Monday, June 28, 2021

That Which Goeth Before Destruction


To My Readers:
Giving me a much needed respite this week, my guest poster, A Simple Man, brings you this most interesting and thought-provoking post to close out the month of June. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, and please join me in saying a prayer for A Simple Man and his family. His contributions have been a blessing to all; and to me in a most special way.---Introibo

That Which Goeth Before Destruction

By A Simple Man 

As far as Americans are concerned, the month of June has become synonymous with a certain something known as Pride Month, wherein deviant sexualities are celebrated, various corporations put rainbows into their logos to commemorate them, and the attitude of “Celebrate, or else!” is imposed writ large on popular society. (That June is also the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus adds a touch of blasphemy to these proceedings.) With that being said, the connection of ‘pride’ with deviant sexualities seems unfounded at first glance, at least in a moral sense; it is only thanks to the Stonewall riots of 1969 (and the subsequent marches and parades on the anniversaries thereafter) that pride became a buzzword inextricably linked with gay and lesbian groups (which, as time has gone on, has accrued more and more aberrant sexualities, to the point where it’s become a joke at how long the old LGBT acronym has become). To cite a quote from the National Historic Landmark Nomination for Stonewall (which it certainly is, but for all the wrong reasons): “Up to 1969, this movement was generally called the homosexual or homophile movement…in June 1969, New York police raided the Stonewall Inn, a bar on Greenwich Village's Christopher Street that was popular with male homosexuals. The bar's clientele took umbrage, and for the first time in history homosexuals fought back. The police were stunned....Word spread of the spontaneous rebellion and immediately the movement acquired a grass-roots appeal and began to burgeon. Many new activists consider the Stonewall uprising the birth of the gay liberation movement. Certainly it was the birth of gay pride on a massive scale.” (Italics is emphasis mine.)

Since then, the association of June with ‘Pride Month’ has only increased, especially after civil recognition was given by Bill Clinton as far back as 1999 (Presidential Proclamation 7203 — Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, 1999), and by Barack Obama during each year of his presidency. Without a doubt, the very concept of pride in this sense has been inculcated into the popular culture as a modern civic ‘virtue’; if one dares dispute its status, castigation as a civil heretic awaits you from the secular orthodoxy. Woe to those who call good, evil; and evil, good!

Introibo has already published a post on the sheer statistical evidence regarding the physical and mental problems associated with the deviant behaviors and lifestyles of the LGBTQ+ movement; however, it would behoove us to investigate the lessons of moral theology with regards to pride, since it is a commonly held sentiment in many other aspects beyond the inherently impure manner of Pride Month (such as pride in one’s accomplishments, being proud of one’s family or country, and so forth). After all, Pope St. Gregory the Great famously labelled pride the “queen and mother of all the vices,” so we should be especially on guard against it.

What is pride? Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is “the excessive love of one’s own excellence.” It does not take long to see how this definition applies to the modern celebrations of Pride Month, given the bombastic parades and in-your-face behavior of those who proclaim their sexual proclivities with such effusive gusto. But how does pride manifest in our own lives, wherein the temptation to boast of one’s works may rear its ugly head?

First, we turn to the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. Per Question 162 of the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa Theologiae, which deals with pride exclusively (all punctuation and spelling is as cited, save for certain citations which have been truncated for the sake of readability):

-          From Article 1, Whether pride is a sin, St. Thomas lists an objection with regards to how God promised to make Jerusalem an “everlasting glory, a joy unto generation and generation” (Isaiah 60:15 from the Douay-Rheims, rendered as “[Jerusalem] shalt be the pride of ages, the joy of succeeding generations” in the Knox Bible), so how then could pride be bad? Likewise, there is the objection that it is not a sin to want to be like unto God, and is not pride merely the imitation of exaltedness, where God is the most exalted over all? St. Thomas answers: “right reason requires that every man's will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason, and this shows it to have the character of sin…Pride [superbia] may be understood in two ways. First as overpassing [supergreditur] the rule of reason, and in this sense we say that it is a sin. Secondly, it may simply denominate "super-abundance"; in which sense any super-abundant thing may be called pride: and it is thus that God promises pride as significant of super-abundant good. Hence a gloss of Jerome on the same passage (Isaiah 61:6) says that "there is a good and an evil pride"; or "a sinful pride which God resists, and a pride that denotes the glory which He bestows." It may also be replied that pride there signifies abundance of those things in which men may take pride. […] Reason has the direction of those things for which man has a natural appetite; so that if the appetite wander from the rule of reason, whether by excess or by default, it will be sinful, as is the case with the appetite for food which man desires naturally. Now pride is the appetite for excellence in excess of right reason. Wherefore Augustine says…that pride is the "desire for inordinate exaltation": and hence it is that, as he asserts…"pride imitates God inordinately: for it hath equality of fellowship under Him, and wishes to usurp Hi. [recte His] dominion over our fellow-creatures."” 

-          From Article 2, Whether pride is a special sin, he answers: “…it may be considered as having a certain influence towards other sins. On this way it has somewhat of a generic character, inasmuch as all sins may arise from pride, in two ways. First directly, through other sins being directed to the end of pride which is one's own excellence, to which may be directed anything that is inordinately desired. Secondly, indirectly and accidentally as it were, that is by removing an obstacle, since pride makes a man despise the Divine law which hinders him from sinning, according to Jeremiah 2:20, "Thou hast broken My yoke, thou hast burst My bands, and thou saidst: I will not serve." It must, however, be observed that this generic character of pride admits of the possibility of all vices arising from pride sometimes, but it does not imply that all vices originate from pride always. For though one may break the commandments of the Law by any kind of sin, through contempt which pertains to pride, yet one does not always break the Divine commandments through contempt, but sometimes through ignorance. and sometimes through weakness: and for this reason Augustine says…that "many things are done amiss which are not done through pride."

-          From Article 6, Whether pride is the most grievous of sins, he answers: “…on the part of the aversion, pride has extreme gravity, because in other sins man turns away from God, either through ignorance or through weakness, or through desire for any other good whatever; whereas pride denotes aversion from God simply through being unwilling to be subject to God and His rule. Hence Boethius…says that "while all vices flee from God, pride alone withstands God"; for which reason it is specially stated (James 4:6) that "God resisteth the proud." Wherefore aversion from God and His commandments, which is a consequence as it were in other sins, belongs to pride by its very nature, for its act is the contempt of God. And since that which belongs to a thing by its nature is always of greater weight than that which belongs to it through something else, it follows that pride is the most grievous of sins by its genus, because it exceeds in aversion which is the formal complement of sin.

The remainder of Question 162 is well worth reading in its entirety. A good companion piece to also review is Question 132 of the Second Part of the Second Part on Vainglory, since such is a daughter of pride.

Secondly, we shall turn to the Doctor of Moral Theology, St. Alphonsus Liguori. Per Volume I of his Theologia Moralis (version cited is the 2017 publication from Mediatrix Press, translated from the Latin by Ryan Grant; all citations referred to by St. Alphonsus are redacted for the sake of readability; all other punctuation, formatting, and spelling is as cited), from pp. 460-464:

Pride…is a mortal sin by its genus if it is consummated and carried out, i.e. if someone so desired to excel that he refused to be subject to God, superiors, and their laws. Nevertheless, it is imperfect in a case where someone that does not refuse to be subject to those whom he ought, only magnifies himself in his own emotions, and it is only venial, as Cajetan and others teach…without contempt of God and of others, to raise himself more than the just, it is not a grave disorder: still it would be grave if it were done with notable contempt of others, by being pleased with the abjection of others.

