Eunuchs For The Kingdom Of Heaven

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

Last week, Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis), "cracked open the door to ordaining married, elderly men to the priesthood to meet the pastoral needs of Catholics in remote areas of the Amazon." (See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/world/europe/vatican-priests-married-men.html). While the Argentinian apostate seems to favor celibacy, the fact remains that his "predecessor" he "canonized"---John Paul the Great Apostate--taught heretical doctrine regarding celibacy and virginity. Make no mistake, the Vatican II sect is out to slowly have married clergy like the Protestants, and deal another blow to consecrated celibacy/virginity, which gives witness to the things of God.

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

Church Teaching

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

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

In his 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas, Pope Pius XII teaches:

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

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

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

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

And further on:

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

Further, although we grant that the motive here appealed to is in some measure utilitarian, we shall probably be justified in saying that the principle which underlies the Church's action in enforcing celibacy is not limited to this utilitarian aspect but goes even deeper. From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jews and pagans the priesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in the Church of Christ, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was imparted by the Holy Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood. Virginity and marriage both holy, but in different ways. The conviction that virginity possesses a higher sanctity and clearer spiritual intuitions, seems to be an instinct planted deep in the heart of man. Even in the Jewish Dispensation where the priest begot children to whom his functions descended, it was nevertheless enjoined that he should observe continence during the period in which he served in the Temple. No doubt a mystical reason of this kind does not appeal to all, but such considerations have always held a prominent place in the thought of the Fathers of the Church; as is seen, for example, in the admonition very commonly addressed to subdeacons of the Middle Ages at the time of their ordination. "With regard to them it has pleased our fathers that they who handle the sacred mysteries should observe the law of continence, as it is written 'be clean ye who handle the vessels of the Lord?' "(Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II, 242).---(See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm)

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

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

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

The Heretical Teaching of John Paul the Great Apostate

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Strange Case of "Archbishop" Milingo

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

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

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

• The Bible is untrustworthy and Moon's book Divine Principle is to be followed as authoritative
• God is dualistic in Nature ("yin and yang")
• The crucifixion of Christ was an "alternative plan," and it only "partially saved" humanity. Moon is the Messiah to complete the plan, and all must seek salvation from the Unification Church
• The Trinity is an "invention of Jesus"
• The Holy Ghost is the female spirit (!) aspect of God

The cult sought respectability after multiple allegations of using brainwashing techniques on lonely people to get them to join. In an effort to rehabilitate their image, they own and operate several generally respected businesses, including the politically right-leaning newspaper The Washington Times. Milingo participated in mass-marriages organized by the sect in Japan in 1999, and in Korea in 2000, yet the Modernist Vatican never censured him. After his "wedding" he was told by "Cardinal" Ratzinger to leave Sung. Milingo said, "For 43 years as a celibate priest ... I only knew God as a male. Now, through my union with Maria, I have come to see the other side of God's heart, which is female." (See https://www.cesnur.org/2001/moon_july25.htm; Emphasis mine)

He briefly reconciled with Wojtyla, but then rejoined his "wife." He targeted celibacy. "Secret affairs and marriages, illegitimate children, rampant homosexuality, pedophilia and illicit sex have riddled the priesthood to the extent that the UN Commission on Human Rights has investigated the church for sexual abuse, and the western media is filled with stories of lawsuits and scandals surrounding the Church," Milingo said.(See http://www.wewillstand.org/media/20010808_9.htm).

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

Now, at age 89, he has made many "bishops" all with the same desire--to end celibacy and draw "priests" into their movement. In 2010, he was pronounced "patriarch" of his own sect, "The Ecumenical Catholic Apostolic Church of Peace." (See https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7203).
I believe Milingo is being used by the very Satanic forces he denounces to promote the denigration of celibacy.

Consider:

• He is an apostate priest having broken his Anti-Modernist Oath, and was "consecrated" by Montini himself
• His so-called exorcisms were accused of being "indigenous"--using African pagan elements, which would attract, not repel, demons
• He met Moon through a doctor he went to for a knee problem, and the doctor was alleged to be using "Reiki healing" which is pagan 
• The Moon sect "Unification Church" has many occult practices that open one to demonic forces

