The Theology Of An Ecumenical Council

 All of us familiar with the Vatican II sect know it was a creation of what was supposed to be the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church. Since the alleged "pope" who convoked it (Roncalli--John XXIII), and the alleged "pope" who signed the documents (Montini--Paul VI) were not true Vicars of Christ, the Council and its decrees are worthless. Nevertheless, how many Traditionalists understand what, exactly, an Ecumenical Council is and what it is supposed to do? How many understand what Vatican II produced and how it cannot be reconciled with true Catholic teaching? In this post, I will set forth in part one, the theology of an Ecumenical Council, and in part two, the specifics regarding Vatican II. The information for part one I have gotten and condensed from theologian Fenton in a chapter he wrote for a theological work entitled The General Council: Special Studies in Doctrinal and Historical Background, CUA Press, [1962], pgs. 149-182.

Part One:The Theology of Councils

• How many kinds of Church councils are there? 

According to Theologian Turrecremata there are three classes of councils: Ecumenical (aka "Universal" or "General"), provincial councils, and diocesan synods. The last two categories are usually disciplinary in nature and are a function of the Authentic Magisterium. Unless specially promulgated by the pope, they have no binding force upon the entire Church.

An Ecumenical Council, Turrecremata defines as, "...the congregation of the major prelates convoked by the special authority of the Roman Pontiff to deal solemnly and with common purpose with the Christian religion under the presidency of the Pope or his delegate." (Cited by theologian Fenton, as above, pg. 158).

If an Ecumenical Council teaches on a matter of Faith and/or morals it is infallible by the extraordinary Magisterium (i.e., in Dogmatic Canons approved by the pope) or by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) if not by Dogmatic Canons.

Even in matters of Universal Disciplinary Law, all decrees would be infallible.

There have been twenty Ecumenical Councils from Nicea I in 325 AD to the Vatican Council of 1870.

• What are the twelve reasons for which Ecumenical Councils can/should be called?

1. For a more mature and effective deliberation about matters affecting the Catholic Church

2. That there may be a more solemn and extensive authority for the repudiation of heresy and the condemnation of heretics

3. To put an end to schism

4. For bringing back heretics into the Church, and/or for the confutation of heretics through disputation

5. When great and powerful enemies face the Church

6. To ask God's guidance required for the proper direction of the Church

7. When grave danger or grave threat of persecution faces the Church, and when the aid of the entire Church is considered requisite to deal with this problem

8. In order that the integrity or the solidity of the Faith may be assured through a complete acceptance of the constitutions and the definitions issued by some preceding council--there would be failure on the part of considerable numbers of prelates to enforce the decrees issued previously by one of the sovereign pontiffs

9. In order to inquire into a suspicion of heresy directed against the Roman Pontiff [Turrecremata held, as do all theologians and canonists since at least the Vatican Council of 1870, that the Roman Pontiff, as a private theologian, can fall into heresy and lose the pontificate. This would not be the case of a Council judging the pope (which cannot be done), but of a Council under a pontiff judging whether or not a previous pope was a heretic and non-pope.]

10. In order to defend the Roman Pontiff against attacks made against him

11. When there is grave doubt as to the validity of a papal election

12. For a more efficacious, solemn, and universal reformation of the Church

• What is to be done if the decrees of one Council seemingly ran counter to another Council?

There are three (3) principles to be observed:
1. Where there are two genuine Ecumenical Councils, both of which are legitimately approved by the Holy See, there is no possibility of any contradiction between them in matters of Faith and Morals. 

2. Where there is a difference in terminology, it is essential that the meaning set forth in the earlier of these two legitimate Ecumenical Councils should not be represented as having been modified or corrected by the later Council.

3. Where laws passed or enacted by a later Council differ from precepts imposed by a former Council, those of the more recent Council are to be followed.

• What are the six causes which make the calling of an Ecumenical Council useful?

1. To condemn a heresy never before condemned by the universal Church

2. Two heal a schism between two or more men (who have reasons to be taken seriously) claiming to be the validly elected Roman Pontiff

3. The common and united resistance against some enemy of the Church

4. The suspicion of heresy against some Roman Pontiff

5. A serious doubt as to the validity of a papal election

6. The general reformation of abuses and vices that have crept into the Church

Part Two: Vatican II Facts In Light of the Above Principles

• When did Vatican II take place and why was it convoked?

The idea of a 21st Ecumenical Council was studied by Pope Pius XI who rejected the idea in 1923. It was studied again by Pope Pius XII who rejected the idea in 1958, just a few months prior to his death on October 9th of that same year. Roncalli (John XXIII) announced on January 25, 1959, he would call an Ecumenical Council to "update" the Church and make Her "relevant" to the modern world.

Vatican II opened on October 11, 1962 and closed on December 8, 1965. There were four (4) sessions:

First Session: October 11 to December 8, 1962.

Second Session: September 29 to December 4, 1963.

Third Session: September 14 to November 21, 1964.

Fourth Session: September 14 to December 8, 1965.

You will look in vain among the reasons for calling an Ecumenical Council (listed above) which would justify Vatican II. 

• How many documents did Vatican II produce?

There were sixteen (16) documents in total; four constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations.

• What were the documents about?

The four constitutions: 

Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

Gaudium et Spes, Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

The nine decrees:

Christus Dominus, The Pastoral Charge of Bishops

Presbyterorum Ordinis, The Ministry of Priests

Perfectae Caritatis, Restoration and Adaptation of Religious Life

Optatam Totius, Training Priests

Apostolicam Actuositatem, Apostolate of the Laity

Ad Gentes, Missionary Activity of the Church

Orientalium Ecclesiarum, The Eastern Rite Churches

Unitatis Redintegratio, Ecumenism

Inter Mirifica, Social Communication

The three declarations:

Dignitatis Humanae, Religious Liberty

Nostra Aetate, Relationship of the Church with non-Christian Religions

Gravissimum Educationis Momentum, Christian Education

• Are these documents of the Council compatible with past Councils and papal teachings?

In a word: NO. Every single one of these documents represents a departure, to one degree or another, from the One True Faith. In some cases there are virtual word for word contradictions with past teaching. Also, teachings that had always been solemnly condemned as contrary to the Faith received official approval at Vatican II.

• How is this possible? Wouldn't the Holy Ghost prevent the pope from promulgating error, evil, and outright heresy?

Yes, He would. Even though Roncalli was not a valid pope (See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html), he never signed a single Council document. That nefarious distinction belongs to Montini (Paul VI) who signed and promulgated all sixteen documents. It is a dogma of the Faith that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false and/or evil to Her members. Yet the documents of Vatican II are both false and evil.

Therefore, we must conclude either: (a) the Church can defect and we must deny the dogma of Indefectibility, ceasing to be Catholic [and give $teve $kojec a large donation on his useless blog] OR (b) Montini was not the pope. This is the precise reason I'm a sedevacantist. 

You will often hear Feeneyites claim e.g., that Pope Pius XII taught Baptism of Desire in his Address to Midwives, which is not infallible, so it doesn't affect his papacy. They get it exactly wrong. They understand defection in a way contrary to Church teaching. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."(See Oeuvres Completes. 9:232; Emphasis mine). The defection can't take place in his official capacity as pope. It is not that Paul VI was a true pope, picked up his pen, signed Lumen Gentium, and the Holy Ghost left him because he ceased to be pope. Rather, had Paul VI been pope on November 21, 1964, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing that document. The fact that he signed is morally certain proof that he had already fallen from office through the profession of heresy as a private person. 

• What are the major errors of Vatican II?

This would take several posts! However, if I had to boil it down, there are two main errors that drive all the others: a false ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) in Lumen Gentium, and the ecumenism that directly flows from it, as evidenced in Unitatis Redintegratio, and Nostra Aetate.

• Explain these two major errors and how they conflict with past Church teaching. 

