Monday, September 28, 2020

Supremely Wicked

As the regular readers of this blog know, I focus on a multiplicity of issues and how they should be viewed through the lens of the Traditional, Unchanging, Catholic Faith which has been "driven underground," so to speak, by the Great Apostasy at Vatican II. Hence, each week's topic is not always about Bergoglio the Apostate. As the "tagline" of this blog states, it's about "The World as Seen from a Traditionalist Catholic Perspective." I decided that my original topic for this post would be put off when the news was released on September 18, 2020 that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court had died from complications due to cancer at age 87. Immediately, there was an outpouring of praise and adulation of this woman (known by her initials as "RBG") who joined the High Court in 1993 when nominated by former President Bill Clinton. She was subsequently confirmed by the Senate to replace Associate Justice Byron White. (Ironically, Justice White wrote the dissenting, pro-life opinion in Roe v. Wade and Clinton made sure an avid pro-abortionist would replace him).

I was aghast at how many people were treating her as a "heroine" and "champion of women," and seen as above criticism. Even President Trump (not politically correct to be sure) spoke of her in glowing terms; most likely because the president realized he couldn't survive the backlash if he dared to speak the truth about this horrid jurist. There is an old aphorism, De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, which translates roughly as "Of the dead, [say] nothing but good" because it is wrong to attack someone's character when they cannot defend themselves. While this might apply to the average person, public figures are another matter. I will not allow another day go by without the truth about her record being known. Ginsburg being pro-baby killing and pro-sodomite is only the beginning of her promotion of evil.
Ginsburg was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for years. She served on the Board of Directors. According to the ACLU's own website:

Ginsburg deliberately chose the ACLU as the vehicle for her legal work, rather than an organization with a narrower women's rights agenda, in large part because she believed that the ACLU would enhance the credibility of the women's rights cause. Ginsburg has also said that she chose the ACLU because of the integral interconnection between civil liberties and civil rights, including women's rights. 'I wanted to be a part of a general human rights agenda . . . [promoting] the equality of all people and the ability to be free,' she said. (See; Emphasis mine). Bader Ginsburg knew all about the ACLU and proudly promoted their agenda. This agenda, as this post will show, has nothing to do with "human rights" or "women's rights." It attempts to destroy society and banish God from human thought. Most don't realize just how depraved that agenda really is and the untold harm it does to souls. WARNING! Some descriptions in this post are graphic in nature. Reader discretion is advised.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Short Bio
As most people of been besieged in the media with her "remarkable achievements," I offer here a concise biography, free from hyperbolic claims. Ginsburg was born Joan Ruth  Bader on March 15, 1933, in Brooklyn, New York. The second daughter of Nathan and Celia Bader, she grew up in a low-income, working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn.Ginsburg earned her bachelor's degree in government from Cornell University in 1954, finishing first in her class. She married law student Martin D. Ginsburg that same year. The early years of their marriage were challenging, as their first child, Jane, was born shortly after Martin was drafted into the military in 1954. He served for two years and, after his discharge, the couple returned to Harvard, where Ginsburg also enrolled. She became the first female member of the Harvard Law Review.

 Martin recovered from a diagnosis of testicular cancer, graduated from law school, and accepted a position at a New York law firm. To join her husband in New York City, Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she was elected to the school's law review. She graduated first in her class in 1959. During the 1970s, she also served as the director of the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union [and was on the Board of Directors]. In 1980 President Carter appointed Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She served there until she was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 by President Clinton. In 2016 Ginsburg released My Own Words, a memoir filled with her writings that date as far back as her junior high school years. The book became a New York Times Best Seller. In January 2018 Ginsburg appeared at the Sundance Film Festival to accompany the premiere of the documentary RBG. (This information excerpted from

The Communist Connection Of The ACLU and Director Ginsburg
The ACLU was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin, an agnostic, and a Socialist who became a convinced Communist. He said, "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." (See Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union: A Portrait, [1976], pg. 192). Baldwin was born to a wealthy family that was Unitarian. He got the idea of forming the ACLU to transform America via using the Courts and legal system. He counted among his closest friends the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the diabolical founder of Planned Parenthood. (Ibid)

 Baldwin told those who helped him found his organization that the ACLU was to disguise itself as a pro-American organization; Communism and Socialism were not to be mentioned. Instead, they were to talk about the Constitution and how their goal was to keep America free by enforcing the Constitutional rights of all citizens. They would enlist young and idealistic lawyers from law school, eventually winning them over to their subversive ideals and eventually getting them placed in high positions as judges. The ACLU began its relentless attack against traditional values in four areas:
  • Children
  • Marriage
  • Human Life
  • Religion
The Assault Against Children
 Jefferey Curley was a normal ten year old boy, living in Massachusetts, who liked baseball and riding his bike. Unfortunately, both parents needed to work, and he was a "latchkey kid," spending his time afterschool without supervision.  The year was 1997, and two sodomites, Salvatore Sicari (age 21) and Charlie Jaynes (age 22) had befriended the boy; they lived near him and would make conversation as well as taking him out to eat multiple times. On October 1st, Jeffrey's life would be brutally ended. The two perverts took Jeffery for a ride, ostensibly to go eat. Prior to that, the men had gone to the public library and accessed the website for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which promotes pedophilia and abolishing age-of-consent laws.  During the ride, Jayne offered to buy Jeffrey a new bike since his old one was stolen. He asked the boy to have sex with him in the back seat of the car as "payment" for the new bike. Jeffrey refused and tried to fight off Jaynes, but Jaynes got angry, pinned the boy down, and held a gasoline-soaked rag over his mouth and nose until the fumes killed him. 

Jaynes and Sicari then drove to a local store and purchased lime, concrete and a 50 gallon container, and headed out to an apartment Jaynes had been renting. There they had sex with Jeffrey’s corpse (necrophilia), then proceeded to place his body in the 50 gallon container and fill it with concrete. Early the next morning they dumped his body in a nearby river called “The Great Works River." Jeffery's body was eventually found, and both Jaynes and Sicari were found guilty. Sicari was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Jaynes was found guilty of second degree murder and will be eligible for parole in 2021, however in 2006 a former prisoner stated he heard Jaynes yell “I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again. I would pull him out of the grave and do it [kill and rape the boy] again and again.” The prisoner told sources “It was in his gut, it was how he really felt.” The crime was so heinous, the Massachusetts legislature came within one vote of restoring the death penalty.
(See e.g.,

In 2000, Jeffery's parents initiated a wrongful death lawsuit Curley v. NAMBLA, against NAMBLA for inciting the murder of their son. The ACLU came to the defense of NAMBLA.
According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group. The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

...According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse. ''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe. (See; Emphasis mine).

The ACLU won on a technical ground. Much has been made about the inaccurate claim that Ginsburg wanted the age of consent dropped to twelve years old, but no one can deny that she sat on the Board of Directors of the organization which protected child molestation advocates. Moreover, in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (where the 12-year-old remark was made in reference to gender-neutral language), she has gone on record asserting that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are "arguably" unconstitutional. (Page 195).