The Unification cult (I don't hesitate to employ the appellation "cult" as it uses manipulation, deceit, etc. to get members to enter and prevent them from leaving), has direct occult connections. The Divine Principle itself supports occult practices. "Thus, the spirit men pour out spiritual fire on earthly men, give them the power to heal diseases, and help them do many mighty works. More than that, they enable earthly men to see many facts in the spirit world in a state of trance, give them the gift of prophecy, and inspire them spiritually. Through such activities, substituting for the Holy Spirit, they cooperate with earthly men to fulfill the will of God." (pg. 182; Emphasis mine). Further, Moon said, "If you are a clairvoyant...you should know whether your spirit guide is higher than you in spirit. If he is higher, it is all right. If he is not higher than you and you consult him, you lose…. They want to control you…. It is always dangerous, and you don’t gain anything, to be controlled by spirit. By understanding the Principle, you are in such a position that you can control and use and guide them." (See Unification publication, The Master Speaks, pg. 16)

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

Conclusion

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

  

Somewhere Under The Rainbow

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

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

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

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

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

The Vatican II sect is now doing the exact opposite of the True Church; defending sodomites and denying the indisputable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. This is especially true in the wake of the study underwritten by the Vatican II sect "bishops" in the United States and performed by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. The report is entitled The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, commonly known as the John Jay Report. It was published in 2004, and is available online (See http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/the-nature-and-scope-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-and-deacons-in-the-united-states-1950-2002.pdf).

 Last October, the Jesuit-run heretical rag, America magazine, published an essay entitled No, Homosexuality is Not a Risk Factor for the Sexual Abuse of Children, authored by one Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychiatrist and residing scholar at Santa Clara University who is also an adjunct professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Plante and the Vatican II sect are trying even harder to normalize the sexual deviants and one of the Four Sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance. (See https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/10/22/no-homosexuality-not-risk-factor-sexual-abuse-children).

Plante vs. The Truth About Sodomites and Pedophilia

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

• banning homosexual men from the priesthood would not prevent victimization
• it is a false belief that men with homosexual orientations cannot be trusted around male children and that their sexual impulse control is poor
• that “sexual orientation is not a risk factor at all," for sexually abusing children
• more boys are molested by V2 sect "priests" than girls because they are "more available"

What does the empirical evidence show? (Much of the section below is from research complied by Dr. Paul Cameron).

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

• criminality, including sex offenses
• illegal drug use
• driving under the influence

Please note the higher incidence of sex offences, yet Plante would have us believe sexual orientation is "not at all" a risk factor for sex crimes.

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

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

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

The Wisdom of the True Church

St. Bernadine of Sienna:

"No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God's law. ... "

St. Jerome
"And Sodom and Gomorrah might have appeased it [God’s wrath], had they been willing to repent, and through the aid of fasting gain for themselves tears of repentance." (See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30092.htm).

 St. Augustine
"Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust." (See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110103.htm).

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

Conclusion

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

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

Akin To Heresy

Vatican II sect author and apologist Jimmy Akin of "Catholic Answers" (https://www.catholic.com/) will strain all credulity to defend the indefensible. Nothing false "Pope" Francis says or does will keep him from explaining how he's "really Catholic" and not heretical, just badly misunderstood and much maligned. Of course we fools need Mr. Akin, a former Protestant who joined the Vatican II sect, to explain it all to us. It would be unimaginable just 60 years ago to think we need a layman to explain the words and deeds of the pope. What kind of Magisterium (teaching authority) can't teach without constant explanations of what was really meant from self-styled lay "theologians"?

Recently, Akin defended Francis against a letter (signed by 19 members of the Vatican II sect) released April 30, 2019, which accuses Bergoglio with heresy and asks the "bishops" to take action. It was signed by academics, including a "priest," Aidan Nichols, an author and "theologian." The fifteen page letter reads in part, "We are addressing this letter to you for two reasons: first to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict [i.e., crime]of heresy, and second, to request that you take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation of a heretical pope." (See https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/theologians-accuse-pope-francis-of-heresy).

Discussing a "heretical pope" is a contradiction in terms, much like discussing a "square circle." There can be no such things by the very definition of the terms involved. Akin, on the other hand, wants people to jam square pegs into round holes and see how everything fits nice and neat in his own wacky version of "Catholicism." Akin does not attempt to defend Bergoglio by pointing out to the signatories that a heretic cannot, by Divine Law, be pope. To admit that would be both correct Catholic theology and accepting a premise that would put him in the position of maintaining the possibility of (horrors!) sedevacantism.