1. False Ecclesiology. The traditional and true teaching of the Church is that the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same entity; just as the planet Earth and "the third planet from the Sun in our solar system" are both one and the same. In Lumen Gentium, paragraph #8 sets up a false dichotomy where the "Church of Christ" and the "Roman Catholic Church" are not the same.

The paragraph in question states, "This Church [of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity." (Emphasis mine). The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, because She possesses all the "elements" of the Church of Christ, but the Church of Christ also subsists in other religions according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but having just some is good too, and it brings religions to "unity" and people to salvation. 

Traditional Teaching: "22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed...It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit." (See Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, para. #22; Emphasis mine)

Vatican II applied by "St." JPII (Wojtyla): "There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ...It is rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism...This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement." (See Ut Unum Sint, para. #42; Emphasis mine). 

2. Ecumenism. The traditional and true teaching of the Church is that salvation is found in the One True Church alone. All other religions are false and are pathways to Hell. True ecumenism is converting those outside the Church. In Unitatis Redintegratio, we read in para. #3: "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..." In Nostra Aetate  we read, "She [the Church] regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." (para. #2). 

Traditional Teaching:  "We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: 'The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.' Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: 'There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.'" (Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, para. #5;Emphasis mine). 

Vatican II teaches:  "Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination...The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions...The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems." (See Nostra Aetate, para. #2 and 3; Emphasis mine). 

• What are we to conclude about Vatican II?

1. It was not convoked for any legitimate purpose. The modern world must conform to Christ, not vice-versa.

2. It taught great evils, especially a false and heretical ecclesiology and an evil ecumenism.

3. These false and evil teachings directly contradict the teachings of all past popes and Councils.

4. The Church cannot give that which is false and/or evil. It is the dogma of Indefectibility.

5. Therefore, these evil teachings were produced by a false Robber Council, convoked by a false pope (John XXIII) and promulgated by another false pope (Paul VI). 

Vatican II and its false popes created a new, man-made sect that is not Catholic and must be rejected.

Conclusion

There have only been twenty Ecumenical Councils from 325 AD to 1870. The alleged twenty-first Council can in no way be considered legitimate, nor can its "popes." There is nothing to "recognize and resist." There is only a man-made sect spawned in the Masonic Lodges and constructed by Modernists, both of whom take their marching orders from Satan. We must rather be part of the Traditionalist movement, the remnant of the One True Church. The Vatican II sect we must "denounce and destroy" by making others aware and getting them to leave and join with us.  

Are You Positive?

 Negative theology is the term bandied about by the Vatican II sect to describe Traditional Catholic moral and dogmatic teachings on subjects like Original Sin, sin (in general), doing penance, sacrifice, and the reality of Hell. If you ever had the misfortune of attending the Novus Bogus "mass" you will see the theology of "I'm OK, You're OK." What's important is that you feel good about yourself, and telling people Hell exists and you might go there takes away a bit of the ol' joie de vie. The invalid service or "celebration of the Eucharist (sic)" unfolds as a fulfilled prophesy of the condemnations issued by Pope Pius XII in his great encyclical Mediator Dei:

• Gone are the venerable hymns such as Holy God We Praise Thy Name and Ave Maria. Instead, the "Entrance Song" will be Here Comes the Sun by The Beatles, the "Communion Hymn" will be I Will Always Love You by Whitney Houston, and the concluding song will be Don't Stop Believin' by Journey. (I find it supremely ironic that the "hymn" they play most often when they pass around the collection basket is Take Our Bread). We need to feel warm, fuzzy, and happy

•  The crucifix which shows Our Lord's horrific suffering and death for our sins is replaced by a cross with a corpus of a robed, resurrected Christ who shows no wounds and looks happy

• Almost no one goes to Confession (sin doesn't exist) but all are invited (and go) to receive "communion," including the local pro-abortion politician (think: Andrew Cuomo), those who live in open and notorious adultery (think: Andrew Cuomo), and those who do not profess the Catholic Faith in any way (Think: Bill Clinton--and Andrew Cuomo!) We are all part of God's family, and we don't want anyone to feel left out or bad about themselves. "Active participation" means it's not really "mass" without "communion"

• Funerals are now canonizations. Black vestments were abolished and replaced with white vestments because we want to be happy that the deceased is in a better place. Purgatory and Hell make you suffer and black colors make your feel sad; we can't permit that to happen

• The altar is now a table because we eat, drink and are merry at festive dinners in honor of someone. The "servers" may be male or female and those who pass out the bread and wine to people who stand and eat/drink are usually females and often dressed immodestly, if not immorally. The "priest" and people must face each other because we are all "equal in Christ" and need to shake hands and kiss to express "peace." Any idea of sacrifice, having to kneel as unworthy sinners, and men who are in superior positions of authority by Divine Law are all antiquated and negative theology that must be rejected

Here's what Pope Pius XII wrote in paragraph #62 and #114 of Mediator Dei in 1947:

62...Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

114. They, therefore, err from the path of truth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary for the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here there is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration.

It's as if Pope Pius XII were given a glimpse into the future. The great pontiff once said, "The greatest sin of our age is that we have lost all sense of sin." Remember, this was back in the 1950s. So how did we get here where "feeling good" and "being happy" is all that matters? It began with the Masons and Modernists who believe this life is what really counts (most even rejecting or agnostic about an afterlife), and it caught on in many Protestant sects. When the Great Apostasy struck, it quickly became embedded in the theology of the Vatican II sect. This post will trace the origin and consequences that follow even today from the unholy fusion of pop psychology and theology. 

Enter Norman Vincent Peale

Norman Vincent Peale (d. 1993) was one of the best-known Protestant ministers. He was the pastor of the Marble Collegiate Church, a "Reformed Church in America" congregation in New York City, from 1932 to 1984. Peale was close friends with a psychologist, Smiley Blanton, and decided to incorporate humanistic psychology with Protestant theology, in order to bring it more into conformity with Masonry; Peale was a 33rd degree Freemason (See https://scottishrite.org/giving/donor-recognition/hall-of-honor/hall-of-honor-portrait-gallery/). Interestingly, Peale had no formal training or education in psychology, and Blanton (to his credit) distanced himself from the preacher.

In 1952, Peale published his all-time best-selling book entitled The Power of Positive Thinking. The book was on the New York Times Bestseller List for 186 consecutive weeks, selling just over five million copies, and translated into fifteen languages. On the very first page, Peale gives his narcissistic credo, "Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities!" (See p. 1). God is conspicuously absent except when invoked to "confirm" you can do anything and be, in actuality, your own god who can do anything. He wrote, "God is energy. As you breathe God in, as you visualize His energy, you will be re-energized!" (See "No More Stress or Tension," Plus: The Magazine of Positive Thinking, pgs. 22-23, May l986).

Peale was very much involved in the occult as he claimed to have been in touch with the souls of the dead on several occasions. Of one encounter, in which he claimed to be "visited" by his deceased father, Peale wrote:

I was only with him. Getting closer, he smiled that great smile of his. He raised his arm in the old-time gesture.... I arose from the chair, advanced to the edge of the platform, reaching for him. Then he was gone, leaving me shaken, somewhat embarrassed by my actions, but happy at the same time....(See Norman Vincent Peale, "When Loved Ones Leave Us," in Plus: The Magazine of Positive Thinking, pgs. 6-8, March 1985). 

Peale preached what appealed to a person's ego, and it worked. His congregation grew to over five thousand people. When a politician who was attacked by Peale was asked what he thought of the preacher as he came out of another Protestant church, he pointed at his Bible and quipped, "I find Saint Paul appealing and 'Saint' Peale appalling." That pretty well sums up Norman Vincent Peale, whose work would get a boost from another Protestant minister who admired him; Robert Schuller. 