The Assault Against Marriage
In 2004, in New Paltz, New York, then-Mayor Jason West "married" twenty-five "same sex couples" which was against New York State Law at the time. He was charged on multiple misdemeanor charges for performing marriages without a license. The left-wing judge dismissed the indictment because "the state failed to show it has a legitimate interest in banning same-sex weddings." (See

The AP newswire of 2/26/04 reported that the Executive Director of the NY Chapter of the ACLU (which defended West) stated, "Bravo, bravo for the mayor. Equal rights for gay couples (sic) are long overdue. They are entitled to equal treatment under the law, including the right to marry and the family protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples." Are "equal rights" what sodomites (and their Communist ACLU allies) really want? That question was answered in 2011 when Andrew "Put the COVID patients in the nursing homes" Cuomo, a member of the Vatican II sect, made legalizing sodomite "marriage" a priority. 

One of my friends from law school was elected as a Republican member of the State Legislature; he was a member of the Democratic-controlled, 150 member State Assembly. When the same-sex "marriage" bill came up for a vote, he obtained the floor to speak. What he did next to expose the homosexual agenda was nothing short of brilliant. He proposed that to settle the matter, he would sit down with counsel for the Democrats and draw up a bill for a "New York State Domestic Partnership Bill" which would ensure homosexual "couples" get every single right as that of heterosexual couples. The only difference would be that heterosexual unions would be called "marriage" in respect to the long held societal and religious beliefs in New York, and the homosexual unions would be called "NYS Domestic Partnership"--only the nomenclature would be different.  The chamber went crazy with pro-sodomite legislators calling him a "fascist" a "homophobe" and the guards had to be called in to restore order. This is proof they don't want "rights," they want to destroy the institution of marriage. 

Why do Ginsburg and her ACLU comrades want to destroy the institution of marriage? The legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples affirms the belief that real marriage is the most valuable sexual relationship in society. If homosexual partners are called "married," it makes their relationship equal to heterosexuals and makes deviant, perverted behavior seem normal. It is a slap in the face to both the Natural Law and the Divine-Positive Law. Ginsburg thus (as far back as 1977) was contemplating as unconstitutional laws prohibiting polygamy and, in effect, "group marriage." The civil law is a great teacher, and it will teach that deviant sex is normal. This will encourage adolescents to experiment with such behavior, thereby increasing the number of homosexuals and bisexuals (there is already evidence of that happening). Moreover, your children will be indoctrinated in school, and you will get "diversity and tolerance" training at work. "Tolerance and respect" is a one-way street; you must tolerate and respect deviants, but they need not respect and tolerate your values and religious beliefs. 

If you think that the tragedy of Jeffery Curley is an isolated instance of murder caused by homosexual deviance, it is not. Homosexuality was rightly considered a mental disorder by the APA until they caved to political pressure in the 1970s, and until the 5-4 decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, homosexual sodomy could be criminalized (and it was in several states). Ginsburg was in the five member majority. 
Here are the statistics you should know:

The top six American male serial killers were all homosexual:
  • Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky
  • John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard
  • Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways
  • Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois
  • A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he had sex with their corpses--necrophilia--as in the case of  the murderers of poor little Jeffery Curley).
The pathology of eating one’s sexual victims also characterized Milwaukee’s Jeffrey Dahmer in 1992. He not only killed 17 young men and boys, but cooked and ate their body parts. The association between serial murder and homosexuality isn’t recent. Two gays compete for the spot of “world’s worst murderer.” During the Nazi reign of terror, Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene strangled, crushed, and gnawed boys and young men to death while he raped them. Though his grand total is uncertain, he often murdered as many as 100 a day. Gilles de Rais (Bluebeard) brutally destroyed the lives of 800 boys. Each lad was lured to his home, bathed and fed. Just as the poor boy thought "this is my lucky day," he was raped, then killed by being ripped or cut apart and either burned or eaten.

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals (See Cameron, Dr. Paul,  [1983] "Is homosexuality disproportionately associated with murder?" Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Assn Chicago).

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice Elena Kagan were in the five member majority in the decision declaring "sodomite marriage" a "Constitutional right" (See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644). Yet, neither had the right to hear the case ethically, because they were bound to recuse themselves. Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code titled “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” states that “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Kagan performed a September 21, 2014, same-sex “marriage” ceremony for her former law clerk and his partner in Maryland. Likewise, Ginsburg performed a same-sex “marriage” ceremony at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C., in August 2013. They refused to recuse themselves and neither was impeached. Can you imagine if Associate Justice Clarence Thomas joined the March for Life and continued to hear cases involving abortion?

The Assault Against Human Life
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 decision, that the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, made law by Congress in 2003, was constitutional. (See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124) Partial birth abortion is the act by which an unborn baby (usually seven to nine months old) is taken out of the mother's womb, and with just a couple of inches of his/her head inside the mother, has the head opened with a surgical instrument and his/her brains extracted; the decapitated body is thrown out as "medical waste." 

Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion as to why this barbaric means of murder should be allowed. Her opinion states, "Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." Ok, so decapitating a child fully capable of living outside the mother's womb isn't murder, it's about the woman "determining her life's course" and being an "equal citizen." At least half of those babies murdered are female. What about their rights? Ginsburg also doesn't care about how abortion is unfair to men based on her own secular legal principles. Example: a man gets a women pregnant and he tells her to kill the child by abortion. She says no, and keeps the baby. He must pay for the child he didn't want to have for the next 21 years. If in the same scenario, the man wants to keep the child and take care of him/her and pay for him/her, the woman can say no and kill the child by abortion. How is this fair to men in Ginsburg's world?

In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg had this to say, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade; legalizing abortion in 1973] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. " (See; Emphasis mine). Exactly what populations do we "[not] want too many of"? Blacks? Hispanics? Non-Jews in general? 

The Assault Against Religion
I'll let Ginsburg's record of rulings on religion while on the Supreme Court speak for themselves:
  • In 2019, the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Court allowed the Bladensburg’s Peace Cross memorial for WWII veterans to remain on public property by a 7-2 decision. Ginsburg wrote the dissent. She contended, inter alia, that the Cross offended non-religious observers and  its symbolism violated the conscience of those who did not share the meaning of “the Latin cross … the foremost symbol of the Christian faith" and it was funded by taxpayers. While Ginsburg would allow enemies of Christianity to stop the Cross maintenance by tax dollars, and, in the name of conscience, to refuse even to associate in any way with the theological meaning of the cross, she will not extend the same right to believers not to be coerced to act against their beliefs.
  • In 2014, Ginsburg dissented in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. whereby the Court ruled in favor of a corporation,  Hobby Lobby, when they objected on religious grounds to paying for drugs popularly (and erroneously) called contraceptives. Those "contraceptives" also acted as abortifacients (i.e., they kill unborn babies) and were mandated by Obamacide. In her dissent, Ginsburg noted how dubious it would be for a firm to claim their corporate conscience had been violated. Yet this same woman had no problems with corporations refusing to do business in states that did not support same sex marriage prior to 2015. Can you say hypocrite?
  • In 2018, the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al upheld the right of a Protestant who designs wedding cakes to refuse service to a homosexual couple based on his religious beliefs. The ACLU supported the sodomites in Court. Did Ginsburg respect the right of the baker's conscience? On the contrary, she dissented because the Christian must conform to "laws of general applicability."  She treats your right to be free from religion as practically inviolate; she regards your right to act on your religion to be circumscribed by “laws of general applicability”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a Communist sympathizer and "fellow traveler" who supported everything ungodly. God is to be banished from the public square. Sexual perverts are to be extolled and marriage destroyed. Babies are to be murderer at any point during pregnancy, and for any reason, in the name of "women's rights." This person is a "great American" and a "champion for human rights"? She aided and abetted the ACLU in its plan to destroy America and belief in God. Have the Vatican II sect "bishops" condemned her life of evil actions? You already know the answer. Not a word from the Argentinian apostate, Francis. 