In his May 2nd article for the National Catholic Reporter online, entitled "On Charging a Pope with Heresy," Akin sets forth his case that Bergoglio is not guilty of heresy, and what would be necessary to make the charge stick. (See http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/on-charging-a-pope-with-heresy). Rather than get bogged down with his defense of false pope Francis, this post will concentrate on Akin's own explanation of what elements would be necessary for Bergoglio to be guilty of heresy. I will then demonstrate how two of his criteria are at odds with Church teaching, and when corrected, Bergoglio does indeed meet the requirements for being a heretic.

Akin's Elements for Heresy

Akin writes that the following criteria must be met to show the pope is guilty of heresy:

1. The Magisterium has infallibly defined some specific truth

2. It has infallibly defined that this specific truth is divinely revealed, creating a dogma
3. The pope has been baptized (that’s easy)
4. The pope’s words or actions indicate that he refuses to believe the dogma
5. His words or actions cannot be understood in a way consistent with the dogma
6. He does so obstinately

Let's apply them to Bergoglio. As to #1; the Magisterium has defined some specific truth. In his article, Akin states:

...for a truth to require divine and Catholic faith, the following conditions must be met:

1. It must be divinely revealed (i.e., be found in Scripture or Tradition)
2. The Magisterium must have proposed it to be divinely revealed
3. The Magisterium must have done so, either by (a) the solemn magisterium or (b) the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Jorge Bergoglio denies many dogmas, but I will focus on two: (a) There is only One True Church, and (b) that One True Church is absolutely necessary for salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus--Outside The Church There Is No Salvation). Pope Eugene IV, in the Apostolic Constitution Cantate Domino, teaches ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms-deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (See Denzinger #714; Emphasis mine)

Pope Innocent III in 1215: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423; Emphasis mine)

Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum (1302), infallibly declared, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The Nicene Creed: "...I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." (Emphasis mine).

That pretty much makes the case that the Magisterium has defined there is only ONE True Church, and outside of Her, no one is saved. Lest anyone have reservations as to Akin's second criterion being met, i.e., "It has infallibly defined that this specific truth is divinely revealed, creating a dogma," theologian Salaverri teaches: "From the documents of the Church it is clear that the necessity of belonging to the true Church is a dogma of faith." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB [1955], pg. 446; Emphasis in original). Also, "Therefore it is an Article of divine and Catholic Faith to be professed by all that the Church necessarily and indefectibly is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." (Ibid, pg. 472; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). Akin's fist two criteria are met. The third criterion is admitted by Akin, and acknowledged by all, that Bergoglio was validly baptized in the True Church.

The fourth criterion in Akin's article is "The pope’s words or actions indicate that he refuses to believe the dogma." What has Bergoglio said? "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." Is it taken out of context? Not if you believe his good friend and co-author, Rabbi Abraham Skorka. The leftist rabbi has said, "When he [Francis] speaks about evangelization, the idea is to evangelize Christians or Catholics," to reach "higher dimensions of faith" and a deepened commitment to social justice, Skorka said. "This is the idea of evangelization that Bergoglio is stressing — not to evangelize Jews. This he told me, on several opportunities." (See https://news.yahoo.com/rabbi-whose-good-friend-became-pope-060646630.html).
It is impossible to believe there is no salvation outside the Church and not try to convert everyone--including Jews--just as Our Lord commanded us to do in The Great Commission, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded thee. And surely I am with thee always, to the consummation of the world." (St. Matthew 28:19-20).

How about "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being." (See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Francis). The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As Pope Pius XII taught: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (See Mystici Corporis Christi, [1943], para. #13 and 14). God and His Church are inextricably united. God is indeed Catholic because that is His One True Church; His Mystical Body on Earth.

Furthermore, Bergoglio adheres to the teaching of Vatican II, which says, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..." (See Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3; Emphasis mine). He believes in the false ecclesiology of Vatican II, wherein there is a "Church of Christ" distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, yet resides there in its "fullness" because it contains all of the "elements" of the Church of Christ. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation. The New Ecclesiology is mutually exclusive of the True Ecclesiology pre-Vatican II.

Akin's fifth criterion is "His [Bergoglio's] words or actions cannot be understood in a way consistent with the dogma." This allows Akin to give a false veneer of orthodoxy to Bergoglio's statements and actions by employing "semantic gymnastics." For example, he might say something along the lines that when Bergoglio said, "There is no Catholic God," what he really meant was that God created all people and not just Catholics, so in that sense "there is no Catholic God" because he is Creator of all regardless of religion. Of course, he would have to ignore the context as well as the testimony of men like Skorka, to whom Bergoglio explained himself. Nevertheless, we need not bother delving into that difficulty. The actual problem is that Akin's fifth criterion is contrary to Church teaching. It is a false principle.