An Hour of Satanic Power

Robert Harold Schuller (d. 2015) was also a minister in the Reformed Church in America. Greatly influenced by Peale, Schuller built the "Crystal Cathedral" (so named because it was the largest glass building in the world at the time of its completion in 1981) where he would broadcast his Hour of Power TV show on Sundays. His message is simple: his audience can do anything that they want to, that everything is possible for a "possibility thinker." In order to think this way, you must think positively and feel good about yourself.

In his book Self-Esteem: The New Reformation (1982), Schuller informs his readers, "I believe in positive thinking. It is almost as important as the resurrection of Jesus Christ." He goes on to define sin as "Any human condition or act that robs God of glory by stripping one of his children of their right to divine dignity. Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem." (pg. 14; Emphasis mine). In an interview with Time magazine, Schuller was quoted as saying, "I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counter-productive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.” (See Time, March 18, 1985). I guess letting them go to Hell is preferable to "low self-esteem."

Schuller's message is not to have any negative thoughts or to admit something is impossible. You can be and do whatever you want as long as you believe in yourself. He was an ardent ecumenist who allowed "guest preachers" from Islam and New Agers.  When Schuller was planning for the building of his Crystal Cathedral, he made a special trip to the Modernist Vatican to ask for Wotyla's blessing on the building plans, which "St" John Paul the Great Apostate readily granted. (See Foundation Newsletter, March-April 1990). When Schuller's organization fell on hard financial times due to a multitude of reasons, they sold the Crystal Cathedral to the Vatican II sect's Diocese of Orange, California. It was renamed "Christ Cathedral" and the sect wanted to "respect" the Protestant architecture as much as possible--not too hard since the false religions have more in common than what little separates them.

Schuller promotes "Five Truths" that have infected most Protestant sects and the Vatican II sect:

1. Accept yourself
2. Love yourself
3. Be true to yourself
4. Forgive yourself
5. Believe in yourself

Did you notice how God plays an integral part in all these "truths"?  Neither did I.

The Teaching of the One True Church

Before this post goes any further, I want to make it clear that there is such a thing as true love of self that the Church has always taught. There is a certain level of self-regard which our Creator gave to us. First, then is self-love as God's handiwork; we know we can lead a good life and attain to Heaven. Second, there is the natural inclination to wish for our own happiness both here and hereafter (most importantly). The command of Christ implies this when He said:

And there came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing that he had answered them well, asked him which was the first commandment of all. And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these. (St. Mark 12:29-31). 

Christ told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." How could we love our neighbor if we do not love (want happiness for) ourselves? Third, is feeling good about yourself for following Christ and fitting into His Divine Plan. The most downtrodden person can take heart that he serves a purpose in God's plan, even if God alone knows what that purpose is and how it plays out in the grand scheme of things. I'm often asked (even challenged) by some readers to reveal my identity. One of the reasons I won't is because I don't matter. I'm merely an unworthy instrument of Christ. Let my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Let the teaching of the Church speak for itself. Whatever good this blog may accomplish, all glory and honor be to Christ alone. God knows who I am, and that's all that matters. 

Compare all this with the train wreck called Vatican II.

Immoral Theology

Here's what a Jesuit "priest" and "moral theologian," Thomas Massaro, had to say about Vatican II and the "new moral theology."

For centuries, Catholic moral theology had been dominated by a near-obsession with sin and rebuking enemies of the faith. It was far clearer what an embattled church stood against -- what was anathema -- than what Catholics stood for and what they should yearn for in the moral life. In documents like the 1864 Syllabus of Errors, church authorities issued sweeping condemnations of freethinking ideas that challenged the laws and social norms laid down by popes and bishops...

By replacing words like anathema with terms like dialogue, collegiality, communion and participation -- words that evoke dynamic openness rather than static essences -- the council fathers thoroughly revived the creative side of Catholic ethics. The seriously constricted moral imagination of the faithful could now move beyond the previous preoccupation with law, sin and culpability and focus more upon moral freedom, the virtues, spiritual discernment, and above all, the role of conscience in the moral life.(See https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/moral-theologian-looks-back-vatican-ii; Emphasis mine). The "role of conscience" according to Modernists, is not to act according to a properly formed conscience which follows Church teaching, but rather it is a license to do what you want to be happy. 

Argentinian apostate Jorge Bergoglio epitomizes the Modernist "role of conscience" and feeling good about yourself.  Consider:

• Murdering unborn children is no big deal (don't obsess over "small-minded rules")
• You need not believe in anything but yourself to achieve salvation ("The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!"--And he meant salvation, not redemption. Another time, a boy informed Bergoglio that his father, though wanting his children to be baptized, was himself an atheist and had died. Jorge responded, "Be sure, he is in Heaven with Him."
• Be true to yourself and follow your "conscience." Let everyone live in a way that makes them happy. ("If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?")
• Doctrines don't matter if you feel good about whatever you believe ("Proselytism is solemn nonsense" and "There is no Catholic God.")

The Sacraments all reflect anthropocentric narcissism as well. Besides "mass" and "communion" as explained above:

• Marriage is about personal happiness, not the raising of a family. Get divorced and "remarried" and go to "communion"
• Extreme Unction, meant to forgive sin, give strength to fight the devil, and prepare the soul to meet God in Judgement (and restore health if it is God's Will) becomes the "Anointing of the Sick" to make you feel better. It is no longer necessary to be in danger of death, it can be given "communally" to those with minor ailments like the common cold
• Penance is now "Reconciliation." Penance implies acknowledging you are sinful and must amend your life; change your ways and "Pick up thy cross and follow Me." (St. Matthew 16:24). Reconciliation is a nice and easy way to make up with someone, no need to feel bad. The confessional is replaced with a "Reconciliation Room" where you have a face to face encounter with an invalidly ordained "priest" turned ersatz social worker
•  Confirmation is not becoming a "soldier of Christ" who must fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil. It is "becoming mature" --another reason to feel proud and happy
• Baptism is not the washing away of Original Sin (and all other sins if an adult), it's about welcoming someone into the "community of believers"
• Holy Orders does not set a man apart as an alter Christus. He is not special in anyway because we are all special. He is the "president of the assembly," and pseudo-social worker. With sin and sacrifice gone, who needs a priest? 

Conclusion

The Vatican II sect, and now society as a whole, have bought into the idea that the only real sin is having low self-esteem, and not feeling good about yourself according to modern, pagan pop psychology. It seeped into the Protestant sects from Masonry and Modernism. After the Robber Council of Vatican II, the newly founded sect took it all in. Society reflects this when e.g., schools must give everyone a trophy (not just to the winners of academic and sporting events) so kids can "feel good;" even when they haven't worked hard enough to deserve that feeling of accomplishment. 

Vatican II has given us a man-made religion with a feel-good spiritualism without any specific obligations. Anyone, even the most decadent, can be a member in good standing while continuing their money-grabbing, promiscuous, sin-filled lifestyle. Morality and dogma are all relative. The only thing about which they are positive is the self-absorbed need to feel happy and be positive.  

Mesmerized

Hypnosis seems to be one of those subjects that everyone knows about but few understand. The term itself conjures up images of everything from stage entertainment, to curing the urge to smoke, and even government control and manipulation of the masses. Many articles have appeared in the popular press, from Time magazine and Newsweek, to self-help publications. A couple of posts ago, someone left a comment asking me about the Church's position on hypnosis. The question intrigued me very much. Although I had a hazy idea about it, I never researched the topic in-depth until now. I have often written how I learn much from my readers, especially since questions like this one get me to learn more about topics I probably would not have looked into but for the query.

According to The New American Desk Encyclopedia, hypnosis is "an artificially induced mental state characterized by an individual’s loss of critical powers and his consequent openness of suggestion." (See Third Edition (NY: Signet, 1993), p. 600). The term itself comes from Hypnos, the Greek god of sleep, and was coined by physician James Braid, an early investigator and promoter of "mesmerism," as hypnosis was originally called. That name comes to us from German doctor Franz Mesmer (d. 1815) in the 18th century to label what he believed to be an invisible natural force possessed by all things, and could be used to heal people.In the early days, hypnotism or mesmerism was also referred to as "magnetism" or "animal magnetism;" not to be confused with magnetic forces properly speaking. (See http://www.historyofhypnosis.org/franz-anton-mesmer.html). Hypnosis has changed considerably since then.