Writing an article for the Jesuit rag America magazine ("What I will teach my children about Ruth Bader Ginsburg") Erika Bachiochi opines, "Justice Ginsburg lived a heroic life (!) in many ways, and I am grateful for her exemplary tenacity, equanimity and concern for others—not to mention her trailblazing work at the Supreme Court in the 1970s." I am reminded of the Biblical verse Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." Ruth Bader Ginsburg was "RBG"--Repugnant Blasphemous Garbage.

Monday, September 21, 2020

Enough Bad Theology To Plague A Saint

On October 14, 2018, Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) "canonized" his equally false pope predecessor in the Vatican II sect, Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) as a "saint." Canonizations are infallible declarations that a person's soul is in Heaven and their life is worthy of emulation by all the faithful. Montini was a scoundrel and apostate; he could not possibly be a saint. Therefore, Bergoglio's declaration is wrong, and consequently, he cannot be the pope. You think this would be enough to wake up the "recognize and resistors" ("R&R") to the fact that we are in a state of sedevacante. Not a chance.

$teve $kojec, operator of the website OnePeterFive, believes the Church can defect. The only way to tell what teachings of the Magisterium are legitimate, is to make a large contribution to $teve, so he can make six figures and become your very own uber-Magisterium, letting you know what you can and cannot believe from "Pope" Francis and his "hierarchy." Almost two years ago, $kojec published an article by Peter Kwasniewski entitled Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint.’ It can be read in full here:

 Kwasniewski's CV appears on the website as follows:
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Thomistic theologian, liturgical scholar, and choral composer, is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and The Catholic University of America. He has taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria; the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program; and Wyoming Catholic College, which he helped establish in 2006. Today he is a full-time writer and speaker on traditional Catholicism (sic), writing regularly for OnePeterFive, New Liturgical Movement, LifeSiteNews, and other websites and print publications. He has published eight books, the most recent being Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico, 2020). Visit his website at

While sounding impressive, Dr. Kwasniewski's article is far from it, and his writing shows the inherent weakness of those who pass for "theologians" in the Vatican II sect. The purpose of this post is to show the errors in Dr. Kwasniewski's (hereinafter "DK") article, and the absurd consequences of his teaching.

Getting It Wrong--Times Seven
DK begins by admitting, In short, for us, it is impossible to accept that a pope such as this [Montini] could ever be canonized. Yet, he was canonized by Francis. How does DK get out of the conundrum of recognizing Bergoglio as pope while rejecting his canonization of Montini? He rejects the infallibility of canonizations. Much like Feeneyites who think popes only need to be obeyed when speaking infallibly, if he can prove that such declarations of sainthood are non-infallible, then (so his faulty reasoning goes) we can "pick and choose" our saints, just like the R&R accepts or rejects whatever they like and dislike from their "pope." I will pass over the fact that just because the pope does not decree something infallibly does not thereby mean you get to ignore said decree. There are enough problems with DK's thesis that I need not even go there. 

DK sets out seven topics regarding canonizations to prove his thesis:
(1) The status of canonizations, (2) The purpose of canonizations, (3) The process of canonization, (4) What is objectionable in Paul VI?, (5) What is admirable in Paul VI?, (6) The limits of canonization’s meaning, and (7) Practical consequences. I will address each one below. 

1. The purpose of canonizations.
DK begins with an attack on Neo-scholastic theologians pre-Vatican II. While historically the majority of theologians have defended the view of the infallibility of canonizations – especially neoscholastic theologians who tend to be extreme ultramontanists [1] – the Church herself has, in fact, never taught this as binding doctrine [2]. In his two footnotes, #1 states For example, arguing that all papal disciplinary acts that bear on the entire church must be inerrant and certainly favoring the common good – a position that one might have defended earlier in history, but which, at the present moment, is nothing less than grossly risible. 

His use of the pejorative term "ultramontanist" belies his Modernist tendencies. According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, "Ultramontanism, a term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps." (See 

The term is now appropriated by Modernists to denigrate those who correctly defend the prerogatives of the papacy. Here's what Pope St. Pius X had to say about Neo-Scholastic philosophy:  "So far as studies are concerned, it is Our will and We hereby explicitly ordain that the Scholastic philosophy be considered as the basis of sacred studies. . . . And what is of capital importance in prescribing that Scholastic philosophy is to be followed, We have in mind particularly the philosophy which has been transmitted to us by St. Thomas Aquinas. It is Our desire that all the enactments of Our Predecessor [Pope Leo XIII] in respect thereto be maintained in full force; and, where need be, We renew and confirm them and order them to be strictly observed by all concerned. Let Bishops urge and compel their observance in future in any Seminary in which they may have been neglected. The same injunction applies also to Superiors of Religious Orders."(See Motu Proprio Doctoris Angeliciof 6/29/1914). 

Canonizations are protected as secondary objects of infallibility. According to theologian Van Noort,

PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:110; Emphasis mine).

Notice, too, that DK considers the teachings of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians on the papacy "risible" because of the condition of the "Church" (Vatican II sect), but it was defensible in times past (the True Church). Without realizing it, DK has given proof that sedevacantism is true. Rather than accept the defection of the hierarchy, he believes in a Church that can defect--which idea is heretical. He then has the temerity to write, The infallibility of canonizations is not taught by the Church, nor is it necessarily implied by any de fide doctrine of the Faith. Catholics are therefore not required to believe it as a matter of faith and may even, for serious reasons, doubt or question the truthfulness of a certain canonization. (Emphasis in original). This statement is false, but I will make the reason why it's wrong even more clear further on in this post.

2. The purpose of canonizations. 
Traditionally, canonization is not merely a recognition that a certain individual is in Heaven; it is the recognition that this man  lived a life of such heroic virtue (above all, the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity), had fulfilled in so exemplary a fashion the duties of his state in life (and this would include, for a cleric, the duties of his office), and had so practiced asceticism as befits a soldier of Christ that public veneration (including liturgical) should be offered to him by the universal Church, and his example deserves to be followed as a model to imitate (cf. 1 Cor 11:1)

This is a true statement. DK goes on to lament that It is not supposed to be the Vatican rubber-stamping particular individuals the Vatican happens to want to promote. However, it is impossible for a real pope to make a false saint, as he is protected by the Holy Ghost. In order to reach his point here, he had to first contend that canonizations are non-infallible and can be ignored at will.

3. The process of canonization. 
DK denounces the process of canonization since Vatican II. Arguably the worst change to the process is the number of miracles required. In the old system, two miracles were required for both beatification and canonization – that is, a total of four investigated and certified miracles. The point of this requirement is to give the Church sufficient moral certainty of God’s “approval” of the proposed blessed or saint by the evidence of His exercise of power at the intercession of this individual...The new system cuts the number of miracles in half, which, one might say, also cuts the moral certainty in half...