As was written in my post "The Case Against Roncalli:" 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."

Hence, Bergoglio's statements, even if ambiguous, must be interpreted as heretical, or more precisely, "heretical by defect." Finally, Akin's sixth criterion tells us Bergoglio must be "obstinate" in his heresy; i.e., the alleged need for "canonical warnings," proof that he knows he is being heretical, and other R&R claptrap. Once again, he is wrong:

According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, CUA Press, [1932], pg. 35) Again, MacKenzie, "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

Summation

As to the six criteria of Jimmy Akin for showing the pope to be guilty of heresy, the first four are met. Bergoglio denies(at least!) two truths of Divine and Catholic Faith. He's baptized. His words and actions, even from before he was "elected pope" indicate he refuses to believe these dogmas. The last two criteria are false principles; the Church cannot teach ambiguously as Akin believes, and "obstinacy" is not a requirement, as theologian MacKenzie explains. Conclusion: Bergoglio is a heretic, and from before his election, as he accepted the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology. Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot have fallen from office because he could never attain to it in the first place:

 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).

Conclusion

Is Jimmy Akin of good will, or is he so invested in "saving" the false papacy of Bergoglio that he will go against the manifest weight of the credible evidence and refuse to recognize that there has been no pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958? I have demonstrated that false pope Francis does reject two dogmas of the Faith, and he refuses to believe them, as evidenced in both his words and actions. Akin goes against Church teaching in his last two criteria for showing a pope is a heretic because the Church cannot teach ambiguously, and "obstinacy" ("warnings, " alleged "trials" by clerics, etc.) are neither possible or necessary for a pope who falls into heresy to lose his authority. 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).

 Lastly, Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his "election" which means he was precluded from obtaining the papal office by Divine Law. Let's pray for Jimmy Akin to give people real "Catholic Answers" regarding heresy and "Pope" Francis. 

Singing For Satan---Part 23

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

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

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

The "Clean-Cut" Boys of the 80s

 While parents of children and teenagers in the 1980s didn't like most of the pop and rock music, there were some artists who appeared "wholesome" and didn't sport the long hair and spandex pants of the heavy metal groups, or have the "drugged out" look of some other artists. Their songs seemed upbeat and not particularly offensive, so they got a "pass" from many parents. These are the musicians I've dubbed "the clean-cut boys." Looking relatively normal (or even handsome), and with seemingly innocuous lyrics, parents looked the other way when their children listened to them. That was a big mistake. 

Just as marijuana is a "gateway drug" to harder substances, so too are these bands/artists a "gateway" to more evil. Rather than looking rebellious, mostly singing about drugs and alcohol, and making frequent occult references, the vast majority of the "clean-cut boys" music revolves around promiscuity. They also throw in some sappy love songs, which really are harmless, to mask their true designs. Compared to the other bands in this series of posts, it probably seems harmless enough. Herein lies the problem. First, God does not "compare" sinners. In other words, if you are in mortal sin, you are at enmity with God. If you die unrepentant, you will go to Hell. Yes, there are varying degrees of suffering in Hell, but eternal torture away from God is the end result whether it's one mortal sin or one thousand. One mortal sin against the Second Commandment makes you worthy of Hell, just as one mortal sin against the Seventh Commandment. 

Second, there is no more insidious way to get someone to lose their Faith (and subsequently their morals) than by sins of impurity. Our Blessed Mother is claimed to have said at Fatima, "More souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh (i.e., mortal sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments) than for any other reason." I believe it. No one has a natural desire for drugs or violence, but there is a natural desire for sexual gratification. Since the Fall, humanity's nature is wounded and is inclined to evil. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) has this to say about concupiscence:

 In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense.(See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm). 

By passing off songs of lust as "love songs," these "clean-cut boys" arouse the base passions. They also take some subtle jabs at religion in general and Christianity in particular, trying to make it look foolish---as just some "nonsense" that gets in the way of "fun." True fun is no sin, and real sin is no fun. The only thing sin and fun have in common is that they are both three letter words. People listening to these artists will think sexual sins are "no big deal." Once you start down that road, you're on the wide road that leads to Hell. Below are four of the "clean-cut boys" who hit the peak of popularity in the 1980s.