The daughters of pride are three: 1) Presumption [ASM’s Note: Not to be confused with the sin of presumption which hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it due to an improper and badly regulated hope in God’s mercy], which is the appetite for undertaking something beyond one’s strength. It is commonly only a venial sin; still it becomes mortal if it causes injury to God or neighbor, e.g. if one were to presume ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the power of Holy Orders; likewise if one were to presume the office of a doctor, a defense attorney, a confessor, etc. without due experience…2. Ambition, which is a disordered desire for dignity and honor that is not due, or due to one greater, such as if one were to solicit a benefice or office for which he was not worthy, or illicit in the mode and measure; e.g. by simony. It is a venial sin per se, but it becomes mortal either by reason of the matter, from which, or by reason of the means, by which an honor is sought, or by reason of the loss which is inflicted on one’s neighbor. […] 3. Vainglory, viz. desire for inane glory, has its end in the disordered manifestation of a proper excellence, whether true or false. It is called vain, when it is sought for an evil, false, or fictitious thing, or something that is not worthy of glory…such as from riches, trifles, etc., or among those who do not judge rightly about a matter, or without a due purpose. It is a venial sin of itself, but is often a mortal sin per accidens

[…] Pusillanimity corresponds to these three daughters of pride, whereby someone lacking in confidence would detract honors, glory or a duty from himself for which he is worthy. It is venial of its nature; and it becomes mortal if one were to detract from something to which he is held under mortal sin.

Thus, the following are resolved: 1. Hearing praise for himself or another on a matter that is mortally evil, one sins mortally if he would approve it, support, or admire it as worthy of praise. […] Disparaging another on account of vengeance not taken up, or some other grave evil, or a sin that was omitted…he sins mortally because it is a species of boasting and it is with approbation of sin, and the occasion to commit it. […] To exonerate oneself too much from a spirit of levity or vanity, in itself is only a venial sin. […] To feign holiness with a will to not really have it…is a mortal sin. […] To feign wickedness is a sin (because it is a lie and certainly scandalous; it can also be mortal)…

Lastly, we turn to McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P.’s Moral Theology from 1958 (hosted in the public domain by Project Gutenberg), and shall quote paragraphs 2557 through 2561 in their entirety (all punctuation is as cited):

2557. Pride.—Pride is an inordinate desire of one's own personal excellence. 

(a)    It is a desire, for the object of pride is that which is pleasing and yet not easy of attainment.

(b)    The desire is concerned with excellence, that is, with a high degree of some perfection (such as virtue, knowledge, beauty, fame, honor) or with superiority to others in perfection.

(c)    The excellence sought is personal; that is, the object of pride is self as exalted on high or raised above others. Ambition seeks greatness in honors and dignities, presumption greatness in accomplishment, and vanity greatness in reputation and glory; pride, from which these other vices spring, seeks the greatness of the ego or of those things with which the ego is identified, such as one's own children, one's own family, or one's own race.

(d)    The desire is inordinate, either as to the matter, when one desires an excellence or superiority of which one is unworthy (e.g., equality with Our Lord), or as to the manner, when one expressly desires to have excellence or superiority without due subjection (e.g., to possess one's virtue without dependence on God or from one's own unaided merits). In the former case pride is opposed to greatness of soul, in the latter case to humility. The contempt which is proper to pride is a disdain for subjection, and the contempt which belongs to disobedience is a disgust for a precept; but pride naturally leads to contempt for law and for God and the neighbor (see 2367). 

2558. The Acts of Pride.— 

(a)    In his intellect, the proud man has an exaggerated opinion of his own worth, and this causes his inordinate desire of praise and exaltation. But pride may also be the cause of conceited ideas, for those who are too much in admiration of themselves often come to think that they are really as great as they wish to be.

(b)    The will of the proud man worships his own greatness, and longs for its recognition and glorification by others.

(c)    In his external words and works, the proud man betrays himself by boasting, self-glorification, self-justification, by his haughty appearance and gestures and luxurious style, by arrogance, insolence, perfidy, disregard of the rights and feelings of others, etc. 

2559. The Sinfulness of Pride.— 

(a)    Complete pride, which turns away from God because it considers subjection detrimental to one's own excellence, is a mortal sin from its nature, since it is a manifest rebellion against the Supreme Being (Ecclus., x. 14). Such was the pride of Lucifer, but it is rare in human beings. Complete pride may be venial from the imperfection of the act, when it is only a semideliberate wish.

(b)    Incomplete pride, which turns inordinately to the love of created excellence but without disaffection to superiors, is in itself a venial sin, for there is no serious disorder in the excess of an otherwise indifferent passion. But circumstances may make this pride mortal (e.g., when it is productive of serious harm to others). 

2560. Pride Compared with Other Sins.— 

(a)    Gravity.—Complete pride is less than hatred of God, for the former has as its object personal excellence, the latter separation from God. But after hatred of God complete pride is worse disloyalty than any other mortal sin; it separates from God directly, since it abjures allegiance to the Supreme Being, while other sins separate from God only indirectly, since they offend, not from contempt, but from ignorance, or passion or excessive desire.

(b)    Origin.—Pride was the first sin, because by it the angels and our first parents fell, the angels desiring likeness to God in beatitude, Adam and Eve likeness in knowledge (Ecclus., x. 15; Prov., xviii. 11; Tob., iv. 14).

(c)    Influence.—Pride is called the queen and mother of the seven capital vices—namely, vainglory (2450), gluttony (2473), lust (2494), avarice (2426), sloth (1322), envy (1342), and anger (2549)—not in the sense that every sin is the result of pride (for many persons sin from ignorance, passion, etc.), but in the sense that the inordinate desire of personal excellence is a motive that can impel one to any kind of sin, just as covetousness offers a means that is useful for every temporal end (I Tim., vi. 10). Pride is also most dangerous, since it steals away the reward of virtue itself (Matt., vi. 2); and, as humility is the first step towards heaven, pride is the first step towards hell. 

2561. Abjection.—The other extreme of pride is abjection. 

(a)    As a turning away from these higher things to which one should aspire, this sin is the same as littleness of soul, and it is opposed to greatness of soul (see 2451).

(b)    As a turning to lower things or to a submission to others which is unreasonable, this vice is directly opposed to humility. Examples are persons of knowledge who waste their time on menial labor when they should be more usefully employed in other pursuits, or who permit themselves to be corrected and guided by the errors and false principles of the ignorant.

[ASM’s Note: In this sense of lowering oneself for improper reasons or for false pretenses, abjection can be considered an example of “false humility.”]

To summarize, the following general principles can be taken from the prior citations on the matter of pride:

1)      Pride is rightly called the mother of vices because, of its nature, it is rooted in aversion to being subject to anyone else, be it God or one’s lawful superiors.

2)      A given manifestation of pride may be either venial or mortal dependent on the matter which it relates to, the means by which it occurs, and the effects it has on oneself and others in terms of damage or proportionality.