Since there is absolute certainty in an act of canonization, all the discussion of miracles, procedures, and "moral certainty" is irrelevant. According to theologian Hallett, "The canonization, on May 19th, 1935, of SS. John Fisher and Thomas More was the first occasion, since the days of Urban VIII, of a formal canonization with a dispensation from the proof of miracles." Does that mean we have no certainty that St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More are true saints? Hallett goes on to teach, "The processes we have outlined are those prescribed in the Code of Canon Law. It must be remembered, however, that the Pope, like the King in English law, is the source of all authority in purely ecclesiastical law, and can therefore suspend or modify procedure if he wills. In the plenitude of his power he could canonize saints without any preliminaries at all, although, of course, he would never do so. (See Canonization of Saints, [1952], An outline of the history and the processes of beatification and canonization. Published by the Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, London ).

Speaking of something being "risible," I couldn't help but get a laugh from the idea of something being "half-morally certain." Something is either morally certain or it is not; much like being dead, or pregnant, or Catholic. If we had eight miracles, would the canonization have "double moral certainty"?

4. What is Objectionable in Paul VI?
Here, DK lists some legitimate problems with Montini, but he never dares touch on the heart of the matter: Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) was an apostate and a raging sodomite. The evidence is as great as it is disturbing.

  • Openly sodomite Irish writer, Robin Bryans, claimed in his 1992 autobiography The Dust Never Settles,that his personal friend (one Hugh Montgomery) told him that he and Montini had been "gay lovers" since his appointment as a diplomat at the Vatican
  • French writer and ambassador Roger Peyrefitte (also a sodomite) stated that while Archbishop of Milan, Montini would go to a secluded house for the purpose of "hooking up" with homosexual men
  • Montini decried "slanderous allegations made against me," but never once mention what they were, nor did he even attempt to defend himself.
  • Fr. Georges de Nantes, one of the first Traditionalist priests openly denounced Montini for his alleged homosexuality, even bringing it to the attention of "Pope" John Paul II so as to prevent his "beatification" and "canonization"
  • According to the New York Times, the Italian actor Paolo Carlini was a frequent visitor of Paul VI and was alleged to be his lover

For more problems with Montini (as if any more were actually needed), see Fr. Villa's great book Paul VI Beatified? available on Amazon.

5. What is admirable in Paul VI?
The simple answer is nothing. DK quotes another source with whom he agrees who wrote: Pope (sic) Paul VI is described by most historians as a kind of tragic figure, trying to control the whirlwind of events surrounding him, but unable to do much. Really? You mean he couldn't have ended Vatican II or refused to sign the documents? Please.

6. The limits of canonization’s meaning.
DK says that even if legitimate, Montini's "canonization" doesn't make Vatican II "canonized," i.e., wonderful. Maybe so, but if he was pope and he signed the documents, that makes them free from error and binding on the Church. The Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members--unless you deny the Indefectibility of the Church like $teve $kojec.

7. Practical consequences.
This topic deserves a separate fuller treatment, but briefly, anyone with such a doubt or difficulty is permitted to refrain from praying to Paul VI and need not support his cultus (i.e., veneration). Wrong. According to theologian Hallett, "Canonization on the contrary, decrees the public cultus of the Universal Church to the saints. Benedict XIV enumerates seven acts as constituting this official cultus. (1). All Christians are commanded to regard them as, and call them, saints. (2). They are invoked in the public prayers of the Church, and it is forbidden any longer to pray for them. (3). Churches and altars may be dedicated to God in their honor. (4). Mass is offered and Divine Office recited in their honor, and though this Mass may not be prescribed for the universal Church, but only for one or more dioceses, yet it may be said, as a votive Mass, anywhere throughout the Church. (5). Feast days are assigned to them. (6). Their images are depicted with the aureole or other attributes of sanctity. (7). Their relics are publicly honored...Canonization is the final and irreformable judgment of the Church, and therefore we are bound, as Her dutiful children, to believe that saints duly canonized are in Heaven." (Ibid; Emphasis mine).

The Teaching of the Church: Canonizations are Infallible
The great scholar-pope, His Holiness Pope Benedict XIV, wrote a multi-volume compendium on beatifications and canonizations. Theologian Faber, in his monumental work, Essay on Beatification, Canonization and the Process of the Congregation of Rites [1848], precisely condenses the Pontiff's main points in just over 100 pages. Pope Benedict XIV gives several reasons why canonizations must be infallible. They are reproduced here as summarized by theologian Faber.

Our question is: Is the Church infallible in the canonization of saints? Most certainly. It is proved:

(i) By the acceptance on the part of the whole Church of the solemn decrees of canonization which the popes have published for several centuries. If such decrees, or any of them were false, the universal Church would have approved error.

(ii) The opposite opinion would subvert all the cultus of the Saints, because if it could be once admitted that the Church had erred in any particular instance, everybody might doubt the legitimacy of the cultus of any, even the most distinguished Saints.

(iii) The opposite opinion would expose the Church to the contempt and reviling of heretics, and of demons, which would be contrary to the promises of Christ, and dishonorable to God.

(iv) The opposite opinion would destroy the note of sanctity in the Church, for it would admit that She could pay religious cultus to the damned, God's enemies and the companions of the devils. 

(v) The Church is infallible in the common doctrine of morals; the canonization of Saints pertains to the common doctrine of morals, and so falls under the infallibility of the Church.

(vi) The authority of St. Thomas [Aquinas] is in favor of this...because the honor we pay to the Saints is a kind of profession of Faith, because the pope can only be certified of the state of any of the faithful departed by an instinct of the Holy Ghost, and because Divine Providence preserves the Church in such cases from being deceived by the fallible testimony of men.

(vii) [Pope] Sixtus V...spoke for an hour in assertion of the infallibility of the decrees of canonization, but it may be said that he was then speaking as a private theologian; yet even so, his opinion is of great weight.

(viii) Besides the Thomists, the Scotists also defend the pope's infallibility in the decrees of canonizations; so that these two rival schools [of theology] agree in this particular; and among the modern [theologians] Bellarmine and Suarez may be mentioned as asserting the same.

...The judgement of the Church therefore in the Canonization of Saints is infallible. (pgs. 104-106).

If Montini isn't a saint, then, as a logical corollary, Bergoglio can't be the pope. It's really that simple. However, OnePeterFive, and the poorly trained lay "theologians" of the Vatican II sect who write there, want you to believe that canonizations can be wrong. YOU get to choose who is in Heaven and worthy of emulation, and who is not. Pick wisely or you might pray to a damned soul. If that sounds offensive to pious ears, it should. The fact of the matter is that we can venerate and pray to any saint canonized by a true pope because we have infallible certainty they are in Heaven (and are also worthy of emulation). 

As for those who choose the Uber-Magisterium of $teve $kojec, you can donate your money for theology that's so wrong, so maddening, it would even try the patience of a Saint. 


Monday, September 14, 2020

Inquisition Apologetics

Karol Wojtyla, better known to the world as "Pope" "St." John Paul the Great (sic), was the consummate apologist. He did not defend the Roman Catholic Faith from which he apostatized, rather he would apologize to the world for the alleged "wrongs" perpetrated by the Church in which he once served as a bishop. On March 12, 2000, he "begged forgiveness" for "sins committed in the name of the Church." It was known as the Day of Pardon. He decreed: "Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions." (See

To whom, and for what, did he apologize, specifically? The list includes:
  • sins that caused division among Christians 
  • sins against the Jews
  • sins committed against love, peace, the rights of peoples, respect of cultures and religions
  • the sin of the Crusades
  • sins committed in the use of "non-evangelical methods," as for example, the burning of heretics in the Inquisition

If this wasn't bad enough, things have degenerated under Bergoglio to the point where one Vatican II sect parish here in New York City has its members take A Pledge for Racial Justice, in which the members must say "yes" to the following:

 DO YOU AFFIRM that white privilege is unfair and harmful to those who have it and to those who do not?

