's account of the public ministry of Jesus tallies with those of Sts. Matthew and Mark. St. John also presents his Gospel as a record of facts which serve as a warranty for faith in Christ.

2. The Evangelists, even if they wanted to, could not have made up the story, for the central figure is so tremendous and the story of His life so unique as to be beyond the power of human imagination. Even John Stuart Mill, a rationalist philosopher who rejected the supernatural said, "Who among His disciples or among the proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings of Jesus or or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the simple fishermen of Galilee; certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers."

3. The Gospels had to pass the scrutiny of men who had witnessed the events that were recorded, and were hostile to the Christian claims.

4. Historical and archaeological research have revealed that the Gospels depict with striking exactitude the very complex social and political order that prevailed in the Middle East in the third decade of the first century, an order that was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. The Evangelists' reliability in recording these items creates a presumption that their testimony on other matters is true as well.

5. A crucified Messiah was completely out of step with regard to Jewish expectations. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, but not a suffering Messiah, and still less an Incarnate Deity. Even if they thought the Messiah was to be the Son of God, even the most learned rabbis of the day would NOT think Him to be born in a stable, spend thirty years in obscurity as a carpenter, and end His life on the ignominious death of the cross. Christ therefore was, in the words of St. Paul, a "stumbling block" on the path to faith. (1 Corinthians 1:23). 

There is non-Christian testimony from pagan historians which corroborate the unique life of Jesus Christ. These writers include:

• Flavius Josephus
• Tacitus
• Suetonius
• Pliny the Younger

Conclusion

The Modernists have come to destroy all that is good, beautiful, and true. The would be "Church Father" Alfred Loisy was the quintessential Modernist, seeking to destroy the Church and replace Her with a One World Religion. He began attacking the reliability of the Bible, and the Vatican II sect continues with the de-supernaturalized "social Gospel" which reduces the Faith to little more than worldly concerns and advocates for Socialism/Communism. One of Loisy's most noted sayings was, "Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church," as if Our Lord never intended to found a Church. Loisy admitted to being a "pantheist-positivist-humanitarian" --a man devoid of the Faith. 

Bergoglio and his false hierarchy are Loisy's successors in heresy and apostasy. They proclaim a mythical Jesus ("There is no Catholic God") Who founded no Church ("proselytism is solemn nonsense") and lets you do what you want ("Who am I to judge?"). The only thing our SSPX friends need to recognize is that the Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church, and then resist the sect by admitting sedevacantism--- thereby joining the fight against it. 

Singing For Satan--Part 22

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.

Duran Duran

Although never critically acclaimed like the other groups and artists I've covered, "Duranomania" swept the United States and England in the late 1970s to the late 1980s. Formed in 1978, this British quintet had young girls swooning over them. The band consisted of founders Nigel John Taylor (b. 1960) on bass guitar,and Nick Rhodes (b. Nicholas James Bates in 1962) on keyboards. The two worked together in an English nightclub, and wanted to form a band. They enticed three more to join them: Roger Taylor (b. 1960) on drums, Andrew Taylor (b. 1961) on guitar and back-up vocals, and the most famous member Simon Le Bon (b. 1958) as songwriter and lead singer. Interestingly, none of the three Taylors were related to each other. 

In December of 1980, after opening for some other acts, they caught the attention of the major record companies and signed with EMI Records. Their eponymous debut album was released in 1981, and it was met with moderate success thanks to the band's ability to make well-cast videos that appeared on the nascent MTV. In May of 1982, they launched their second album entitled Rio, which made them superstars. By 1983, the British press dubbed them the "Fab Five" because of their popularity with women, just like when The Beatles came out (who were called the "Fab Four").  They produced 14 singles in the top 10 of the UK Singles Chart and 21 in the US Billboard Hot 100, and have sold over 100 million records worldwide. Duran Duran also won two Grammy Awards, an MTV Video Music Award for Lifetime Achievement, and a Video Visionary Award from the MTV Europe Music Awards. They were given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. 