In this post I will explore the answers to three pertinent questions: What, exactly, is hypnosis in modern times? What are the benefits and dangers of using hypnotism? What is the official teaching of the Church on the issue of hypnotism?

Defining the Topic

As late as the 1970s, there was no agreed upon definition of hypnosis or hypnotherapy. Ask any two practitioners what constitutes being "in a hypnotic state," and you'll likely get two very different responses. Just like chiropractors, some hypnotherapists are very much mainline medicine in their approach, while others bring in a perspective that is decidedly New Age Movement. Back in 1977, psychologist and associate editor of Psychology Today, Daniel Goleman, who has a PhD in clinical psychology from Harvard University, wrote, "After 200 years of use, we still cannot say with certainty what hypnosis is nor exactly how it works. But somehow it does." (See Daniel Goleman, “Hypnosis Comes of Age,” Psychology Today, February, 1977, p. 60).

According to the Handbook of States of Consciousness (1986), pg. 136, hypnosis is the inducement of a "trance" which is initiated by a set of procedures called "induction techniques." When this altered state has been achieved, then various therapeutic maneuvers in the form of suggestions or other psychological interventions are performed and are called the practice of "hypnotherapy." This altered state is characterized by increased suggestibility and enhanced imagery and imagination, including the availability of visual memories from the past. There is also a lowering of the planning function and a reduction in reality testing. 

The following is a good summation of the development of hypnosis in the United States (and most of the world):

From the early years of the 20th until the 1950s, hypnosis was more or less confined to the laboratory and the classroom. Joseph Jastrow (1863-1944) ran a long-running course at the University of Wisconsin on the medical uses of hypnosis. Although he is often overshadowed by the success of his student, Clark Leonard Hull, Jastrow is an important figure in the rise of popular psychology. After his retirement from the academic circuit, he published many books and hosted radio shows on psychological topics (as well as designing optical illusions). His work helped to make genuine psychological and hypnotic concepts available to a lay audience. At that time, most people, if they’d thought about it at all, would have thought about hypnosis as the sort of mythical mind-control beloved of popular novelists and Hollywood movie-makers.
(Ibid). 

It wasn't until the 1960s that hypnosis came into vogue with those who are in the New Age Movement and occult practitioners--not to mention the general populace of the world. All kinds of near miraculous claims were being made about hypnosis. You could instantly stop smoking, lose weight, end phobias and obsessive-compulsive disorders, improve self-esteem, use hypnosis in place of surgery, meet your "spirit guides," and recall "past lives."

What is legitimate and medically proven use of hypnosis? What is quackery or dangerous? Those questions will be investigated next.

Medical Use of Hypnosis

There are proven and efficacious uses of hypnosis in modern medicine. The modern and most accepted definition of medical hypnosis used by the prestigious Mayo Clinic is "a trance-like state in which you have heightened focus and concentration. Hypnosis is usually done with the help of a therapist using verbal repetition and mental images. When you're under hypnosis, you usually feel calm and relaxed, and are more open to suggestions. Hypnosis can be used to help you gain control over undesired behaviors or to help you cope better with anxiety or pain. It's important to know that although you're more open to suggestion during hypnosis, you don't lose control over your behavior." 

Some of the uses of medical hypnosis are enumerated by the Mayo Clinic as:

• Pain control. Hypnosis may help with pain due to burns, cancer, childbirth, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, temporomandibular joint problems, dental procedures and headaches
• Hot flashes. Hypnosis may relieve symptoms of hot flashes associated with menopause
• Behavior change. Hypnosis has been used with some success in the treatment of insomnia, bed-wetting, smoking, and overeating
• Cancer treatment side effects. Hypnosis has been used to ease side effects related to chemotherapy or radiation treatment
• Mental health conditions. Hypnosis may help treat symptoms of anxiety, phobias and post-traumatic stress

(See https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/hypnosis/about/pac-20394405)

Notice the cautionary verbiage, may help and used with some success. It is not some miraculous panacea. There is also no danger of someone being made to think he's a chicken or the other stage tricks used by popular sleight-of-hand "stage magicians." 

Finally, there are risks and dangers. The Mayo Clinic reports:

 Adverse reactions to hypnosis are rare, but may include:

• Headache
• Drowsiness
• Dizziness
• Anxiety or distress
• Creation of false memories

Be cautious when hypnosis is proposed as a method to work through stressful events from earlier in life. This practice may cause strong emotions and can risk the creation of false memories. (Ibid; Emphasis mine). 

There are several serious dangers with the creation of false memories. Someone who is hypnotized to remember their attacker in a crime may identify an innocent person.  For this reason courts will generally not accept hypnotic testimony at trial, just as lie detectors are also eschewed by criminal procedure. However, it may stigmatize the accused, and (wrongly) convince the victim someone is the culprit when they are innocent.

Another huge danger is that false memories can give credence to the idea of "past lives" and the false doctrine of reincarnation.  So-called "past lives" brought out under hypnosis are fraught with difficulties. According to hypnosis expert James E. Parejko in an article published in the Journal of the American Institute of Hypnosis (Jan. 1975), he listed four factors of subconscious intervention during hypnosis: (a) Expectations of the hypnotist, (b)  diminished critical thoughts in the mind that accompany deep trance states, (c) a triggering idea by the hypnotist, and (d) the ability of the mind to hallucinate.

A case in point of inherent unreliability was that of Bridey Murphy. Through hypnosis, a woman allegedly regressed to 18th century Ireland. She suddenly spoke Gaelic, described the coastline where she lived, discussed the customs and spoke like a life-long Irish native. Upon further investigation, "Bridey Murphy" (the name of the person she allegedly was in this "past life") never existed but was a figment of the woman's imagination. She was raised by her grandmother who spoke Gaelic and kept history books on Ireland which she related to her granddaughter. The hypnotic subject had forgotten the language and history as she got older, but it was brought back under hypnosis with the mind giving life to the memories by manufacturing a name.

In the famous cases of Dr. Ian Stevenson, who investigated children claiming to have "spontaneously recalled" a past life, the doctor himself admits of bias in his study due to cultural conditioning. He wrote, "...the principal sites of abundant reported cases are: northern India; Sri Lanka; Burma; Thailand; Vietnam; western Asia, especially south central Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria; and northwest North America, among the natives of that region. The peoples of these areas (of the groups among whom the cases occur) believe in reincarnation." (See Stevenson, Ian, "The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Sept. 1977, 308).  He further admits, "Neither any single case nor all the investigated cases together offer anything like a proof of reincarnation." (Ibid, 325).

Could "past life" regression/memories be the result of demonic influence or possession? The teaching of the Church will guide us.

The Teaching of the Church

To be certain, there are problems of a spiritual nature with hypnosis. First, there are many New Agers who hypnotize (or self-hypnotize) to induce an altered state of consciousness to meet (or arrange for their patients to meet) their "spirit guides." This is no different from a shaman; pagan witch-doctors who use drug induced trances for the same purpose. This can definitely open a doorway for demonic involvement. There are people who go into a trance to be clairvoyant, i.e., the ability to gain information about an object, person, location, or physical event through extrasensory perception (ESP); this is also an invitation to the forces of Satan. The patient of hypnosis also becomes easily influenced by the hypnotist, so they will be more amenable to doing/thinking as he or she does. If the hypnotist is an occultist or anti-Christian, this can be a danger to the Faith.

There have been reports of hypnotists taking sexual advantage of their patients. That could be true--or a false memory. A popular belief is that a hypnotized subject cannot be made to do something against her will or to commit an evil act. But this is simply not true.A hypnotist can even lead a person into committing murder by creating an extreme fear that someone is attempting to kill him. The patient would discern it as an act of self-defense. Through hypnotic deception, it is possible to cause one to do something against his will by disguising the act into one which would be within his choice.