3)      A given manifestation of pride is a sin either directly (due to being related explicitly to the matter which one is expressing pride in, e.g. boasting of one’s accomplishments vaingloriously) or indirectly (due to one’s pride resulting in a defect or vice that leads to a sin of a different stripe, e.g. through pride in one’s will, one is discordant with one’s neighbor on a matter in which they should be in harmony).

As such, with regards to the modern examples of pride discussed previously, we can conclude as follows:

1)      Pride, in the sense of those who speak of Pride Month, is a mortal sin. For those who are not LGBTQ+ themselves yet still celebrate Pride Month, it is sinful due to expressing approval and approbation for objectively impure behavior. In addition, for those who are themselves LGBTQ+, the celebration of Pride Month is an objective expression of their refusal to be subject to the natural law and the moral law of God, as well as an inordinate desire to glory in their impure lifestyle (notwithstanding their identification of such behavior as integral to their very being, as though such impurity were an immutable part of their very existence).

2)      Pride, in the sense of being proud of one’s accomplishments (or the accomplishments of one’s family, one’s friends, and so forth), can be sinful to the degree in which one treats such accomplishments with undue proportion (e.g. crowing to one’s co-workers about getting the Employee of the Month award instead of, for example, accepting it humbly and without any fuss…or perhaps even turning it down) and to the degree in which one treats such accomplishments as being solely due to one’s own talents without regard to what God has given them (whether it be natural gifts or supernatural graces).

3)      Pride, in the sense of being proud of one’s country (i.e. patriotism), can be sinful to the degree in which one treats the ideals and actions of the nation in relation to the rights of God (e.g. the difference between the natural desire to protect one’s homeland vs. seeking undue glory by means of martial or ideological conquest; or, the difference between celebrating objectively good ideals promoted by one’s country vs. celebrating all of its cultural mores, even if they be at variance with the moral law of God). 

In conclusion, the antidote to all manifestations of pride is the virtue of humility: recognizing our total dependence upon God without debasing ourselves unduly (e.g. by comparing ourselves to mere animals, and therefore becoming like irrational beasts); restraining our passions, and not letting inordinate desire and ambition inform our conduct; aiming at higher things without thought to our own powers, but with confidence in God’s help; duly esteeming our fellow man rather than ourselves, subjecting ourselves accordingly without vainglory; and lastly (but not exhaustively), understanding the duties which we are called to perform, according to our state of life.

Armed with such virtues, what attraction can the false gospel of Pride Month have, which glories in the false identification of sexual deviancy with human nature? None whatsoever, I dare to say! For, as the Book of Proverbs teaches in verse 2 of chapter 11, “where pride is, there also shall be reproach: but where humility is, there also is wisdom.

Monday, June 21, 2021

For As Long As You Both Shall Live


Just over three months ago, I wrote a post on the vocation of marriage. I received many comments from readers (requesting that I don't publish the comments) asking that I write a post on divorce. They don't understand why they must stay with a spouse that is not invested in the marriage.  The typical comment read, "Why must I stay with my no-good spouse who is a(n) adulterer/wife beater/drunk/drug addict/gambler/lousy parent, etc.? I understand I can separate and receive a legal divorce, but the Church considers me married to the no-good 'so and so' and I must remain celibate as long as he/she is alive. Why can't I try and be happy with someone else? How can God send me to Hell simply because I made a mistake and don't want to live alone?"

Making matters worse is the flippant and heretical treatment of marriage by the Vatican II sect. They hand out "annulments" to almost everyone who asks, and they have become known as "Catholic (sic) divorces." Bergoglio compounds the problem further by allowing "communion" to open and notorious adulterers. I can imagine the blessed remains of St. Thomas More turning over. However, the beginnings of the denigration and tacit denial of the Indissolubility of Holy Matrimony actually started with the Vatican II sect's revised Rite of Holy Matrimony which reflected the change in doctrine regarding marriage.

The two-fold purpose of this post shall be (a) to further elaborate on the Church's teaching on marriage (as well as the evil of divorce), and (b) to demonstrate how the Rite of Matrimony in the Vatican II sect weakens and undermines Church teaching on marriage by introducing the sect's false teaching on the subject. 

For those who wish to read my post on the vocation of marriage, see: 

The Church Teaches
I have decided to keep my commentary to a minimum and let the Church, through the teachings of Her true popes, explain why marriage is for the life of the spouses (Indissolubility). It rests first and foremost on the fact that society rises or falls with the family unit consisting of husband and wife raising children. Attempts to redefine marriage by civil unions, by recognizing abominations (sodomite "marriage"), or "committed relationships" (i.e., shacking up) will result in societal havoc.

The family is the basis of society.  As the human body is composed of living cells, which are not placed only one beside the other but by their intimate and constant relationship constitute an organic whole, so society is formed not by a conglomeration of individuals, sporadic beings, who appear for an instant and disappear the next, but by the economic community and by the moral solidarity of families which, transmitting from generation to generation the precious inheritance of a common ideal, civilization and religious faith, guarantee the cohesion and continuity of social ties.  St. Augustine noted it fifteen centuries ago, when he wrote that the family ought to be the initial element and like a cell (particula) of the city.  Since each part is ordained to the purpose and integrity of the whole, he concluded that peace in the family between who commands and who obeys helps to maintain harmony between the citizens (St. Augustine: Invitate Dei; L. 70, c 16).  Well they know it who, in order to expel God from society and throw it all into disorder, use every means to deprive the family of respect and take away even the remembrance of the divine laws, by exalting divorce and free union, by obstructing the providential duty given to parents towards their children, by instilling in married couples the fear of the material efforts and moral responsibilities which accompany the glorious burden of numerous children. (See Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Newlyweds, June 26, 1940; Emphasis mine).

Marriage is Indissoluble by reason of its Divine Institution from Christ. This teaching was given by the Apostles, the Council of Trent, as well as by the constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, and approved theologians of the Church.  

In like manner from the teaching of the Apostles we learn that the unity of marriage and its perpetual indissolubility, the indispensable conditions of its very origin, must, according to the command of Christ, be holy and inviolable without exception.  Paul says again: 'To them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband' (1 Cor. 7:10-11), and again 'a woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty' (1 Cor. 7:39).  It is for these reasons that marriage is a 'great Sacrament' (Eph. 5:32), 'honourable in all' (Heb. 13:4); holy, pure and to be reverenced as a type and symbol of most high mysteries." (See Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae para. #9; Emphasis mine). 

This is the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Council of Trent, Sess. 24; canon 1): "The first parent of the human race, moved by the Divine Spirit, declared that marriage is a perpetual and indissoluble bond when he stated 'This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' (Gen. 2, 23).  Christ confirmed the same stability of the bond which had been proclaimed by Adam so long ago when he declared: 'what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder'' (St. Matthew 19: 6)."  Thus marriage in the very state of nature, and certainly long before it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament in the true sense of the word, was divinely instituted in such a manner that its bond was perpetual and indissoluble, so that it cannot be dissolved by any civil law. (See Pope Pius VI: Letter Litteris Tuis, July 11, 1789; Emphasis mine).