Peddling Sex and the Occult

The band is sinister from the very beginning. They take their name from a character in the 1968 science fiction movie Barbarella. Here is a synopsis of the (sickening) movie taken from the Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com):

The year is 40,000. After peaceful floating in zero-gravity, astronaut Barbarella lands on the frozen planet Lythion and sets out to find renowned scientist Durand Durand [the band dropped the last letter "d"] in the City of Night, Sogo, where a new sin is invented every hour. There, she encounters such objects as the Excessive Machine, a genuine sex organ on which an expert artist of the keyboard, in this case, Durand Durand himself, can drive a victim to death by pleasure, a lesbian queen who can make her fantasies take form in her Chamber of Dreams, and a group of ladies smoking a giant hookah which dispenses Essence of Man through a poor victim struggling in its glass globe. You can not help but be impressed by the special effects crew and the various ways that were found to tear off what minimal clothes our heroine seemed to possess. (Emphasis mine). 

A movie that is pornographic (perverted with sodomites as well-- very controversial for the time) was the inspiration for the band's name. Their album Seven and the Ragged Tiger is full of occult symbolism. Below is a shirt that was sold in the 1980s when the album came out showing off the symbols on the cover of Seven and the Ragged Tiger. 

  The band assures their fans that the name of the album is derived from the five members and two managers (seven) who were pacing around like tigers in a cage one day ("ragged tiger"). In fact, it is an occult reference in some forms of Eastern mysticism and yoga. There are at least three unmistakably occult and Satanic symbols used. 

• On the top right of the shirt we see the Crescent Moon and Star. This has two denotations.The first is for the evil and false religion of Islam. The second is its use in Wicca (witchcraft). It is a fertility symbol of Diana (also known as Artemis) the pagan goddess of the heavens, moon, and earth. In Acts 19: 23-34 we read, About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: "You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty." When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia, and all of them rushed into the theater together. Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him. Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater.The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander to the front, and they shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" 
• The weird looking number "4" below it is the Egyptian symbol for the occult practice of reading people's palms. All forms of fortune telling are called divination. It is condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their 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; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.)
• The symbol below that--the cross with two horizontal bars and the eternity sign below it--is used in the Satanic Bible above the Nine Satanic Statements (an evil and blasphemous mockery of the Ten Commandments--thankfully, Satan always comes up short and God wins!). The large bar below the shorter bar is symbolic of Satan cutting off the grace of the cross to save people throughout time (eternity). 

Yet, Duran Duran assures us that nothing is occult. Their biggest hit off the album, New Moon on Monday, is about the coming of a false Christ (the Antichrist). First I'll reproduce the lyrics, and then the most concise and accurate explanation I've seen--author unknown. While he thinks these lyrics to be positive (!) we know the Messiah already came and redeemed us.

Shake up the picture the lizard mixture

With your dance on the eventide

You got me coming up with answers

All of which I deny

I said it again

Could I please rephrase it

Maybe I can catch a ride

I couldn't really put it much plainer

But I'll wait till you decide

Send me your warning siren

As if I could ever hide

Last time La Luna

[Chorus]

I light my torch and wave it for the

New moon on Monday

And a firedance through the night

I stayed the cold day with a lonely satellite

[Verse 2]

Breaking away with the best of both worlds

A smile that you can't disguise

Every minute I keep finding

Clues that you leave behind

Save me from these reminders

As if I'd forget tonight

This time La Luna

It's about the second coming of or just the coming of a Christ like figure. The lyrics are esoteric and symbolic. The coded message is for the character to whom they are speaking. The New Moon on Monday is a reference to an astronomical and week day alignment that creates a deeply emotional and caring characteristic in the individual. Due to the compounding effect of Moon energy, since Monday is the day of the moon and the moon is in a conjunction with the Sun which darkens the face and represents a more emotional state. It's a lonely Satellite. The satellite refers to a little Saturn. A cold day is a winter day.Saturn is a Winter planet and rules the sign of Capricorn. Capricorn is the sign in which the biblical Jesus/messiah character was born. Jesus was killed on a full moon. [Note the astrological pagan nonsense throughout]

Their song Save a Prayer from their album Rio is about a woman who wants a one night stand with a man. He tells her not to worry and just fornicate, so "save a prayer" for him "'till the morning after."