1. Huey Lewis and the News

Hugh Anthony Cregg III (b. 1950) is better known by his stage name, Huey Lewis. Lewis was baptized and raised in the One True Church. He and six others formed the band Huey Lewis and the News in 1979. They had a run of hit singles during the 1980s and early 1990s, with nineteen top ten singles cutting across the Billboard Hot 100, Adult Contemporary, and Mainstream Rock charts.

Their most successful album, entitled Sports, was released in 1983. The album shot the group to worldwide fame, which expanded when the song The Power of Love was featured in the hit film Back to the Future, and was nominated for an Academy Award. Making use of catchy hook lines and an updated 1970s horn section, the ruggedly handsome and generally well-dressed Mr. Lewis is quite the deceiver. In an interview about his beliefs, Lewis had the following to say:

I believe god (sic) is alive today, forever and tomorrow. I feel that a lot of the folklore attached to rock and roll is drug orientated. In retrospect I thank god (sic) that I was blessed with a clean and sober attitude towards myself and others around me. When we shot "I Need a New Drug," I think I was confronting that reality. The bible helped me in larger than life ways. It clarified things for me and helped me to avoid romantic notions concerning drug abuse. (See http://yearofthe.tripod.com/weirdmagazinebidweirdlyso/id44.html)

The Bible clearly didn't help him clarify many other important things.  His song I Need a New Drug, replaces narcotics with sex. His videos are very suggestive. He says, "I've always been a big lover of women. I think that MTV gave me a chance to portray myself as a lover.I can't think of a thing that could be more romantic than being on stage." (Ibid).

I want a new drug, one that won't go away
One that won't keep me up all night
One that won't make me sleep all day
One that won't make me nervous
Wonderin' what to do
One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you
I'm alone with you
I'm alone with you, baby (Emphasis mine)

Lewis frequently uses God's Name in vain. He also takes a jab at Christianity in the song Jacob's Ladder:

I met a fan dancer
Down in South Side Birmingham
She was running from a fat man 
Selling salvation in his hand
Now he's trying to save me
We'll I'm doing alright, the best that I can
Just another fallen angel
Trying to get through the night
Step by step, one by one, higher and higher
Step by step, rung by rung 
Climbing Jacob's ladder
Coming over the airwaves
The man says I'm overdue
Sing along, send some money
Join the chosen few
Well, Mister I'm not in a hurry
And I don't want to be like you
All I want from tomorrow
Is to get it better than today (Emphasis mine)

Lewis equates Christianity with TV Protestant preachers out for money. Despite his claim that the Bible clarifies things for him, "Jacob's Ladder" is spoken about in Genesis 28:12. During his dream, Jacob saw "the angels of God" ascending and descending on it. Yet, Lewis has himself going up on it as "another fallen angel" (demon). In the song Whole Lotta Lovin' a man is looking at pornographic magazines. He's tired of masturbating and wants to get back to the "real thing."

I'm tired of these girly magazines
I want to stop dreamin', and get back home to the real thing
Late last night I read the letter you sent
Woke up this morning, under a tent
We've got a whole lotta lovin' to do (Emphasis mine)

2. John Cougar Mellencamp 

John Mellencamp (b. 1951), went by the stage name John Cougar, then John Cougar-Mellencamp, and finally back to his birthname. He has amassed twenty-two Top 40 hits in the United States. In addition, he holds the record for the most tracks by a solo artist to hit number one on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart, with seven. In 2008, Mellencamp was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Possessing youthful good looks, Mellencamp attempts to portray himself as a "good old Midwestern country boy."

He's been married three times, starting when he got his seventeen year old girlfriend pregnant and eloped. His daughter, Michelle, emulating the excellent example set by her father, had a daughter at age 18, making Mellencamp a grandfather at 37. His musical message is clear; if you only follow the lyrics.

His song Hurt So Good is about sado-masochism:
You don't have to be so exciting
Just trying to give myself a little bit of fun, yeah
You always look so inviting
You ain't as green as you are young
Hey baby it's you
Come on girl now it's you
Sink your teeth right through my bones, baby
Let's see what we can do
Come on and make it a
Hurt so good
Come on baby make it hurt so good
Sometimes love don't feel like it should
You make it hurt so good

His song I Need A Lover tells the story of a man who just wants to use women for sex and tell them to "hit the highway" when it's over:

Some girl who'll thrill me and then go away
(I need a lover that won't drive me crazy)
Some girl that knows the meaning of ah-
Hey hit the highway!