What does the Church teach? Is hypnosis wrong per se? Can it have a legitimate use? Can Traditionalist Catholics make use of it? Since there has been no pope since 1958, we have no Magisterial pronouncements on modern hypnosis past the 1950s. However, we have been left with some important guiding principles to employ.

A) The Decisions of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
The first decree of the Holy Office was in response to bishops who asked about the new practice of "mesmerism" or "magnetism." It was issued on June 23, 1840 under Pope Gregory XVI. The second decree repeated the first and was more expansive. That decree was issued on July 28, 1847 under Pope Pius IX in response to a query from the Archbishop of Montreal, and the pertinent part reads as follows:

The art of magnetism [hypnotism] is practiced in the said diocese. Is it a crime when someone claims to know what happened in distant places, or what is altogether interior and hidden in the mind? When it is used to discover thieves or criminals? When it is used to put asleep those who must undergo amputation of limbs, in order to make them insensible to pain?

Response of the Holy Office: Excluding all error, and excluding fortune-telling and the invocation of demons, whether explicit or implicit, the use of magnetism, namely the mere act of  using physical means otherwise permissible, is not prohibited on moral grounds, provided it does not lead to an end that is illicit or improper in any manner. But the application of purely physical principles and means for truly supernatural matters and effects, in order to explain them physically, is nothing but an entirely forbidden and heretical deception.

On July 30, 1856, the Sacred Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office sent a letter of instruction ("general decree") to all bishops on the issue of hypnotism with the approval of Pope Pius IX. The letter was prompted by the actions of some who were trying to contact the dead and divine the future in an hypnotic state. The pertinent part reads:
It has been discovered that a new type of superstition is being introduced by magnetic phenomena with which many contemporaries concern themselves, not to deepen knowledge of the physical sciences, which is quite just, but to deceive and lead men astray; for they think they can detect hidden, remote, and future things by the art of magnetism, or by deception, especially with the help of young women who are totally dependent on the magnetizer. 
...some, neglecting the legitimate scientific research for a study of the curious, with great danger to souls and to the detriment of civil society, gloried in having found a certain principle divining and predicting the future. Hence, with the help of the artifices of somnambulism and what is called clairvoyance, these young women, carried away by gestures not always modest, chatter about seeing invisible things. They have the rashness to preach on Religion itself, to summon the souls of the dead and receive their replies: to perceive unknown and distant things; and to work other similar superstitious matters, so that a great profit will surely come to themselves and their masters from divining the future. In all these practices, wherever they use deceit or illusion, a completely forbidden and heretical deception is present, a scandal against upright morals, since physical means are directed to effects that are not natural. 

As theologian Gormley teaches about the decrees of 1840 and 1847, the following conclusions may be drawn:

1. superstition in the use of animal magnetism [hypnosis] is condemned
2. the condemnation is restricted to uses which are condemned today [1961] by medical science
3. animal magnetism [hypnosis] itself is not condemned
4. like the medical profession of the time [1840s], Rome did not know the nature of hypnosis

Theologian Gormley further comments:
The question of the morality of hypnosis was definitely a new problem when the Holy Office was questioned in 1840; but its answer is not new. It simply stated the constant and universal teaching of the Church on superstition.

Further, on the general decree of 1856, he writes:
It is noteworthy that this letter explicitly calls the scientific use of magnetism just; its condemnation is reserved to the superstitious use of the trance. 
(See Medical Hypnosis, Catholic University of America Press, [1961], pgs. 89-100).

B) The Teaching of Pope Pius XII
In his Allocution "Anesthesia: Three Moral Questions" of 1957, His Holiness Pope Pius XII discusses hypnotism as an anesthetic [used in conjunction with medicine by physicians] and had this to say:

But consciousness can also be reduced by artificial means. There is no essential difference, from the moral standpoint, whether the result is obtained by administration of narcotics or by hypnosis--which can be called a psychic analgesic. But hypnosis, even considered in itself, is subject to certain rules...

The subject which engages us here is hypnosis practiced by a doctor to serve a clinical purpose, while he observes the precautions which science and medical ethics demand equally from the doctor who uses it and from the patient who submits to it. The moral judgement which we are going to state on the suppression of consciousness applies to this specific use of hypnosis. But We do not wish what We say of hypnosis in the service of medicine to be extended without qualification to hypnosis in general. In fact, hypnosis, insofar as it is an object of scientific research, cannot be studied by any casual individual, but only by a serious scholar, and within the limits valid for all scientific activity. It is not a subject for a group of laymen or ecclesiastics to dabble in, as they might in some other interesting topic, merely for experience or even as a simple hobby.
(See AAS 49 [1957], 140-141).

Two points of the pontiff are discerned: (a) the clinical use of hypnosis as an anesthetic is morally permissible when practiced by a doctor, and only a doctor or "serious scholar" may use it for scientific research; (b) the doctor or serious scholar is to observe the precautions of both science and the moral limits for all scientific research. (See theologian Gormley, Ibid, pgs. 114-116).

If hypnosis were evil per se, the Holy Father would have forbidden all use, which he did not do.

Practical Considerations

In my opinion, based on all of the foregoing, there are five practical considerations that must be seriously contemplated before undergoing hypnotherapy:

1. There must be serious reason(s) to undergo hypnosis. Such reasons would include the need to lose weight because of serious health risks (morbidly obese), as a help for anesthetics for those with great anxiety over an operation, etc.

2. The religious, ethical, and philosophical orientation of the hypnotherapist must be checked. It must not be someone who is involved in the New Age, Wicca, the occult, or who believes in reincarnation and other pagan ideas. The hypnotherapist should be (ideally) a Traditionalist, or at least someone accepting and never opposed to the One True Faith. Someone the patient trusts should always be present during the procedure.  

3. The emotional history and condition of the patient is important. Someone with a history of serious mental disturbance should not undergo hypnosis, and those with chronic neurosis should avoid it unless absolutely necessary. An altered state of consciousness could have more harmful than positive effects on such persons.

4. The degree of technical expertise and past experience of the therapist. He must be a serious scholar of the discipline and have an impeccable reputation.

5. You should seek counsel from a Traditionalist cleric, receive Confession beforehand, and disavow all evil intentions. Hypnosis must be restricted to the natural realm. It would be a good idea to receive Holy Communion beforehand, and wear a St. Benedict medal during the process itself. You must have no intention of doing anything supernatural. 

Conclusion

Hypnotherapy can be beneficial for serious and limited reasons, and always using the right precautions. Those who dabble in hypnosis (whether with a hypnotherapist or using self-induced hypnotic techniques) open the doorway to the demonic. 

Theologian Gormley cites theologian Lynch in his work, whom he says represents the basic contention of the approved theologians on the subject of hypnosis in 1961, just before the Robber Council Vatican II:

If competent and conscientious physicians can assure us that hypnosis is medically sound, the moral problem will not be especially complicated. The precautions dictated by good medicine will also satisfy the demands of good morals.

Made This Way

 "Fr." James Martin (b. 1960) is a Jesuit in the Vatican II sect. "Ordained" in 1999, he is editor-at-large of the Modernist rag, America magazine. In 2017, Begoglio appointed Martin as a consultant to the  Modernist Vatican's Secretariat for Communications. He is best known for his promotion of sodomites in society and in his sect (as if they don't have enough perverts bankrupting them morally and financially already). In 2017, he wrote a best selling book entitled Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. Martin delivered a talk in Dublin last year at the Vatican II sect's "World Meeting of Families," which was subsequently published in America magazine under the heading "How Parishes Can Welcome LGBT Catholics." (See https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/08/23/father-james-martin-how-parishes-can-welcome-lgbt-catholics).