You saw me standing by the wall corner of a main street

And the lights are flashing on your window sill

All alone ain't much fun so you're looking for the thrill

And you know just what it takes and where to go

Don't save a prayer for me now 

Save it til the morning after

No don't say a prayer for me now 

Save it til the morning after

Feel the breeze deep on the inside look you down into the well

If you can you'll see the world in all his fire

Take a chance like all dreamers can't find another way

You don't have to dream it all, just live a day

Don't say a prayer for me now

Save it 'til the morning after

No don't say a prayer for me now

Save it 'til the morning after

Save it 'til the morning after

Save it 'til the morning after (Emphasis mine)

The video to this song has children dressed as Buddhist pagans being mesmerized, and they follow the group to bow to an idol of stone. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uxc9eFcZyM)

The song Hungry Like The Wolf is about a man performing oral sex on a woman. At the end of the song, a woman screams repeatedly as if she is having an orgasm. 

Dark in the city night is a wire

Steam in the subway earth is afire

Do do do do do do do dodo dododo dodo

Woman you want me give me a sign

And catch my breathing even closer behind

Do do do do do do do dodo dododo dodo

In touch with the ground

I'm on the hunt down I'm after you

Smell like I sound I'm lost in a crowd

And I'm hungry like the wolf

Straddle the line in discord and rhyme

I'm on the hunt down I'm after you

Mouth is alive with juices like wine

And I'm hungry like the wolf

Stalked in the forest too close to hide

I'll be upon you by the moonlight side

Do do do do do do do dodo dododo dodo

High blood drumming on your skin it's so tight

You feel my heat I'm just a moment behind

Do do do do do do do dodo dododo dodo

The video features Simon Le Bon hunting down a woman (like a wolf) with a highly sexually suggestive ending, extremely risque for 1983. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJL-lCzEXgI)

Their Present Confirms the Past

All of these bands I've written about deny any connection to the occult and promoting immorality. Duran Duran provides especially good proof that leopards (or in this case "ragged tigers") don't change their spots (or stripes). 

Consider: 

• Simon Le Bon claims he is now an atheist. He has written a contribution to The Atheist's Guide to Christmas. Many occultists will claim no faith as a guise to hide their real beliefs. It's also possible that he's lost all faith, having put himself at the service of evil, leaving him disillusioned. (See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/12/simon-le-bon-on-losing-faith/). 

• Mr. Le Bon was accused of sexual assault in 1995, which allegation came out last year. According to The Guardian, Simon Le Bon has denied sexually assaulting a fan in 1995. Shereen Hariri alleged that the Duran Duran singer groped her while signing autographs at the Los Angeles record store where she worked. She accused Le Bon of grabbing and "massaging" her "right butt cheek" and "making his way down my butt to my genitals."(See https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/12/simon-le-bon-duran-duran-shereen-hariri). I'm the last one to give such "years later" claims automatic credence, especially in light of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, but this guy's a certified sleazebag. I don't know the current disposition of the claim against him, but would it surprise me if he's found guilty? Not in the least. 

• Nick Rhodes started a band in 2002 called The Devils. It's full of pagan/occult songs, the worst being Dark Circles which openly speaks of black magic:

You're moving in dark circles

Dark circles show me your eyes

It's black magic with no perfume

You're all TV & white lies

Move move move move

No rainbow all snow storm A trans lunar Jezebel

Your Stockhausen with pictures

Ulysses in ugly shoes

Move move move move

Dark circles

Black magic

Dark circles

And white lie

Black magic

Dark circles

Black magic

And white lies

Dark circles

Black magic  (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

The "pretty boys" of the early to mid-1980s, Duran Duran, were seen as relatively "clean" and "wholesome" at the height of their fame. It's been conclusively proven they are neither. Seeped in occultism and pushing sexual perversion, the band is evil; just as wicked and perverted as the movie from which they got their name. How could people be so gullible about these music artists? How could parents let them listen to this garbage? Thanks to Vatican II, this was the result when the true Mass, sacraments, and doctrine were taken away from the world in the Great Apostasy. Without God's grace to preserve us, and His Church to guide us, we are lost. The Vatican II sect does not speak for God, and leads people away from Him. "He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God." (St. John 8:47).