The perpetual and indissoluble strength of the marriage bond does not have its origin in ecclesiastical discipline.  For the consummated marriage is solidly based on divine and natural law: such a marriage can never be dissolved for any reason - not even by the Pope himself - and not even in the case where one of the parties may have violated conjugal fidelity by committing adultery. (See Pope Pius IX, Letter Verbis Exprimere,  August 15, 1859; Emphasis mine). 

The indissolubility of the marriage contract is emphatically declared by Christ Himself when He says, 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder' (St. Matthew 19:6) and 'Every man that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery' (St. Luke 16:18).

And this attribute of marriage is assigned by St. Augustine to the blessing called Sacrament in the following passage: 'Sacrament signifies that the bond of wedlock shall never be broken, and that neither party, if separated, shall form a union with another, even for the sake of offspring' (St. Augustine: De Gen. ad Litt., L IX; ch VII; n 12.).  But this inviolable stability, though not always in equal measure nor always with the same degree of perfection, is the attribute of every true matrimonial bond; for the words of the Lord, 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder', were spoken concerning the nuptial union of our first parents, the prototype of all future marriages, and are consequently applicable to every true marriage.  It is true that before the coming of Christ, the perfection and strictness of the original law were modified to the extent that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, allowed even the members of God's people to give a bill of divorce for certain reasons.  But Christ, in virtue of His power as supreme Lawgiver, revoked this concession and restored the law to its original perfection by those words which must never be forgotten: 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder' (St. Matthew 19:6). (See Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii para. 32-34; Emphasis mine). 

The great benefits of upholding the Indissolubility of Matrimony is likewise taught by the Church in clear and powerful language.

Equal advantages are afforded to the whole of society, for experience shows that the inviolable indissolubility of marriage is a most fruitful source of upright living and of moral integrity.  If this is observed, the happiness and prosperity of the State are secured; for the State is what it is made to be by the individuals and families which compose it, as a body is composed of its members.  Consequently those who strenuously defend the permanent stability of matrimony render a great service to the individual welfare of married persons and their children and to the public welfare of society. (See Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, Ibid;Emphasis mine ). 

After Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer and Restorer of human nature, elevated Matrimony to the dignity of a Sacrament, every marriage between Christians is by that very fact, a Sacrament, nor can the contract be in any way separated from the Sacrament.  It follows that - having excepted the rights which the State has over what are called the civil effects - Matrimony falls under the authority of the Church.  Besides, it is certain that Jesus, the Redeemer of all peoples, abolished the bill of divorce and gave back to Matrimony, which was strengthened by a new sanctity, its indissolubility which it had received in the beginning through the will of God Himself.

It follows that the marriage of Christians in the same moment that it is completed acquires its sanctity, unity and perfection.  It cannot be dissolved for any reason whatsoever, save the death of one of the partners, in conformity to the words of Sacred Scripture: 'What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder' (St. Matthew 19: 6).  Jesus Christ had in mind the numerous interests of mankind: in practice nothing better assures the preservation and restoration of good morality and nothing could be thought to be more useful and efficacious to nourish the reciprocal love between husband and wife, and to procure for the family the stability of divine power, to give back to the children the blessing of the protection and the education of former times, to safeguard woman's dignity and to assure the honor and prosperity of the family and the State. (See Pope Leo XIII,  Letter Dum Multa, December 24, 1902; Emphasis mine).

If the Church, fulfilling the mission received from the Divine Founder, with powerful and fearless use of holy and invincible energy, has always affirmed and spread abroad in the world inseparable marriage, give praise and glory to her who so doing has greatly contributed in safeguarding the right of the spirit before the impulse of sense in matrimonial life, saving the dignity of the marriage no less of the woman than of the human person. (See Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Newlyweds,  April 29, 1942). 

The Church Condemns The Enemies Of Marriage
The two greatest enemies of the Indissolubility of Matrimony--hoping to tear apart the very foundation of a healthy and God-fearing society---are Freemasons and Communists. 

As regards domestic society, here in brief is the Naturalists' doctrine.  Matrimony is only a civil contract.  It can be rescinded legitimately by the free will of the partners.  To the State belongs the power over the matrimonial bond...

Now the Freemasons accept these principles without reserve.  Not only do they accept them but for a long time now, they have studied a method which will make these principles part of custom and the way of life.  In many countries, which do not hesitate to declare themselves Catholic, marriages which are not celebrated according to the civil law are declared null; in other places, divorce is allowed; again in other countries, everything is under way to obtain this permission as soon as possible.  Everything is done in haste with the intention of altering the nature of matrimony, to reduce it to a mutable and fleeting union which can be formed and broken at will. (See Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, para. #21; Emphasis mine).

In a system which denies to human life all that is of a sacred and spiritual nature, it follows as a matter of course that matrimony and the family are considered to be a purely civil and artificial institution, originating in a particular set of economic conditions; and as the theory refuses to recognize any matrimonial bond of the juridical and moral order not completely dependent on the will of the individual or the community, it likewise as a necessary consequence denies the indissolubility of matrimony.  The complete emancipation of women from any ties with home or family is a special characteristic of the communist theory.  Held to be totally free from the protective authority of her husband, the wife is withdrawn from the home and the care of her children and, equally with her husband, thrust into the turmoil of public life and communal industry, her home and her children being handed over to the custody of the StateParents, finally, are denied the right to educate the children; this right is claimed exclusively for the community and is therefore allowed to be exercised only in its name and by its mandate. (See Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, para. #11; Emphasis mine).  

The Evils of Divorce
In his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, Pope Leo XIII enumerates the manifold evils of divorce. I have set forth the Pontiff's teaching in bulleted form:

Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce.  
  • Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened
  •  deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied
  •  harm is done to the education and training of children
  •  occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes
  •  the seeds of dissension are sown among families
  •  the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men.  

Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing alike in public and in private life.

The holy pope finishes his denunciation of divorce in these sobering words:
Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or pre-established.  Great indeed is the force of example and even greater still the might of passion.  With such incitements, it must need follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. (para. #29-30; Emphasis and bulleted listing mine).

Marriage Contract or Marriage Covenant?
The Vatican II sect has changed the idea of marriage both in its official teaching as expressed in its 1983 Code of Canon Law and in the revised Rite of Marriage. The Catholic definition of marriage, as propounded in the 1917 Code of Canon Law states, "Christ Our Lord elevated to the dignity of a sacrament the very matrimonial contract of baptized persons." (See Canon 1012, section 1; Emphasis mine). The purpose of marriage is expressed in Canon 1013, section 1, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary purpose is mutual aid and the easing of concupiscence." (Simply stated, concupiscence is the tendency of humans to sin). 

In the Vatican II sect, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1055, section 1, states, "The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (Emphasis mine). Notice the shift in the ends of marriage. The One True Church speaks of the procreation and education of children as the primary purpose of the contract, the mutual love and support of the spouses being secondary. The Vatican II sect does not distinguish between primary and secondary purposes, and lists the "well-being of the spouses" first. 

If you think this is not without significant importance, here is what a Vatican II sect member, Jacqui Rapp who has a Licentiate of Canon Law (JCL) has to say, "Under the theology of marriage as a covenant, however, the entire Church now better understands the good of children (both their procreation and their upbringing) and the good of spouses as the two equal co-ends of marriage." (See Not only is this position clearly heretical, it opens the door to divorce. After all, if the spouses aren't happy it is not conducive to their well-being. Phony annulments are granted for "psychological immaturity"--which in many cases means they thought they could find happiness being married but were not psychologically mature enough to give consent and make it work. More to be said about this later.