Keep in mind that Martin is not talking about those who realize they have disordered passions, want to change, and remain celibate. No, he's talking about those who openly and proudly commit one of the Four Sins That Scream to Heaven for Vengeance. (The other three are murder, defrauding laborers of their rightful wages, and oppression of the poor). He chooses his words carefully at major events sponsored by Bergoglio to make it seem that he is only talking about sexual orientation and not sexually active sodomites. For the record, when you look at all of what he does and says, he means sexually active sodomites should be welcomed. Here are but two examples of  what "Fr." James Martin has said to prove my point:

•  In 2017, when an openly homosexual man said that he and his partner don't kiss during the "Sign of Peace" during the Novus Bogus "mass," Fr. Martin said he hopes that "in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband." (See https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/eight-extreme-things-fr.-james-martin-just-said-about-catholics-and) 
• In 2017, at Fordham University, Martin stated, "I have a hard time imagining how even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend [in a same-sex "marriage"] and say, ‘That is a loving act, and that is a form of love that I don’t understand but that I have to reverence." (See https://news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham-category/lectures-and-events/building-bridge-catholic-church-lgbt-community/)

In his "welcoming LGBT" talk, Martin poses "six fundamental insights" about sodomites, number two of which will be my focus in this post:

[Sodomites] do not choose their orientation. Sadly, many people still believe that people choose their sexual orientation, despite the testimony of almost every psychiatrist and biologist—and, more important, the lived experience of L.G.B.T. people. You don’t choose your orientation or gender identity any more than you choose to be left-handed. It’s not a choice. And it’s not an addiction. Thus, it is not a sin simply to be L.G.B.T. Far less, it is not something to "blame" on someone, like parents.

Martin is using the current #1 argument to justify the sodomite lifestyle and denigrate those who hold traditional moral values, to wit: Homosexuals are born this way. Eight years ago, the bisexual deviant, Lady Gaga (b. 1986 as Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta), had a runaway hit song Born This Way. It quickly became the anthem for homosexuals/bisexuals/transgenders and every other sexual pervert. The song's lyrics articulate a crude genetic justification for various forms of sick and sinful behaviors, encouraging society to adopt the most libertine sexual ethic possible.

No matter gay, straight, or bi
Lesbian, transgendered life
I'm on the right track baby
I was born to survive
No matter black, white or beige
Chola or orient made
I'm on the right track baby
I was born to be brave
I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby I was born this way (Emphasis mine).

The inherent argument in Gaga's song reflects the intense effort during the last 50 years to establish in the mind of the public that science confirms a biological/genetic causation for abnormal sexual behavior, thereby removing the "stigma" of immorality associated with such acts. Notice that the song equates race and ethnicity (real biological traits) with sex acts and behaviors. Since every decent person (and Christian) rightfully rejects racism and ethnic discrimination, then shouldn't we reject "discrimination" against sodomites? After all, this is "just another genetic trait," we are assured. Martin and Gaga both make the logical conclusion from a theological perspective; since God made the different races through the biological process, and since God (allegedly) made sodomites through the biological process, then your sexuality can't be any more sinful than your skin color. God cannot possibly hold as sinful a trait he intended people to have, like race. The most blasphemous and heinous implication is that the Church has misinterpreted the Bible and Sacred Tradition thereby defecting. She is not (and never was) the One True Indefectible and Infallible Church.

In this post, I will examine the ubiquitous "born this way" arguments, demonstrate their lack of  truth, and present recent evidence that perverts aren't born but made.

There is no "Gay Gene"

1. Correlation is not causation. In the morning if you hear a rooster crow in the countryside, it means the sun will rise. Only the ignorant and superstitious would believe that the crowing of the rooster caused the sun to rise. One action (crowing) came before the other (sun rising) on multiple occasions, but that is mere correlation.  Some genetic and biological factors correlate with a higher incidence of homosexuality among select populations. However, there are no genetic or biological factors that have been shown to cause homosexuality. There is a long and extensive body of research that shows a strong and consistent correlation between smoking and various diseases, such as lung cancer. The correlation is so strong, you could reasonably say smoking cigarettes causes a great risk of developing lung cancer. No factor(s) have been linked anywhere near to the necessary degree needed to make the same claim about causation and homosexuality. (See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/). 

There may be factors that cause a predisposition to homosexuality, but that doesn't make it a desirable trait. There is some evidence that there is a predisposition to alcoholism. Does being a lush and driving drunk suddenly become morally acceptable? Theologically, since the Fall, humanity is in an imperfect state and we are at war with our three enemies--the world, the flesh, and the devil. Even normal desires become wrong and must be resisted and altogether avoided, such as adultery and heterosexual promiscuity. That there are bad predispositions is not at all surprising from a theological viewpoint. 

2. The "Gay Gene" is a myth. 

Contrary to what James Martin would like you to think, scientific research has yet to find a so-called "gay gene." There is no region of the human genome that conclusively links homosexuality to any specific gene sequence. Claims by researchers that Xq28 is an "area of interest" in the genetic make-up of homosexual males has never been successfully verified. To date, there is no area of the DNA even remotely associated to lesbianism, and that surely weakens the "gay gene theory" even more. 

Studies of twins indicate a genetic contributing factor correlating to a higher occurrence of homosexuality. However, the earlier twin studies which claimed a much stronger correspondence for homosexuality among twins has now been refuted. Among homosexuals with an identical twin, in only approximately 20% of cases was their twin also homosexual. If homosexuality was a genetically predetermined trait, then the correspondence would be 100% and prove causation.  (See Cheryl L. Weill, Nature's Choice: What Science Reveals about the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation NY:Routledge [2009], pgs. 65-68). 

3. "Prenatal Hormone Theory" proves nothing. 

There is not one iota of evidence, as of this writing, that when an unborn child is exposed to hormones in the womb atypical for their gender the male brain is "feminized" and the female brain is made "masculine." A careful study of children with Disorders of Sexual Development shows this theory lacks verification. The idea of homosexual brains differing from heterosexual brains finds its genesis in overstated assertions about the differences between male and female brains. (See e.g., Weill cited above). 

Learning Perversion

The section above shows that the "born this way" arguments have no validity. Being a sodomite is not the same as being born with Caucasian or African-American skin pigmentation. However, a look at the statistics coming from Massachusetts by researcher Dr. Paul Cameron, shows that homosexuality is learned behavior. According to Dr. Cameron:

 In 1995, Massachusetts became the first state to ask high school students whether they were LGBT (6% of girls and 7% of boys said they were). In 2004, it legalized gay marriage. By 2015, responding to pro-LGBT policies and teachings, 18% of high school girls and 9% of boys (13% of students) said they were LGBT. A year later, a Gallup poll found that 15.5% of its 18–25 year-olds were ‘sexual minorities’ and Massachusetts had the highest fraction of homosexuals (after Vermont). Of course, genetically-based or ‘in-born’ phenomena take generations to change. What, other than learning, can account for this dramatic uptick in homosexuality in Massachusetts?...

If you accept that children can learn ‘almost anything,’ then it follows that some kids, when presented with a ‘strange deviation’ (like homosexuality), might — for reasons not well understood, but being ‘ripe for new things’ — try or even adopt that thing. LGBTs assume that if kids are told that various historical figures were LGBT, or worse, are told ‘THIS is how LGBTs make love,’ then given enough students, some will ‘come our way.’ The learned component of sexuality is why traditional thought held that society works best when children are taught by their parents, school, and culture ‘the right way’ to live and have sex; not about sexual deviations...(See https://www.familyresearchinst.org/; Emphasis mine--go to link for full report). 

The sodomites themselves know that they can pervert others to their sinful and depraved "lifestyle." In 1987, "gay activist" Michael Swift (also from Massachusetts) had this to say:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress,… Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.… The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence —will be abolished.… Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory.… All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men.… We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions.… Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks. (See Gay Community News, Feb. 15–21, 1987; Emphasis mine). 