The song Golden Gates mocks Christianity:

Ain't no golden gates gonna swing open
Ain't no streets paved in natural pearl
Ain't no angel with a harp come singin'
Leastways not that I know of in this world...

I don't need to see the whole thing go down
I don't need to see another lonely man
I don't need to see a woman crying for the savior
Holding on to some moneyman's hand (Emphasis mine)

In Serious Business, Mellencamp sings:
So have some dinner, baby
Play some records
Just remember one thing, son
This is serious business
Sex and violence and rock and roll
This is serious business
Sex and violence and rock and roll (Emphasis mine)

Mellencamp nicely summed up his philosophy of life in a 1982 interview with People magazine, "...I hate schools, governments and churches." (October, 1982). He is an ardent supporter of sodomites and other sexual perverts. (See, e.g.,  https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-mellencamp-indiana-religious-freedom-law/)

3. Bryan Adams 

Bryan Adams (b. 1959) rose to fame in Canada and the United States with his 1983 album Cuts Like a Knife and turned into a global star with his 1984 album Reckless. He was nominated for 15 Grammy Awards, and was inducted into the Hollywood Walk of Fame in March 2011. He has sold over 17 million albums worldwide.

Adams is a handsome Canadian, and looked like "the boy next door" when he rose to fame at age 24. His songs are all about the libido. The hit song Run to You details Adams' need for self-gratification with multiple sex partners, as he cheats on one woman with another.

She says her love for me could never die
But that'd change if she ever found out about you and I
Oh but her love is cold
Wouldn't hurt her if she didn't know, 'cause
When it gets too much
I need to feel your touch...

She's got a heart of gold, she'd never let me down
But you're the one that always turns me on
You keep me comin' 'round
I know her love is true
But it's so damn easy makin' love to you (Emphasis mine)

In the February 1985 edition of Rock magazine, Adams says promiscuity is an acceptable way to deal with loneliness (pg. 62). His song One Night Love Affair confirms this idea:

You're the silent type
And you caught my eye
But I never thought that I'd be touchin' you
How was I to know
I'd let my feelings go
And that I'd be yours before the night was through
Yeah, one night love affair
Tryin' to make like we don't care
We were both reachin' out for somethin'
Oh, one night love affair
Pretendin' it ain't there
Oh, and now we're left with nothin'
When the mornin' breaks
We go our separate ways
If the night was made for love it ain't for keeps (Emphasis mine)

Also, the song Summer of '69 tells of having sex "now or never."

Ain't no use in complainin'
When you've got a job to do
Spent my evenings down at the drive-in
And that's when I met you, yeah
Standin' on your mama's porch
You told me that you'd wait forever
Oh, and when you held my hand
I knew that it was now or never
Those were the best days of my life
Oh, yeah (Emphasis mine)

4. Genesis and Phil Collins/Peter Gabriel

Genesis was formed in England in 1967. Thought to be Christian because of the name (and their debut album entitled From Genesis to Revelation), they are quite evil. The two most well known members were their first lead singer and songwriter Peter Gabriel (b. 1950), and the drummer who took Gabriel's place after he left, Philip (Phil) Collins (b. 1951). Both Gabriel and Collins had solo careers that surpassed Genesis by far.

Genesis has sold approximately 150 million albums worldwide. They were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2010. All of the musicians in the band looked respectable in contrast to their contemporaries in rock and pop. On their first album, Nursery Cryme, there is a song entitled The Musical Box. The lyrics are based on a story written by Gabriel, about two children in a country house. The girl, Cynthia, kills the boy, Henry, by lopping his head off with a croquet mallet. She later discovers Henry's musical box. When she opens it, Old King Cole plays, and Henry's spirit returns. The spirit begins aging fast. This causes him to experience a lifetime of sexual arousal in a couple of minutes, and he tries to convince the girl to have sexual intercourse with him. However, the noise causes his nurse to arrive, and Cynthia throws the musical box at the spirit, destroying them both. The album cover shows Cynthia holding a croquet mallet, with a few heads lying on the ground.