First compare the words of Pope Pius XII:
As regards declarations of nullity of marriages, no one is unaware that the Church is hesitant and averse to granting them.  Indeed, if the tranquility, stability and safety of human commerce in general demands that contracts should not be declared null for every fickle reason, then all the more so must it be demanded of a contract of such importance as matrimony, whose firmness and stability are required by the common welfare of human society and by the private welfare of the wedded couples and of the children; while the dignity of the Sacrament forbids that what is sacred and sacramental be easily exposed to the danger of profanation.  Who is unaware then, that human hearts are frequently unfortunately inclined - for reasons of hardship of different kinds, or through disagreement and weariness with the other party, or to open the way to a union with another person sinfully loved - to study means to free themselves from the marriage union already contracted?  For these reasons, the ecclesiastical judge must not too easily be inclined to declare a marriage null but rather to devote himself above all, to see that what has been invalidly contracted be convalidated, especially when the circumstances of the case particularly suggest this course. (See  Allocution to the Tribunal of the Sacred Roman Rota, October 3, 1941). 

In the True Rite of Marriage, the man and woman administer the Sacrament to each other in these words:

The man begins:
I, N. N., take thee, N. N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

The woman follows:

I, N. N., take thee, N. N., for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

The contract is perfectly expressed. They will (a) never depart from each other ["have and to hold"], (b) begin the contract immediately ["from this day forward'], (c) never be free of the sacramental contract regardless of hardships endured [ "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health"], (d) and the ONLY condition that ends the contract is death of one of the spouses ["until death do us part"].  Every couple hears the same Proper of the Nuptial Mass which includes the Gospel of St. Matthew 19:3-6:

At that time: The Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting Him and saying; It is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering said to them, Have ye not read, that He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? and He said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore, now they are not two but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

In the Vatican II sect, the exchange begins thus:

The priest invites them to declare their consent:
Since it is your intention to enter the covenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands, and declare your consent before God and his Church.

The marriage is no longer seen as a binding contract of vows to each other and declared before God, but a giving of permission ("consent") to be married after declaring their intention to marry. The contract cannot be broken except by death, however mutual consent can always be withdrawn, and "lack of consent" due to "psychological immaturity" is yet another bogus excuse to obtain an equally false "annulment." There are four options for vows, two of which avoid the dreaded "D" word:

Option A

The bridegroom says:
I, (Name), take you, (Name), to be my wife. I promise to be faithful to you, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.

The bride says:
I, (Name), take you, (Name), to be my husband. I promise to be faithful to you, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.

While it is true that the phrase "all the days of my life" is the equivalent of "until death do us part," it wouldn't surprise me if someone argued that the former phrase means "all the days of my life in which our marriage was ordered to my well-being." Finally, for the Gospel reading there are ten (10) options, most of which speak of love or charity but not the permanence of matrimony until death. 

The backbone of any society rests on having good and holy families. This can only be obtained by Indissoluble Marriage. Sometimes marriage is painful and separation must occur, but the marriage endures. The person who resigns himself/herself to God's Will merits much in their suffering, and bears witness to the nature and importance of marriage. There are often heavy crosses to bear in all four vocations; marriage being no exception.

Today we live in a world getting more wicked by the day, and it is due--in no small part--by the break-up of the family unit. Any form of shacking up, including sodomite perversion, is considered "marriage." Divorce is "no-fault" and easy. Bergoglio rewards those who violate marriage vows with "communion." We are reaping the evil fruits of all this each day...and it all began with the Hell-spawned teachings of Vatican II.

Monday, June 14, 2021

The Sin Of Pride


I'm not overstating the case when I tell people that one of the greatest threats to the human race--mentally, physically, and spiritually---is the acceptance and active support of LGBTQIAA+ sexual perversion. Just under two weeks ago, I was passing by a Protestant church that had a huge sign out front which read, "Love is love. Happy Pride Month" with the rainbow flag of Sodom and Gomorrah pinned beneath the words. For Catholics prior to the Great Apostasy (and Traditionalist Catholics today), June was the month traditionally dedicated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Now, "Fr." James Martin (appropriately dubbed "Hellboy" by the great "Novus Ordo Watch" website) has an "outreach" each year to perverts, not to repent and be celibate, but to "accept themselves as they are." 

Outreach 2021 will take place later this month over the Internet, just like last year, due to COVID. The 2020 event was marked by a video with messages of support for sodomites by "Catholic" leaders. According to the National Catholic Reporter:

The June 18 video began with Jesuit Fr. James Martin reminding all LGBTQ Catholics that God created them, and that they are as much a part of the Catholic Church as the pope, bishops or local pastors.

In their messages, speakers offered words of hope and encouragement, and called on the church and members to be more inclusive. Dominican Sr. Luisa Derouen, who has been a minister to the transgender community since 1999, said she missed meeting all transgender participants. "It was an honor and privilege of my life to walk with you on your sacred journey," she said.

Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, showed his support to those who minister to the LGBTQ community. He called their work "valuable" and "appreciated." Wester said that ministers played the part of the "good shepherd" by bringing LGBTQ members closer to God. "Your ministry serves all of us as you proclaim God's unconditional love and mercy in a world torn apart by prejudice and exclusion," he said.

Jesuit Fr. John Cecero, superior of the Jesuits USA Northeast Province, called LGBTQ members to "share in the reconciling mission of Jesus." He said it was an invitation to dialogue, in an open, respectful way, not just in the church but in society and culture as well. He encouraged LGBTQ members to face hatred and homophobia in the church and country by being "beacons of light."

(See; Emphasis mine. Full video can be seen via another link contained on the one just given). 

The infiltration into society by sodomites and their acceptance has lead to full "celebration." Even false sects, like the Protestant church I drove by, denounced perversion in the not too distant past. The lunacy is apparent. Take the slogan "love is love;"--- no, it is not. I remember a satirical cartoon, in which a woman was about to kiss a cow, and the caption read: "Love is love." Even the ancient, pagan Greeks understood three kinds of love; eros (romantic love), philia (love of relatives and friends), and agape (love that directed to God and to others for the love of God. As Christ said, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." St. John 15:13). 

I love my wife, I loved my parents, I love my best friend, and I love God. The love I have for each is both felt and expressed very differently. If you apply romantic love to your parents, it's not "love is love," it's called "incest" and is morally wrong and mentally sick. Applied to animals, romantic love is beastiality. Applied to children it's pedophilia (which the clergy of the Vatican II sect know all too well--both those in and out of jail). Applied to persons of the same sex, it's homosexuality; which is just as morally depraved, unnatural, sinful, and sick as the other perversions. An immediate objection I hear is, "If homosexuality is a mental illness, then it can't be sinful." 