The Theological Insanity of "Fr" James Martin

Martin (appropriately dubbed "Hellboy" by the excellent Traditionalist website Novusordowatch.org), ends his Dublin talk by giving ten suggestions that people can do to make their Vatican II sect parish "more welcoming" to sodomites. Keeping the list, I've substituted one of the other Four Sins that Scream to Heaven for Vengeance  (murder) where he discuses "LGBT Catholics" (sic). For the sake of brevity, I've only retained a couple of sentences for each suggestion. That should be more than enough to make my point:

Martin and his ilk essentially eviscerate morality. After all, what if there's a "murder gene" that causes one to be "born that way"? We can't hold them morally responsible and place them in jail (sodomy is no longer a crime), nor can we look upon them as sinners. Here's how we can make the parish more welcoming to them:

 1) Examine your own attitudes towards murderers and their families.

Do you believe someone is sinful because she’s a murderer or more inclined to sin than a person who hasn't committed murder?

2) Listen to them.

Listen to the experiences of Catholics who murder and their parents and families. Ask them: “What is it like to have a murderer for a child?” “How has the church helped you or hurt you?” And pay attention to what they say. To that end, be attentive to language that they say they find offensive and needlessly hurtful: "cold-blooded killer" for example. Names, words and terminology matter.

3) Acknowledge them.

Murderers should never be degraded or humiliated from the pulpit—nor should anyone. Just mentioning them can be a step forward. Sometimes in homilies I’ll say, “God loves us all—whether we’re old or young, rich or poor, pro-life or murderers."

4) Apologize to them. 

If murderers or their families have been harmed in the name of the church by murderphobic comments and attitudes and decisions, apologize.

5) Don’t reduce murderers to the call to respect life we all share as Christians.

 Murderers are more than the number of victims they've killed. But sometimes that’s all they hear about. Remember not to focus solely on murder but on the many other joys and sorrows in their lives.

6) Include them in ministries.

 Like everyone else in your parish who does not live up to the Gospels—which is everyone—murderers should be invited into parish ministries: eucharistic ministers, music ministers, lectors, bereavement ministry and every ministry.

7) Acknowledge their individual gifts.
Not only should we acknowledge the gifts that murderers offer in the church as a group but their individual gifts should be valued. Remember how important it is to acknowledge them, to praise them, to raise them up. Don’t hide their light under your bushel basket!

8) Invite everyone on the parish staff to welcome them.
You may have a welcoming pastor, but what about everyone else? Does the person answering the phone know what to say to a murderer who wants to have her child baptized?

9) Sponsor special events or develop an outreach program.
Bishop Christopher Coyne of Burlington, Vt., said: "I see no reason why murderers would not be welcome in church. There is more evidence...that a lot of this is biological; it’s not just something a person just makes as a fashionable choice or cultural choice. This is who they are...everyone is God’s creature, and I would invite anyone to come to the table."

10) Advocate for them.
I’m talking about incidents in countries where murderers are rounded up and thrown in jail or even executed for killing someone. There are many opportunities for parishes to stand with murderers who are being persecuted.

Conclusion

"Fr." James Martin, Lady Gaga, many politicians, and many in the scientific community are hell-bent (literally) on getting everyone to accept the now popular and false idea that sodomites are "born that way." I have stated in past posts that I consider sodomites to be one of the greatest threats to whatever is left of Christian civilization. My conviction only grows stronger with time. The Vatican II sect does not censure Martin, as Bergoglio puts him in a position of influence. There is a reason for this happening. When Bella Dodd warned that the Communists were infiltrating the Catholic seminaries, what most fail to report is that these were not merely Communists, but practicing sodomites. Whereas Communists might be inclined to convert when they hear the truth, the sodomites are completely against God. They go against nature itself; they will not be converted but will rather do the converting.(Even as "Uncle Ted" McCarrick had seminarians sleeping with him to get "promoted" in their "ecclesiastical career").  

Clear evidence points to deviancy as a learned behavior. As it becomes accepted as a biological trait, children will become more inclined to experiment with this "normal biological behavior" and find themselves converted to it. With "story time drag queens" in libraries, books that celebrate sodomites in schools, and movie/TV/music stars all promoting the sodomite lifestyle, is it any wonder the number of homosexuals is growing at an incredible rate? The number of Millennials, especially females, being homosexual or bisexual is shocking. Not long ago, the young lady who used to cut my hair (23 years old and very attractive) started talking to me about her girlfriend. I was taken aback, and asked incredulously, "You're a lesbian?" She told me she had a boyfriend, and he broke her heart, so she "started going with girls." Doesn't sound like she was biologically determined to me. 

There is much at stake in getting people to see sexual deviants as a product of biological necessity. First, it gives them sympathy as "not having a choice." Second, it absolves them (and their actions) of moral culpability. Third, it places a stigma on those who oppose them as "bigots" and as being the ones that have a problem--"homophobia"--a phobia being a mental disorder. Fourth, it undermines the belief in the Church, because Her teaching on homosexuality would be wrong. It would take away potential converts to Traditionalist Catholicism, and would make members of the Vatican II sect resigned to abandoning de jure all moral truths most of them have already jettisoned de facto. 

Perhaps, worst of all, "born this way" advocates will take away all impetus to do good. After all, if our behaviors are genetically determined, not only are bad acts acceptable, but a life of virtue, such as that lived by St. Francis of Assisi, can be equally dismissed because he was "born that way." Virtue, like sin, is a matter of choice. Sodomites seek acceptance so as to better destroy what's left of the family and the members of the One True Church. 

God has this to say of sodomites and their supporters:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1:24-32; Emphasis mine). 

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 4

 This is the next installment of my series to be published the first Monday of each month.

There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and convert them. In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible. 

Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.

In each month's post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of:

• The sect's history
• Their theology
• Tips on how to share the True Faith with them

Unitarian Universalism (UU)

The UU logo called "The Flaming Chalice." Even the UU sect itself cannot agree on what it means. 

The quintessential "all religions are equal" sect is the Unitarian Universalists (hereinafter "UU"). If you should ever walk into one of their "Congregation Halls," it looks like an empty Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) hall with folding chairs. The walls are usually white, and there is a small stage with an American flag and a podium. The place is devoid of all religious symbolism except for "The Flaming Chalice" (see picture above) usually displayed on the wall behind the podium. There is an actual "chalice" with a candle in it which they light during their services. Even The Flaming Chalice (both symbol and the physical object) is not always depicted the same way, and there is no officially sanctioned explanation as to what, exactly, it means. According to the UU website:

Unitarian Universalist congregations are free to use the UUA's logo in their congregational work, but they are not required to do so. Because of this, you may see many different styles of flaming chalices and other images used by Unitarian Universalist congregations. (See https://www.uua.org/beliefs/who-we-are/chalice). 

As to the meaning, a pamphlet on "The Flaming Chalice, " by one Susan J. Ritchie informs us:

It suggests the transformations that take place when we are held within religious community. When we light the chalice in worship, we illuminate a world that we feel called upon to serve with love and a sense of justice. (Whatever that means).  As I was researching the UUs, I couldn't help but think that in a few years this is exactly what the Vatican II sect will become. If you can grasp the concept (hard to do at first), they are committed to having no commitments, and believe that beliefs don't matter. The history of this amalgamation of self-contradictions will be examined first. 

A Union of Heretical Teaching 

Unitarianism is the heretical belief that arose after the Protestant so-called "Reformation" that God is not One in Three Divine Persons (The Most Holy Trinity). Rather, it adopts a Judaic or Islamic view of God being One. They reject Christ as God Incarnate, and the Holy Ghost is usually seen as an impersonal force. There are various sects that can be labeled as "unitarian" (with a lower case "u") because they teach the same about the nature of God (e.g. the Jehovah Witnesses). Unitarians (with a capital "U") come from the 16th century movement just described, and which spread first to England, and then the United States of America. 