The songs were so long (The Musical Box was approximately 10 minutes), most listened for the beat and didn't pick up on just how sick some of the lyrics were on the album. They went more commercial (especially under the leadership of Collins) and changed to more subtle messages.Those messages were veiled references to drugs and taking jabs at religion. They would leave the sex to Gabriel and Collins as solo acts.  Invisible Touch (1986), was not about a woman but cocaine:

Well I've been waiting, waiting here so long
But thinking nothing, nothing could go wrong, but now I know
She has a built in ability
To take everything she sees
And now it seems I'm falling, falling for her.
She seems to have an invisible touch yeah
She reaches in, grabs right hold of your heart
She seems to have an invisible touch yeah
It takes control and slowly tears you apart

The song Jesus He Knows Me mocks Christianity by equating it with phony Protestant preachers--a favorite ploy of these artists:

You see the face on the TV screen
Coming at you every Sunday
See that face on the billboard
That man is me
On the cover of the magazine
There's no question why I'm smiling
You buy a piece of paradise
You buy a piece of me
I'll get you everything you wanted
I'll get you everything you need
Don't need to believe in hereafter
Just believe in me
'Cause Jesus he (sic--throughout the song) knows me
And he knows I'm right
I've been talking to Jesus all my life
Oh yes he knows me
And he knows I'm right
And he's been telling me
Everything is alright
I believe in the family
With my ever loving wife beside me
But she don't know about my girlfriend
Or the man I met last night
Do you believe in god (sic)
'Cause that's what I'm selling
And if you want to get to heaven
I'll see you right
You can see the mocking video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-rfCnW5VlE

Peter Gabriel was raised an Anglican, but considers himself a "Buddhist-Christian." He said, "When I’m thinking of God I’m a Buddhist, when I’m in pain and despair I’m a Christian." (See https://www.theawayteam.com/RANT/quotes.html). He also understands the power of music:
"There has always been a strong relationship between music and religion. It is because they both plug directly into the heart and can have real power for good or evil." (See https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0300272/bio; Emphasis mine)

He has been using his music for evil. He wrote the music for one of the most blasphemous movies, The Last Temptation of Christ, which denies the Divinity of Our Lord and depicts Christ being tempted by imagining Himself engaged in sexual activities. Gabriel was "proud" to have helped produce that trash:

"If people’s faith is so weak that it can be destroyed by a film, then it really isn’t much to begin with. I think people may find themselves reviewing their own lives and their own points of view on religion as a result of the film. I’m very proud to have been a part of it."

His most popular song, Sledgehammer, is about his penis. The term "sledgehammer" is a metaphor (one of many in the song) for his phallus, and wanting to engage in sex with the woman to whom he sings:

You could have a steam train
If you'd just lay down your tracks
You could have an aeroplane flying
If you bring your blue sky back
All you do is call me
I'll be anything you need
You could have a big dipper
Going up and down, all around the bends
You could have a bumper car, bumping
This amusement never ends
I want to be your sledgehammer
Why don't you call my name
Oh let me be your sledgehammer

Phil Collins is a Freemason, and as a general rule, will not discuss religion. (See https://hollowverse.com/phil-collins/). His song Thru These Walls is about a voyeur and pedophile pleasuring himself to what he sees and hears:

 I can hear through these walls
I can hear it when they're foolin' around
I can hear through these walls
And I hear every sign, every sound
I can hear through these walls
In the dark with the shades pulled down
Every word that they say
Every move they make feels it's coming my way
My favorite moment
Putting the glass up next to the wall
Imagination
Tho' I see nothing, I hear it all
Putting my sign up
Do not disturb me, speak or shout, inside out
Oh and my clothes, they're all laid out
I can see through my windows
I can see the girls and the boys
I can see through my windows
And I can imagine the noise
I can see through my windows
I can see them playing with toys
Oh, I hope it won't end
Ooh, if I promise not to touch, just be a friend...

Ah yeah
Ah yeah
Ah yeah
Ah yeah (Emphasis mine)

The song Like China is about him trying to seduce a virgin:

Your skin is smooth as silk and your eyes like stars
You're just like a picture book standing there
But I can't go on
No, I can't go on thinking you don't feel the same way as I do
I'll be so careful I'll hold you like china
I'll promise not to hurt you I'll hold you like china
You won't feel nothing, I'll hold you like china
'Cause I know it's your first time (Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

The "Clean-Cut Boys" are not what they appear to be, and what they want you to think of them. They are perverts and evil men trying to ensnare people into a general acceptance of sin. They look nice, but mostly (or exclusively) undermine God's Law on purity and entice people to sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. These sins will lead, in many cases, to loss of faith and morals. Our Lord warned us of such people: "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness." (St. Matthew 23:27).