While it's true that "Whoever has not the use of reason does not sin formally by transgressing the moral law because of ignorance..." (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 20), the person who is not habitually insane is morally responsible for those acts done while in possession of reason. Hence, a person who is a kleptomaniac has a mental illness to steal. Knowing that stealing is wrong, they have a moral obligation to seek professional help and do all they can to stop themselves. Failure to do so, or "celebrating thieves pride" would constitute grave sin. The Vatican II sect encourages this "sin of pride" among sexual perverts. (I recently heard one person refer to them as "alphabet people" from the ridiculous "LGBTQIAA+" label--clever and a name I may use myself). 

Bergoglio can't possibly plead ignorance of what James Martin is up to, as well as a so-called "Archbishop" and a "Bishop" who appeared in a sin-promoting video. The Church cannot give that which is evil and/or erroneous. Yet, Bergoglio and his clergy promote this evil error. Therefore, Bergoglio cannot be pope nor can those clergy be Catholic clergymen. They are false shepherds of a false and man-made sect. Notice, too, how they use the term homophobia; a made-up mental disorder which implies an irrational fear of homosexuals. In other words, the pervert isn't mentally ill, you are.

Now add the neologism transphobic, once more implying a person who denies there are 58 genders and you get to "pick your pronouns" has a mental illness, not the man who believes himself to be a woman or a woman who thinks she's a man. The madness just got worse this year. In December of 2018, I wrote a post on the transgender lunacy which I entitled When Harry Became Sally after the book of the same name published earlier that year by Dr. Ryan Anderson, Ph.D. Dr. Anderson's book title is a humorous spin on the hit 1989 comedy movie When Harry Met Sally starring Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan. The reason for the title lies in the fact that the movie attempted to answer the question, "Is it possible for a man and woman to really be 'just friends'?" Now, we are being asked to consider if it's possible for a woman to be a man and vice-versa. I read the book and it is one of the few contemporary books I heartily endorsed on this blog. You may read my post in its entirety here: 

On February 21st of this year, banned the book from its platform without explanation. Four Republican U.S. Senators wrote a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos asking why it was removed. In the letter, the senators (Rubio of Florida, Hawley of Missouri, Lee of Utah, and Braun of Indiana) wrote:

In its decision to remove Mr. Anderson’s book from its platforms, Amazon has openly signaled to conservative Americans that their views are not welcome on its platforms. Amazon’s shortsighted censorship of this well-researched and thoughtful contribution to modern American discourse is not just a decision made in poor taste, but an assault on free speech that carries weighty implications for the future of open discourse in the digital age...

At first, Amazon responded by declining to comment specifically on the senators' letter, while writing that "the company reserves the right to pull any book on its shelves that it believes violate company content guidelines on hate speech and other issues." Senator Hawley wasn't satisfied. He wanted to know, speaking in the Senate, why When Harry Became Sally constitutes "hate speech" while Amazon continues to sell Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler. Amazon followed up with a second response. In the letter it states that Amazon has “chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness.” (See 

To summarize: If someone is opposed to the lifestyle of sodomites/alphabet people, they are mentally ill, hateful bigots. Furthermore, if anyone dares to claim that alphabet people have a mental disorder, that person will be censored and treated like a pariah. Can serious legal sanctions be far behind when someone dares to speak against perversity? 

In this post, I will show exactly how mentally ill alphabet people really are--without apology and without censorship.

LGBTQIA=Mentally Ill and Morally Depraved

WARNING! This section of the post contains graphic language and describes disturbing behaviors. Reader discretion is advised.

A) Physical Health Risks Mentally Healthy People Avoid. 

 Homosexual conduct is objectively harmful. The most obvious evidence of this is the negative physical health consequences which can result directly from homosexual acts, and the most dramatic of those negative consequences is the highly elevated risk of HIV infection and AIDS among men who have sex with men. Of all the Americans who have died of AIDS since the epidemic began almost 40 years ago, more than 300,000 of them have been men whose only known risk factor was that they had sex with other men. (See “HIV Surveillance Report,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 2016). 

The Centers for Disease Control report that men who have sex with men account for “more than two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year (70 percent, or an estimated 26,200 infections in 2014),” a rate that is “more than 44 times that of other men.” (See “CDC Fact Sheet: HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 2017).

Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse, the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for:

  • saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant,
  • the recipient’s own feces,
  • whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and
  • the seminal fluid of the inserter.

Sperm, which is immunocompromising, readily penetrate the rectal lining (which is only one cell thick), and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex. Because of this, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse — in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present — rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis, and a host of other blood-borne diseases. (See Manligit, et al (1984) "Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloantigens." J American Medical Assoc 251:237-38; Mulhall, et al (1990) "Anti-sperm antibodies in homosexual men." Genitourinary Medicine 66:5-7; Ratnam KV (1994) "Effect of sexual practices on T cell subsets." Intl J of STDs and AIDS 5:257-61). 

Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely during “fisting,” where the hand and possibly arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when “toys” are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum — bottles, carrots, even gerbils enclosed in large latex balloons who thrash around the anus until they smother, giving the sodomite intense sexual pleasure). (See  Adams (1986) "The straight dope." The Reader, 3/28/86). 

All of this sodomite insanity leads to higher cancer rates as well. Gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. (See “Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health: Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 9, 2016).  The Office on Women’s Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports, “Some STIs are more common among lesbians and bisexual women and may be passed easily from woman to woman (such as bacterial vaginosis).” (See “Lesbian and Bisexual Women Health Fact Sheet,” Rhode Island Student Assistant Service). 

B) Mental Health Issues.

The Communist Southern Poverty Law Center which calls Traditionalists a "hate group," in its article 10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked, says one such myth is, “Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.” Yet in their own explanation of “the facts,” they admit that “it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population.”(See Evelyn Schlatter and Robert Steinback, "10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked,"  Intelligence Report 140 (2010), Southern Poverty Law Center).

Even the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) has noted these problems. For example, among men who identify as homosexual:

  • Problems with body image are more common among gay men, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa.

  • Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger cities. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines.

  • Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. . . Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide . . .

  • Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies.
  • (See Robert J. Winn, “Ten Things Gay Men Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider,” GLMA, May 2012). 

    The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has reported the following distressing facts concerning women who identify themselves as practicing lesbians:
    • Among adults, a study that examined the risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals with same-sex partners found that, during the previous 12 months, women with same-sex partners experienced more mental health disorders—such as major depression, phobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder—than did women with opposite sex partners
    • Another study “found that lesbian and bisexual women who were ‘out’ experienced more emotional stress as teenagers and were 2 to 2.5 times more likely to experience suicidal ideation in the past 12 months than heterosexual women. Meanwhile, lesbian and bisexual women who were not ‘out’ were more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual women.”
    • “Studies have found that lesbians are between 1.5 and 2 times more likely to smoke than heterosexual women.”
    • “A number of studies have also suggested that lesbians are significantly more likely to drink heavily than heterosexual women.”
        (See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Top Health Issues for LGBT Populations Information & Resource Kit. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4684. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012, C1-2). 

        Psychotic Violence
        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").

        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. Even if the "10% of the population" is homosexual/bisexual were true, murder is disproportionately high among sodomites. 

        Child Molestation
        • Over 90% of child molesters are male
        • 25-40% of molestations are same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals
        • 43% of sex between teachers and pupils is homosexual
        • 50% of sex between foster parents and foster children is homosexual
        • In a study of 21 "group home" sex scandals — 71% were homosexual
        • Of those who commit incest: Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%
        (See Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study." Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43).