WILL YOU strive to understand more deeply the injustice and suffering white privilege and white supremacy cause? Among other nonsensical and ludicrous statements. (See; Emphasis in original). I get a real laugh when there is talk of "reparations" to be paid to African-Americans. I'm supposed to feel sorry and pay money to people for something I never did, in order to make up for something they never experienced? Leaving the lunacy of the Vatican II sect "Jesuits" in Manhattan behind, I wish to focus this post on the alleged "sin" of the Inquisition and burning heretics.

That there were individual abuses and sins by certain clerics conceded; that the Inquisition and the burning of heretics is bad in principle, denied. I know this will seem shocking to the Modernist mind, and even to some Traditionalists who must live in this world full of warped notions of equity and justice, but the Inquisition, like the Crusades, was good and holy in principle.  Wojtyla was not asking forgiveness for those clerics who crossed lines in opposition of Church teaching, but for the very practice itself. This is a tacit denial of the Indefectibility of the Church, for She cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members.  Most members of the Vatican II sect, and many other non-Catholics, use the Inquisition as "proof" that the Church can be wrong (hence Vatican II is exonerated as "correcting and tempering" past teaching and practices) or it is an evil proving the Church a false religion as Protestants are wont to do. How should a Traditionalist respond to the "problem" of the Inquisition?

This post will address three points: (1) What was the Inquisition, (2) How it was subjected to historical revisionism by the enemies of the Church, and (3) What Church teaching is regarding the punishment of heretics. My sources for the Inquisition are primarily as follows:

1. Church History (2 volumes) by Poulet and Raemers [1935]
2. The History of the Catholic Church by Neill and Schmandt [1957]
3. The Spanish Inquisition by Henry Kamen [4th edition, 2014]

Inquiries About the Inquisition
The Inquisition may be divided into two separate attempts to suppress heresy. There was the Medieval Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. The Medieval Inquisition (1233-circa early 1700s), was brought about to combat the Albigensian heretics. The Albigensians began to expand considerably towards the end of the 1100s. They were so named after the French city of Albi, where they derived their popular name, but they referred to themselves as "Cathars," from the Greek word for "pure." They organized themselves as a "Counter-church" which threatened not only the One True Church, but all of civilization. According to theologian Parente, the Albigensians adopted a false Manichean dualism; i.e.,  two eternal principles divided the universe, a "Good God" of the New Testament, and an "Evil God" of the Old Testament.  The good had created the world of the spirits, and the bad created the material world. Man was at the junction of the two principles. He was a fallen angel imprisoned in a body. His soul originated in the good principle, but his body was from the bad.

Neither God was triune. The Good God sends one of his angels, Jesus, to Earth with an apparent body. He does not suffer, die and rise from the dead, but merely preaches. Men must escape evil matter by going through a number of reincarnations. The message of Christ was corrupted and obscured by the Catholic Church, thus the Albigensians also possess "secret knowledge" like the Gnostic heretics. (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pgs. 5-6). As a consequence of their perverse doctrines, Holy Matrimony and procreation were forbidden because one must not collaborate in the work of the Evil God (also called Satan), who sought to imprison souls in their bodies. Since death constituted a liberation, suicide was encouraged. They applied the "endura," a withdrawal of nourishment, from the sick and even sometimes from infants, to accelerate the return of the soul to the spirit world.

In order to be completely free of matter, some became severe ascetics, but most became libertines; they were freed of all moral obligations, in sexual matters and in commercial matters. Usury, debauchery, and even murder when convenient, became the mark of the Albigensians.

They held that as long as you believed and received an ersatz kind of "baptism" called the consolamentum (which was conferred by an imposition of hands), it guaranteed salvation. "Liberty to act," resulting in suicide, euthanasia, sexual perversion, and everyone goes to Heaven. Sounds like the Vatican II sect. Our Lady gave St. Dominic the Rosary to defeat these heretical monsters. They provoked social disorder throughout all of Europe.

Pope Innocent III (reigned 1198-1216) called for a Crusade against the Albigensians in 1208 which contributed to the creation of the Inquisition. The bloody war lasted twenty years, ending with the Peace of Paris Treaty in 1229. The Church then realized it could not rely exclusively on on secular rulers to stamp out heresy. The Inquisition had its beginnings under Pope Lucius III (reigned 1181-1185) when, in 1184, he sent a list of heresies to the bishops of the world, and ordered them to determine the guilt of heretics using trained theologians and employing the Roman legal procedures. An inquisitor was required to be at least forty (40) years old, a theologian or canonist, and morally upright to a high degree. Pope Innocent III expanded the Inquisition, and Pope Gregory IX formalized the procedures of the Inquisition in 1231. Slowly and methodically, the Albigensian heresy was eradicated by 1350 AD.

The Spanish Inquisition. 
Denigrated for being "antisemitic" and lampooned by Jewish movie producer Mel Brooks (as well as the Anglican heretics/blasphemers at Monty Python's Flying Circus TV show), the Spanish Inquisition is one of the most misunderstood and purposely distorted events in Church history. Since the beginning of the Middle Ages in Spain, there was a considerable Jewish population. The Jewish, Christian and Moslem societies were not partitioned in Spain, even though their relations were not always harmonious. A large number of Jews had converted to Catholicism but continued to practice Judaism in secret. These pseudo-Christian Jews were called Marranos (from the Spanish word for "pig" used in reference to the Jewish prohibition on eating the flesh of pigs).

The evil and blasphemy-ridden Talmud allows Jews to pretend conversion in order to avoid persecution. The Marranos were seeking to infiltrate Christian society in order to control it. Moreover, they wanted to infiltrate and destroy the Church, much like the Communists and Modernists in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some Marrano priests actually taught the Talmud in their churches. The bishop of Segovia, Juan Arias of Avila, gave a Jewish burial to his parents who had abjured Christianity. The bishop of Calahorra, Pedro d’Aranda, denied the Trinity and the Redemptive death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Marranos had purchased for cash the public offices of several Spanish cities, crushing the old-Christian people under the weight of taxes and usury. There were some popular uprisings against the Marrano power at Toledo and Cuidad Real in 1449. The Marranos regained control of these cities in 1467 and massacred a great number of old-Christians. There were other bloodbaths in Castile (1468) and in Andalusia (1473). Spain was then on the threshold of a racial and religious civil war. This war, which would have been appalling, was avoided, thanks to the Inquisition. Not all Jewish converts were Marranos; many among them were sincerely Catholic. Most famously, St. Teresa of Avila was the granddaughter of a Marrano who, moreover, had been condemned by the Inquisition. Although descended from a Marrano, St. Teresa is one of the greatest saints of all time.

The historian Henry Kamen (cited above in my sources) notes that the principal anti-Judaic polemicists were themselves ex-Jews. It was they who clamored for a tribunal of the Inquisition to distinguish between the false Jewish converts to Catholicism and the sincere new Catholics. The first Spanish Grand Inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, was himself a Jewish convert. In addition, it must be noted that many Marranos judaized simply through family tradition or by misunderstanding the Catholic faith. The Inquisition thus had to establish another distinction between the Marranos who willfully altered the integrity of the faith and those who were the victims of an insufficient instruction in the One True Church. In 1478, Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull authorizing the Catholic Monarch of Spain to name inquisitors who would address the issue.