Universalism is the heretical belief that every person will be saved. The early Church Father, Origen, believed in apocatastasis, the ultimate restoration and reconciliation of creation with God, which was interpreted by Universalists to mean the salvation and reconciliation with God of all souls which had ever existed, including Satan and his demons. The Church condemned Origen for this heresy. The Universalist movement died out, but was revived in the 18th century, especially in England. In the early 20th century, the sect came to the United States. 

In America, the two groups became cordial to one another, as they shared many beliefs and attitudes. The two groups merged officially in 1961, forming the Unitarian Universalist Association. When speaking of themselves, UUs frequently refer to themselves as simply "Unitarians" for short. 

A Sect Devoid of Theology

UU has adopted the "least common denomination" approach to theology. They espouse theological pluralism, as they became more and more adrift from anything even remotely resembling Christianity. It makes it extremely difficult to give an exposition of their worldview. They are without an official creed, having adopted The Seven Principles by which they operate. According to UU headquarters in Boston, these principles are "...drawn from sources as diverse as science, poetry, scripture, and personal experience."

Each congregation elects its own Board of Directors, and they work together. However, they are not hierarchical in any way, and are not bound to follow what their Boston headquarters proposes (although all congregations do, in fact, choose to accept the Seven Principles). 

Their clergy may be male or female and are called by the title "Reverend." Most of the clergy is female. They are elected by the congregation, and usually have some schooling in how to be politically correct and not offend anyone (I'm not being sarcastic). Once more, UU headquarters states the Seven Principles are 

Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves; Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit; Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature. (See https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/sources). 

They welcome any belief, as long as they conform to the Seven Principles. They specifically make a place for atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and Neo-pagans. What are these Seven Principles that can unite such divergent beliefs, you ask?

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person; (Yet they affirm the "right" to murder innocent unborn babies by abortion since its inception. They were calling for legalized abortion 12 years before Roe v. Wade. The sect officially calls itself "strongly pro-choice." They also affirm the "right" to doctor assisted suicide since 1988.)

• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; (They were the first sect to allow openly practicing sodomites as clergy, beginning in 1970. They came out in favor of same-sex "marriage" in 1996, and are committed to "LGBTQ+ rights.")

• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; (There is no "One True Faith" to the exclusion of all others. All beliefs are equal as long as they subscribe to the Seven Principles. In their own official words, Unitarian Universalists have many ways of naming what is sacred. Some believe in a God; some don’t believe in a God. Some believe in a sacred force at work in the world, and call it 'love,' 'mystery,' 'source of all' or 'spirit of life.' We are thousands of individuals of all ages, each influenced by our cultures and life experiences to understand 'the ground of our being' in our own way. Unitarian Universalists are agnostic, theist, atheist, and everything in between.--Emphasis mine)

• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; (People are free to make up their own set of beliefs and morals as long as they are not imposed on others and don't hurt anybody.)

• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; (There is no Divine authority. Humans are the ultimate authority and everything gets put to a vote.)

• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; (Whatever that means. Sounds more like the motto of Superman from the old 1950s TV series with George Reeves.)

• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part; (This is about their acceptance of Neo-paganism, New Ageism, environmentalism, and feminist worship of "Mother Earth." There is actually a popular course offered by many UU congregations called "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven" which teaches UU women about "goddess and nature worship.")   

The typical "worship service" (I'd like to know who the atheists are worshiping) consists of child-like, non-denominational hymns (Think: Michael Row the Boat Ashore with the Most Holy Name of Jesus, and the word "Lord" redacted and replaced with something secular and "non-offensive"). There will then be the lighting of The Flaming Chalice and a sermon given by the feminist reverend. Said sermon will tell everyone that there may or may not be an afterlife, so concentrate on bettering the environment, supporting the most left-wing fringe elements of the Democratic Party, and if there was such a person as the Antichrist, it's President Donald Trump. (Once more, a friend of mine attended a service of the UU out of curiosity not too long ago. It's basically what really happened). 

Proselytizing UUs

The average UU is either a baby-boomer or a millennial from a relatively wealthy background. They reject authority and don't like to be told what to do. Ironically, the want the government to control everything. Being a UU allows them to "Do as thou wilt," while feeling "spiritual." In the 1990s, they began to try and convert people to form a "one world faith" that will bring "universal peace and justice." Hence, you may be invited to a Sunday service so you can (allegedly) keep your own beliefs while following the Seven Principles to make the Earth a better place to live. Here are some general rules when engaging a UU:

1. Ask what they personally believe. Find out where they stand ideologically. UUs are all over the place. You could be talking to an atheist or a feminist pagan. It is important to find out what they believe so as to point out the inconsistencies and internal contradictions of their beliefs when combined with the UU membership.

2. The UU attack on exclusivistic religious beliefs is self-refuting and illogical. Show them. 

• It is impossible for UUs to exclude all exclusivistic positions since the very act of excluding them is itself an act of exclusivism. This act, in turn, would have to be excluded, which is yet another act of exclusivism needing exclusion, and so on. This is demonstrably illogical and self-refuting 

• All must accept the Seven Principles, and those who do not are excluded  

• They believe that those who accept the Seven Principles are right and those who don't are wrong. This is an exclusivistic claim to truth 

• Traditionalists are the most inclusive; we want all people to join us in the One True Church

3. They use broad terms that sound nice, but have no real meaning apart from Christianity.

• Both Traditionalists and UUs denounce racism and the Ku Klux Klan. However, only Traditionalists have an objective basis for doing so, because it is rooted in Divine Revelation and taught by Christ's One True Church (See e.g. Galations 3:28, and its interpretation by theologians). The UU has no objective basis for calling racism wrong. The UU can claim they don't like it, but that's just a personal feeling. They cannot appeal to any holy book or religious authority, since they accept all religions as good and true, so why should I believe this particular authority over another? If the UU responds that "all religions reject racism," you could point out that Satanism does not. Do they want to exclude Satanists? Aren't they against exclusion? If they appeal to the Seven Principles, ask what makes them objectively true. Is it because Boston Headquarters has a Divine mission, or that's simply the way some people voted? Being a UU necessarily means you don't believe in objective moral values 

• What exactly does the "inherent worth" of every human being mean? Why are unborn babies, with their own separate DNA, excluded from having such worth? The UUs support abortion on demand. Who decides when human life begins? If you don't know, shouldn't you prohibit abortion because it might be human life and you must err on the side of life? Just because you claim you don't know when human life begins, it does not logically follow that there is not a correct answer 

4. Beliefs in the UU are mutually exclusive; they cannot possibly work together or pray together.

• To give but one example, how do theists and atheists "pray" together? The latter excludes the very possibility of prayer itself. How do the UUs' vague Seven Principles apply to specific cases? Respect for the interdependent web of all existence --Principle Seven--will mean something very different to a pagan than to an atheist

• UU becomes very much like Masonry. You can believe whatever you want as long as you subscribe to the beliefs of the Lodge as Supreme. Doesn't that sound like the Seven Principles? 

Conclusion

Unitarian Universalism is a mass of self-refuting, contradictory beliefs. It started when two heterodox offshoots from Protestantism merged in the United States back in 1961. Adopting the liberal religious pluralism and Indifferentism of its surroundings, it seeks to unite all beliefs and no beliefs (atheism) under their Seven Principles; nice sounding statements that can have no application in the practical order. UU allows people to stay as they are without having to change their behaviors or beliefs so they can feel "spiritual."

Doesn't this sound like where the Vatican II sect will be in about ten years? They have creeds and rules that no one needs to obey in the practical order. They see all religions as having "elements" of the Church of Christ and are a "means of salvation." The R&R is, in a sense, already there. As long as you "recognize" Bergoglio, you can accept or reject what you like. You can attend the Novus Bogus and accept the new ecclesiology, or attend the Traditional Mass and reject the new ecclesiology. To do the latter is better, but if you do the former, you're "still Catholic." I shudder and think, "Can the One World Religion with the false prophet predicted in the Book of the Apocalypse be far behind?"