        Take note that NAMBLA deviants are the "North American MAN BOY Love Association," not the "ADULT CHILD Love Association," thereby clearly denoting male homosexuals, not heterosexuals after girls or adult women going after underage boys or underage girls. 

        Transgender Mental Problems
        • People with gender dysphoria or transgender identities are more likely than the general public to engage in high-risk behaviors, which may result from or contribute to psychological disorders (or both). Some of the high-risk behavior is directly related to their desire to change sex. For example, some people who identify as transgender self-mutilate or undergo procedures in non-medical settings. (See Janice Raymond, The Transgender Empire: The Making of the She-Male, [1979], pgs. 34-35). 
        • High rates of suicide exist even among those who have already received gender reassignment surgery, which suggests that suicidal tendencies result from an underlying pathology. Ironically, some argue suicide is a reason for reassignment surgery.
        According to the pro-sodomite Human Rights Campaign:
        More than half of transgender male teens who participated in the survey reported attempting suicide in their lifetime, while 29.9 percent of transgender female teens said they attempted suicide. Among non-binary youth, 41.8 percent of respondents stated that they had attempted suicide at some point in their lives. (See

        A psychologically healthy person accepts the reality of his or her sexual identity. Grief and anger over one’s genetic makeup signal mental health problems that can and should be addressed through psychological counseling. The academic literature includes some clinical accounts of successful efforts to overcome gender identity problems. Decades ago, there were already findings pointing “to the possibility of psychosocial intervention as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of transsexualism.” (See David H. Barlow, Gene G. Abel, Edward B. Blanchard, “Gender Identity Change in Transsexuals,” Archives of General Psychiatry 36 [1979]). 

        A look at the facts shows that LGBTQIAA+ people have serious mental health issues as well as moral problems that go against both nature and God. To oppose sodomites and attempt to get them both mental and spiritual help is what they desperately need. The lavender lobby is going beyond the usual hackneyed argument "you can't impose your religious beliefs on others." Instead, they are beginning to attack religious teachings about homosexuality, arguing that such doctrine “harms the LGBTQIA+ community” and people who believe that sexual perversion is immoral, unnatural, and a mental illness are themselves mentally ill as well as hateful bigots that need to be banned from public discourse.

        It has gotten so bad, in my opinion, we need a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be a union of one man and one woman, and pronouncing homosexual conduct as criminal conduct that may be proscribed by law. (This would overturn all U. S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, beginning in 2003). The law is a great teacher. Any homosexual who does not get help on their own may be convicted of the crime of homosexuality and be subjected to mandated conversion therapy and/or imprisonment. Lastly, all public promotion of "LGBTQIA+" by a corporation or educational institution shall be subjected to large fines. Sound draconian? Not if you realize the very foundation of our civilization is at stake. 

        The truth of the matter is that homosexual behavior was recognized as a mental disorder by the American Psychological Association and listed as such in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders until 1973 when it was removed under political pressure to normalize such deviancy. Homosexuality and associated disorders (e.g., transgenderism) are not just a problem religiously. Those behaviors are dangerous to (a) the one practicing them, (b) other people, and (c) society at large. The most compassionate thing we can do is to let "LGBTQIA+ people" know they are sick and need help. The also are committing one of The Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. Yet society tells them they are normal, and the Vatican II sect (while condemning it "on the books") is de facto telling them to continue sinning. 

        Bergoglio and his sect, in the name of "love, inclusiveness and compassion," continue to push mentally ill perverts to Hell with gay abandon. 

        Monday, June 7, 2021

        When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 22


        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

        Martial Arts

        The martial arts are fighting systems designed primarily for sport, self-defense, and physical fitness. Why, then, would I discuss this as a religious sect? Most people are unaware that many (although not all) martial arts are a pathway to the occult and false pagan religions. By starting at a dojo (i.e., martial arts school of Japanese systems) you may also be starting down a path to falsehoods that become all-consuming. The dangers with many systems are threefold:

        • Occult meditation
        • Exalting the sensei, sifu, or master (various names for a martial arts teacher) to a cult of personality
        • Even when engaged in for physical purposes, many times the student will be introduced to an underlying pagan, Eastern religious philosophy--primarily Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism
         I discussed once before how my first exposure to Buddhism was at the age of seven in 1972. My family was poor, so I wasn't on a trip to China, and my parents would never allow me to go to a Buddhist temple here in New York City; they went along with the Vatican II sect at the time, but disapproved of anything non-Catholic. (They would later join me as Traditionalists shortly after my conversion when they realized the Modernist Vatican wasn't Catholic either).  The insidious doctrine of pantheism (the belief that God is "in" all things and that, in some sense, all of reality is ultimately One and Divine) came into my living room under the guise of my favorite TV show, Kung Fu.

        In the show, David Carradine (d. 2009) portrayed a Shaolin Buddhist monk named Kwai Chang Caine, the son of an American sailor and Chinese woman, who is orphaned and raised in a Buddhist monastery. Later, he is forced to flee China and come to America looking for his American half-brother in the Old West (late 1800s). While searching for his half-brother, he encounters prejudice and helps people using his Buddhist "wisdom" and martial arts skills. (Ironically, the idea came from martial arts legend Bruce Lee. Lee was himself the son of a Chinese father and Irish-Catholic mother, and wanted to star in the title role. He was rejected for an Irish-American actor because the producers didn't think American audiences were ready for an actual half-Chinese actor as the star). 

        In each episode there is a flashback wherein Caine thinks of when he was learning in the Buddhist monastery. In the flashback, one of his Buddhist "masters" would spout some nonsensical mumbo-jumbo, to "enlighten" him. Armed with the remembrance of Buddhist teaching, he was able to save the day. In one episode he somehow knew that if a rancher killed a pregnant cow, the rancher's pregnant wife would have a miscarriage, so he must stop the man from killing the cow. Caine has a flashback where he is reminded how "all life is interconnected"--whatever that means. I was impressed by it because it sounded profound, much like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

        Luckily, I never delved deeper into that pagan influenced show which lead many to investigate (and convert to) Buddhism. Carradine knew nothing of kung fu when he started the hit show. He would be trained in it by Kam Yuen, a kung fu sifu (teacher). The actor became obsessed with Buddhism through the martial arts, writing a book Spirit of the Shaolin in 1997, wherein he called himself an "evangelist" of kung fu. The Shaolin Monastery practices a stringent form of Buddhism, and the head monk thanked Carradine for his contributions in spreading kung fu and Buddhism. 

        A sexual pervert, David Carradine accidentally killed himself in 2009 by performing autoerotic asphyxiation ---the intentional restriction of oxygen to the brain for the purposes of sexual arousal. He was hanging himself by the neck to accomplish this arousal when the chair on which he was standing broke, and he strangled to death at age 72. (See Other "action heroes" who spread pagan philosophy via martial arts include the aforementioned Bruce Lee, Steven Seagal, and Jean Claude Van Damm.

        This post will focus on the spiritual dangers of the martial arts.