In face of the Marranos peril, as before in the case of the Albigensian danger, the Inquisition sought to neutralize the leaders of the heresy in order to spare and retrieve the majority of the heretics. It was successful and continued until deemed no longer required when disbanded in 1834.

The Historical Revision of the Inquisition
The enemies of the Church have long disseminated lies about the Inquisition. There were abuses, as even Catholic historians have noted. "...the Inquisition functioned in Spain with a severity that was sometimes extreme." (See historians Poulet and Raemers cited in my sources above, 2:75; Emphasis mine). That Protestants and others who hate the Church write much popular history is amply demonstrated in the United States, where Queen Elizabeth I is known as "Good Queen Bess."  This is in spite of the fact that, "Being a Catholic priest in England, or providing shelter to one, was treason, and punishable by death.  Elizabeth certainly did put people to death when they threatened her reign; some 450 were executed after an uprising in the North... During her reign, some 130 priests were executed solely for being priests, along with around 60 of their supporters." (See 

That's 640 executions. However, Queen Mary Tudor (who re-established Catholicism in England from 1553-1558) executed less than 300 Protestants who plotted against her. To her is given the ignoble and unfair appellation of "Bloody Mary." 

Here are some famous falsehoods about the Inquisition.

Falsehood: The Catholic Church used the Inquisition to kill Jews and Moslems and consolidate Church power.

Fact:  The myth of a brutal, power-hungry Inquisition out to kill Jews and Moslems originated in the 16th century with Protestants trying to discredit the Church. The most influential writing was The Discovery and Plaine Declaration of Sundry Subtil Practices of the Holy Spanish Inquisition, (1567) authored by an exiled Spanish monk turned Lutheran named Reginaldus Montinus. The Inquisition was focused on saving souls, as well as protecting both Church and State from the ravages of heresy and immorality.

Falsehood: The Inquisition tortured and executed millions of people.

Fact:  The Catholic Inquisition did not resemble the totalitarian inquisitions of the 20th century by the Communists and Nazis. The Inquisition was entrusted to the finest members of the clergy of the era. Unlike the revolutionary tribunals of 1793, the tribunals of the Inquisition were never presided over by corrupted and debauched fanatics.The Inquisitor did not render his judgment alone, but with "assessors" or assistant clergy, almost like a jury.  The bishop audited the sentences and the accused could appeal to the pope. The Inquisition frequently acquitted. Bernard Gui exercised the functions of Inquisitor at Toulouse from 1308 to 1323. He pronounced 930 judgments, of which 139 were acquittals. The sick, the aged, and pregnant women were exempted from interrogation under torture. Furthermore, torture was rarely employed: in 1-2% of the processes according to historian Jean Dumont.

If someone confessed under torture they were not killed (unless guilty of something very serious), but in most cases allowed to abjure their spreading of heresy and were returned to society. Repeat offenders were executed. Among contemporary historians, Pierre Dominique asserts that the Spanish Inquisition condemned 178,382 persons of whom 16,376 were burned alive. (L’Inquisition., [1969]); Henry Kamen puts it up to 341,021 the number of condemnations, of whom 31,912 were burned. It is nowhere near millions, and reputable historians are nearly unanimous that it was well under 100,000--below 50,000. 

The Morality of the Inquisition
1. The Death Penalty is moral.
According to theologian Prummer, Only the State has the right to put to death those who have committed most serious crimes. The State has this right since the penalty of death is sometimes necessary for safeguarding the common weal [good] and only the State has the duty of safeguarding society. Capital punishment must be reserved for the most serious of crimes and these must be fully proven...Since the State has the power to put the criminal to death, so it has the power for a sufficient reason to mutilate the criminal (e.g., by cutting off his hand) or to flog him. (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1955], pg. 126).

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment) (See Moral Theology [1930], 2: 100).

Theologian Jone writes, A criminal may be executed if juridical proof has established the moral certainty that he has committed a grave crime for which the State, in the interest of the common welfare, inflicts capital punishment, and if someone has been authorized by the State to execute the sentence. (See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 140).

Proposition required by Pope Innocent III as a condition to be readmitted to the Church: We declare that the secular power can without mortal sin impose a judgement of blood provided the punishment is carried out not in hatred but in good judgement, not inconsistently but after mature deliberation.

From the practice of the Church: From 1815, when the pope regained political control of Rome from Napoleon, until 1870, the popes ordered the executions of hundreds of malefactors. (See Norko, M., "The Death Penalty in Catholic Teaching and Medicine: Intersections and Places for Dialogue," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36 (2008): 470-481).

From the Holy Bible: Genesis 9:6, Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. St. John 19:10, Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest Thou not to me? Knowest Thou not that I have power to crucify Thee, and I have power to release Thee?  Romans 13: 4, For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. 

It is clear that the Church, in principle, allows for the execution of criminals who have committed "the most serious of crimes." This has always been the case.

2. Heresy is a crime deserving death. 
The propagation of heresy is worse than murder. Our Lord said, And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell.  (St. Matthew 10: 28). Murder destroys the body. Heresy can bring eternal death in Hell. There is but One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved. It is the duty of the State to uphold the Rights of the Church as the sole and exclusive State religion. Error has no rights.

CONDEMNED Proposition # 77 from the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX (1864): 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

In the bull Exsurge Domine, excommunicating Martin Luther and condemning his heresies, CONDEMNED proposition # 33 states, That heretics be burned is against the will of the [Holy] Spirit.

It should be noted that there is a difference between:

(a) condemning a proposition that heretics being burned is always against the will of the Holy Ghost.

(b) endorsing a proposition that heretics being burned is the will of the Holy Ghost in all cases and at all times.

The first is merely asserting that it is possible that at some time and place burning of heretics may not have been against the will of the Holy Ghost, whereas the second proposition claims that the burning of heretics is always the active will of the Holy Ghost. The second statement is not implied by the first. This is where people make the error, and think it "wrong" or "scandalous" that God should permit the burning of heretics.

Let's look at a similar pair of propositions that might shed light on the subject. It is Church teaching that God may permit the capital punishment of some offenders and so to assert that "capital punishment is not against the will of God" is quite a different assertion than claiming that God simply wills capital punishment under all conditions or compels it. As theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means." (See Moral Theology, 2:101).

Again, the first statement says nothing about when or where the Holy Ghost may permit the burning of heretics, the second implies that the Holy Ghost wills or is never against the burning of heretics. They are not the same claim.

It is the case that proposition (a) is true, that there may be times when burning of certain heretics may not be contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost, but still insist that not every specific case of burning heretics, as these have occurred in history, have always been contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost. It may be that only a certain severity of heresy could result in the Holy Ghost permitting the burning of that individual; and that would be in the cases of the Inquisition dealing with notorious heretics bent on destroying both souls and society.

There is a difference between an "in principle" condemnation and a "de facto" one. In principle, burning heretics is a form of capital punishment, because their evil doctrines kill the soul, which is worse than killing the body (murder). But, just as you don't need to be in favor of capital punishment, as long as you don't condemn it in principle--the same applies here. If the taking of life is permitted to save souls, then methods of torture to obtain the truth and save souls (a lesser penalty) would also be permitted in severe cases.

It is rare that I communicate on Twitter except to announce my weekly post. A couple of weeks ago, I had a brief communication with a "recognize and resistor" (R&R--SSPX-type). I remarked that if my Patron Saint, King St. Louis IX, were alive, he would travel to Rome, put Bergoglio on trial and execute him. My Twitter interlocutor was aghast and indignant. He warned me I would get "banned from Twitter" for saying such awful things. Look who the bad guy is--me. Not Bergoglio for leading countless millions to Hell. This is the soft, non-Catholic mentality of today. It is Modernist. 

Let me be clear: I am not now, nor have I ever, advocated violence against others. Executions (capital punishment) rightfully carried out by the State is a different story. If King St. Louis IX conquered Rome, as the Head of State, it would be within his right to execute Jorge Bergoglio for the crime of heresy.The Vatican II sect's heresy of religious liberty always invokes "forbearance" and "ecumenical charity" in opposition to the true doctrine of the Church on the duty of intolerance of false religions

Isn’t eternal damnation, which is the retribution for not believing, an affliction far more dreadful than the worst punishment which a human tribunal could impose? Does not our fist pope, St. Peter, strike dead Ananias and Sapphira who stole from the community (Acts 5:1-11)? 

Christ was patient and merciful with repentant sinners, but He never recognized any right of error and He exposed obstinate propagators of error to public condemnation. The Inquisition adopted an attitude toward heretics comparable to that of Our Lord. An individual is free to reject the True Faith, as God will not force Himself upon us against our free will. It does not, however, logically follow that the individual can propagate his errors and thus lead other souls to Hell. The Church denies in principle the right of public expression of false religions, but She may not necessarily persecute them in practice. To avoid a greater evil, such as a civil war, the Church can tolerate the sects.

All of this is lost on most people who believe this life is all we have, and there no objective religious and moral truths. Everyone, they argue, must be free to express "their truth," as if truth varies from person to person with no right or wrong. Now we are expected to apologize for being right. Say "I'm sorry" for being being born white, and for acts that took place years before we were born. Apologize to sexual perverts, illegal immigrants, and everybody else who "feels offended" for any perceived injustice. (No one has thus far been able to explain to me how anyone can be a victim of injustice if that which constitutes injustice is subjective to the individual). 

I refuse to apologize for any of the above. For those who think I'm barbaric for defending the execution of heretics, here's what a real pope and real saint had to say about the proper attitude towards heretics: "They want them [Modernists] to be treated with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can."---Pope St. Pius X (Emphasis mine). 

Monday, September 7, 2020

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 13

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
The New Age Movement
The New Age Movement (NAM) is a loosely structured network of individuals and organizations who share a vision of a new age of enlightenment and harmony (the so-called "Age of Aquarius") and who subscribe to a common worldview of pantheism where "god" and the universe are the same. For this reason, the New Age is a pagan movement and not a sect as defined in Catholic theology. There is no single organization or common creed, no unifying code of morality, and no worship proper to the NAM. The ideas of the New Age have permeated society in every aspect. Many people co-mingle New Age beliefs with their professed religion, be it Vatican II sect, Protestantism, Judaism, etc. This makes the NAM possibly the most insidious of all false religious systems that try to proselytize you to one or more tenets.

This post will focus on the beliefs that are part of the NAM, with the proviso that not all beliefs are subscribed to all involved. Some don't even realize they hold one or more NAM beliefs, or that they are incompatible with the religion they profess.

One of the most concise and accurate descriptions of the NAM was given by Stratford Caldecott in booklet form, the pertinent part of which I reproduce below. I do not endorse all of what Mr. Caldecott (d. 2014) writes, nor do I agree with his religious views--but his synopsis is spot-on accurate. For those who wish to read his entire booklet, please See 

The umbrella term "New Age" was first popularized by Alice Bailey in the 1930s, founder of an offshoot of the Theosophical Society (itself begun in New York in 1875 by the Russian-born occultist H.P. Blavatsky). It was picked up again by Baba Ram Dass (alias Richard Alpert) and others in the 1960s, when it became popularly identified with the coming astrological "Age of Aquarius". In that Age, it was prophesied, mankind would finally "come of age", renouncing the use of force and establishing a new world order of peace and harmony, an era of higher or cosmic consciousness and universal love.

If the origins of the term and to some extent of the movement lie in modern occultism, social and cultural conditions at the end of the last century played their part by enabling exotic alternatives to Christian belief to flourish. The progress of science, though impressive, had left many people dissatisfied. Hungry for some kind of spiritual fulfillment which neither science nor Christianity seemed able to offer, they were easily attracted to spiritualism and the Theosophical Society. The movement quickly divided and sub-divided (Krishnamurti, Steiner) and other influences came to bear (Jung, Teilhard, yoga, ecology, feminism). The scriptures of other religions, alongside the writings of Jewish Kabbalists, Christian mystics and previously obscure Christian heretics, became more widely available in translation. In the wake of Swami Vivekananda and the Vedanta Society, new gurus appeared from the East.

Also contributing to the emergence of the New Age movement was Vatican II. The Modernists have a Naturalistic outlook and eschew the supernatural. The ecumenism in the heretical document Nostra Aetate instructed Catholics to make contact with, "respect," and "learn from" all false religions because they contain some "rays of truth."  People, hungry for the real truth that was stolen from them, started turning to these false sects for answers. A form of emergent Neo-Gnosticism emerged. As a backdrop, Gnosticism—from the Greek gnosis, “knowledge”—was a heresy that emerged in the second century A.D., purporting to offer knowledge of otherwise hidden “truth” as the indispensable key to human salvation apart from the One True Church. Though Gnosticism with its "secret knowledge" is long gone, a revival of it (Neo-Gnosticism) occurred in the late 1960s in the wake of Vatican II.  These ideas include:

  • Humans have the "spark of the divine" within
  • Humans are ignorant of their "divinity"and must be made aware of it
  • Jesus came as One of many "way-showers" to bring enlightenment to humanity 

These ideas eventually became prominent in NAM, as will be shown next in this post.

Major Tenets of NAM

1. Ecumenism/Eclectic Beliefs.
New Agers combine and synthesize religious and philosophical ideas from Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Mohammed, etc. There is no one true faith or one true Messiah. New Agers believe there is truth in all religions and religious traditions.(Are you listening, Mr. Bergoglio?). This willingness to pick and choose what they believe from various sources of enlightenment is a vivid demonstration of the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of the worldview. They consult the Bible, but also feel free to consult the pagan Hindu Vedas, the Koran, as well as openly occult psychics and "channelers," whose “revelations” from spirit guides  [i.e., demons]are considered just as authoritative as those found in the Bible. They have no hesitation in consulting astrologers and others who practice the occult arts of necromancy, palm readings, Ouija boards, tarot cards, etc. Reincarnation is also commonly held by New Agers.

2. Monism.
Monism is the false doctrine that all reality is a unified whole. Everything in the universe is conceived as being composed of the same substance. Humanity, God, and nature are seen as three waves in a single ocean. All reality is both interdependent and interrelated. 

3. Pantheism. 
This is the view that "All is 'God' and 'God' is All." There is no distinction between Creator and creation. The NAM god is an impersonal, amoral "it." 

4. Moral Relativism. 
Moral Relativism is not one doctrine, but rather can be classified into two (2) distinct and broad theses, both of which deny an external, unchanging Moral Norm. Cultural/Normative Relativism is the teaching which holds that a person must behave in accordance with the accepted norms that have evolved in his/her society. Conceptual Relativism holds there is no such property as good or evil; rather goodness is a function or relation between an action and society. The very meaning of "right and wrong" is relative to any given society. NAM subscribes to both theses.

5. Deification of Humanity. 
From monism and pantheism, it follows that humans are "god" but don't yet realize it. Once "god-realization" is achieved, it remains to "awaken" as many others as possible. When this realization reaches a critical mass, the planet will experience "The Age of Aquarius;"-- a new world order of peace, harmony, and "universal love." 

Almost all New Agers reject and seek to eliminate:
  • all organized religion, especially Christianity
  • "patriarchal" society
  • "Destruction of the environment" (since all is god). 
(See, e.g.,  Russel Chandler, Understanding the New Age, [1991]).

The Spread of New Age Ideas
According to the Pew Research Center:

Most American adults self-identify as Christians. But many Christians also hold what are sometimes characterized as “New Age” beliefs – including belief in reincarnation, astrology, psychics and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects like mountains or trees. Many Americans who are religiously unaffiliated also have these beliefs.

Overall, roughly six-in-ten American adults accept at least one of these New Age beliefs. Specifically, four-in-ten believe in psychics and that spiritual energy can be found in physical objects, while somewhat smaller shares express belief in reincarnation (33%) and astrology (29%).

But New Age beliefs are not necessarily replacing belief in traditional forms of religious beliefs or practices. While eight-in-ten Christians say they believe in God as described in the Bible, six-in-ten believe in one or more of the four New Age beliefs analyzed here, ranging from 47% of evangelical Protestants to roughly seven-in-ten Catholics (sic) and Protestants in the historically black tradition.

Moreover, religiously unaffiliated Americans (those who say their religion is atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”) are about as likely as Christians to hold New Age beliefs. However, atheists are much less likely to believe in any of the four New Age beliefs than agnostics and those who say their religion is “nothing in particular.” Just 22% of atheists believe in at least one of four New Age beliefs, compared with 56% of agnostics and eight-in-ten among those whose religion is “nothing in particular.”

Americans who consider themselves to be spiritual but not religious also tend to accept at least one New Age belief. Roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults in this category hold one or more New Age beliefs, including six-in-ten who believe spiritual energy can be located in physical things and 54% who believe in psychics. And among those who say they are religious and spiritual, 65% espouse at least one New Age belief. (See; Emphasis mine). These are just four beliefs associated with the NAM, and all of them are distinctly occult.

New Age Infiltration in Various Aspects of Life
  • Health. NAM promotes "holistic health," the idea that you treat a person, not a body part. So if you have a heart problem, you don't take heart medication (or heart medication alone) you need pagan meditation for the mind, and use crystals to align your "chakras" or "life-force centers" (whatever that means). Also used is "Reiki healing" (pagan, and used by Jorge Bergoglio).
  •  Psychology. Many psychologists and mental health professionals now employ "human potential therapies" which tell you that you can "do anything" and deny sin, or anything else which might make someone (rightfully) feel guilty
  • Politics. Since all things are interdependent and unified, there must be a One World Government whereby we act locally but think globally.  NAM supports environmentalism, LGBTQIA++ perversion "rights,"and "equality through Socialism"
  •  Education. Most public schools now teach "values clarification" whereby students are taught there are no objective moral values. Intelligent Deign Theory is forbidden. References to Christianity are only made to paint Christians as villains. Yoga and pagan forms of meditation are made part of physical education classes, and everyone must learn to become an "environmentally conscious global citizen," thereby making children easy subjects for a One World Government (look at all the Millennials who support Bernie Sanders, AOC, etc). 
  • Religion. The Vatican II sect has adopted, de facto, many NAM practices such as yoga, Reiki, moral relativism, ("Who am I to judge?")--and ecumenism. Bergoglio pushes ecological care as being a sin on the same level as many grievous and wicked acts such as abortion, which he derides as one of many traditional "simple minded rules." 
Proselytizing in a New Age
The best way to proselytize New Agers is to try and attack their underlying belief in pantheism. Some may not even know that this is what they believe. Since some people have only one NAM belief, you may need to attack that one belief only (e.g., reincarnation). They are not per se of the NAM because of one belief. You must see their overarching worldview. If they are New Agers, do not  attack each belief. Go after pantheism. Basically, New Agers, like Buddhists, believe we are all "divine" since "all is God," and people are not aware of it ("universal amnesia"). We need to be "awakened to our divinity."   

Here are four talking points:

1. The universal amnesia regarding our "divinity" cannot be satisfactorily explained.
If humanity is really "part of the divine," how is it that we are unaware of it? Wouldn't "god" know he is divine? Why does it take some guru, or yoga, or pagan meditation for "god" to realize who he is? How do we account for this "cosmic amnesia"?

2. How does the pantheist know that HE is not the one mis-perceiving reality?
The New Agers claim that Christians who believe in a world external to their senses are caught in the grip of an illusion, because "all is one." How does the NAM member know it is we who are deceived by our common sense experience and not himself for thinking that "all is one;" contrary to what reason and sense experience tells us?

3. If pantheism is true, we can never distinguish between fantasy and reality. 
The burden of proof is clearly on the New Ager to tell us why we should abandon our common ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy. We should believe what our experience tells us is true unless or until we have good reason to think otherwise. The NAM reverses this and would have us believe what is counter-intuitive is true despite the lack of evidence. This is absurd.

4. If pantheism is true, there is no good or evil. 
If all is "God," then God allowed the mass murders committed by Joseph Stalin, and God allowed the altruism of St. Francis of Assisi. How can they be morally equivalent? Inanimate objects are divine on the pantheistic worldview. They have "spiritual energy." Does that mean they are self-aware? If not, how can they be equally divine with rational creatures? If so, do we harm them by throwing them or breaking them up? Don't they then have rights of some sort?

Finally, remind them that all religions do not teach the same doctrines. One cannot rationally claim that the various world religions are teaching the same basic truths. This becomes evident by examining key doctrines in each religion. The Bible reveals that there is one personal God who is Triune in nature. The Koran teaches there is only one God--"Allah," but God cannot have a Son, and there is no Trinity. The writings of Confucius affirm polytheism (there are many "gods"). Buddha taught that the concept of God was essentially irrelevant. These mutually exclusive beliefs cannot all be true. Hence, the NAM "God" is a liar, OR if truly an impersonal "it" into which we will be absorbed and lose our individuality, how is this any different from non-existence like atheists teach? Why is only "part of God" capable of rationality (humans) and part non-rational (like rocks)? Which is it?

The NAM encompasses many falsehoods and deceits. It has infiltrated, to one degree or another, the way the modern world thinks since the Great Apostasy of Vatican II. The New Age openness to channeling—consulting psychics in order to contact the dead, or to contact a "guardian angel," or "spirit guide" is an especially grievous sin against God. The whole movement is seeped in the occult and the pagan, which in turn opens a person to demonic forces. 

As I've written before, occultic practices are condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine). According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology [1961], pg. 100; Emphasis mine). 

It's called "The New Age Movement," but it's just re-packaged falsehoods brought to you from the Father of Lies.