        Channeling Energy

        All forms of the martial arts have their origin in Eastern paganism. According to several sources:

         It is said that in the year 470 AD, Bodhidharma, the 28th Buddhist Patriarch, travelled from India to China. During his journey he was attacked frequently by bandits. He was able to overcome his assailants by learning a fighting technique which he supposedly learnt from the observation of animals. Supposedly he stayed for nine years at the famed Shaolin Monastery, a place that figures prominently in the lore of the martial arts. For a total of seven of these years he sat meditating in front of a cave wall, 'listening to the screams of ants'. During-this time he became enlightened of a new mystic type approach to fighting. The technique that he developed was based on the Ch'an Meditation concept and Yoga.

        The Shaolin Temple is always linked with modern day Kung-fu, but, this is only part of the Shaolin technique. There were many systems which became separate techniques and are today many and varied. These systems included 'hard' techniques., such as Karate, and 'soft' as in Tai Chi. (See, e.g., Lawler, Martial Arts Encyclopedia [1996], The Martial Arts Encyclopedia, Corcoran & Farkas [2012]; Emphasis mine).

        All martial art techniques were based on the concepts of Chi or Ki. Ki is the "life force or breath". There are said to be many ways of developing chi in the varied philosophies from the East. It is said that the Shaolin monks saw the need, through their breathing exercises and meditation, to not only develop their fighting prowess, but also to develop their consciousness to a higher state of mystical awareness.

        Through this occult meditation, the person tries to lose contact with the conscious mind for an altered state of consciousness. This disassociation is meant to allow a person to become "one" with "the Divine." Even those who do not get to such altered states, have unwittingly opened themselves up to a decidedly pagan worldview and possible demon possession. The idea of being "divine" is the opposite of Christianity which tells us we are sinners in need of Redemption by the God-Man Jesus Christ. Traditionalist Catholic meditation is the conscious, focused, reflective, cognitive attention to God, such as when one meditates on the mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary. Occult meditation and breathing techniques, like those in many martial arts, result in an altered state of consciousness; really a form of self-hypnosis. 

        The idea is to "release the divine" within and is manifested in alleged feats of superhuman strength such as breaking boards, bricks, etc. While much is simply sleight of hand chicanery, some may be legitimate and would come from a (decidedly evil) preternatural source. I had one encounter with an obvious fraud in the late 1980s. I went to a karate demonstration at the request of a friend. After the sensei had finished meditating, he stood up and asked the audience (we were sitting on an auditorium floor) to move back. Five of his black belts ran in (one at a time) and smashed him over the back and chest with wooden baseball bats. The bats splintered and flew all around. It seemed amazing. A gentleman sitting in front of us heard our gasps of wonder. He turned to us and said, "I'm sick of this phony! The bats are carefully cut so you can't see it and they break very easily. Watch me." (Dialogue from memory--Introibo).

        The sensei asked if there were any questions. The man said he had an important question but had to go out to his car quickly. He returned about two minutes later with a baseball bat of his own. He asked the sensei if he "could feel his enormous ki power" and experience his bat break when hitting the sensei across the chest. The sensei explained that he couldn't comply because his "ki" was very low after the demonstration. The man said, "You mean I'd put you in the hospital, you fraud!" The sensei turned red, said nothing, and we all left; decidedly less impressed than when we arrived. 

        Cults of Personality

        For many, the martial arts becomes all-encompassing, and the leader of the dojo or martial arts system is given god-like status. I had a friend in college who would bring up his martial arts instructor at least twice every conversation we had. He told me he was an atheist, and when I asked the reason for his disbelief, he said, "My sensei says there is no God!" (No God--except for his sensei, whom he followed in everything without thinking for himself). 

        To give an example of how far attributing "god-like" power and status to a martial arts instructor goes, here are just some urban legends about Bruce Lee:

        • He needed special equipment because he could break almost anything with his skills
        • Standard film speed wasn’t fast enough to capture his lightening-fast moves
        • He was impervious to pain
        • He could defeat two dozen men at once
        • He died from a special "death touch" from another martial artist which murdered him by "disrupting his ki." There was no other way to beat or kill him 
         (See e.g.,; the citations to some of these ridiculous claims come from Lee's friends and his own wife!). Martial arts instructors have a big influence on their students: physically, mentally, emotionally and even spiritually. Children and teens are most vulnerable to an instructor’s influence. 

        Pagan Philosophy

        There are a lot of problems spiritually with the history, philosophy, and practice of karate and all forms of the martial arts. It was created, passed down, and taught by Buddhists and Taoists, followers of a pagan and religious idolatry. The basis of both religions is a pantheistic world view which sees life as cyclical, not created. Other differences include:

        • Many martial arts say God is all matter and/or phenomena in the universe.

        Christianity says God is a real, personal and sovereign Being (1 Chronicles 29:11).

        • Many martial arts emphasize the inactivity of the mind and the passivity of their followers.

        Christianity emphasizes a full and active mind continually pursuing obedience (Joshua 1:8-9).

        • Many martial arts say salvation is something which can and must be accomplished through each person by “attuning oneself to the rhythm of the universe ...” (See Nichols and Mather, Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions, and the Occult [1993] p. 271).

        Christianity says salvation is something which must, is, and can only be accomplished through His One True Church (Cantate Domino)

        Karate, like almost all martial arts, is an Eastern art. Whether you chose to participate in it for exercise or as a way toward self-defense, you may be engaging in something which is purely pagan, in both thought and practice. The philosophy of many martial arts is based mainly on Taoism and Buddhism. A look at those two philosophies will suffice to show how one can be drawn into the religion through the martial arts.

         Various Chinese shamans and magicians incorporated into their own existing belief systems the ideas of Taoism, producing what came to be known as religious Taoism. The primary objective of religious Taoists was the attainment of physical immortality. Meditation, along with various magical practices, physical exercises, breathing exercises, and sex­ual practices, was considered the means of retaining vigor and achieving everlasting life....The practice of breath control (called chi kung), in particular, figured prominently not only in the quest for immortality but for control of the uni­verse. As a backdrop, chi (sometimes written as qi or ki) was believed to be a mystical energy, a “substance sur­rounding and including all things, which brought even distant points into direct physical contact.” Indeed, since one single substance joined all corners of the cosmos into a single organic unity, it followed that mastery of qi was equivalent to mastery of the uni­verse.”

        Attaining strength and power was also of interest to Bodhid­harma (c. A.D. 5th-6th century), an Indian monk who is said to be the originator of the Shaolin boxing tradi­tion and the father of the martial arts.20 Believed to have been a member of the warriors/rulers caste of India, Bodhid­harma brought with him a brand of Buddhism known as Zen, which advo­cated mental control and meditation as means to enlightenment.

        As the story goes, Bodhidharma — disturbed by the Shaolin monks’ inability to remain awake during medi­tation — devised a set of calisthenic exercises that later formed the basis for their unique style of boxing. “Bod­hidharma explained to the monks that body and soul are inseparable. This unity must be invigorated for enlight­enment.” Hence, “physical fitness became a part of Shaolin life with his introduction of systematized exercises to strengthen the body and mind. Not only was health perfected, but self-defense movements were devised later from Bodhidharma’s knowledge of Indian fighting systems. These early calisthenics (in-place exercises only) marked the beginning of Shaolin Tem­ple boxing.”

        (See  Stephen Schumacher and Gert Woerner, eds., The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion , [1989], pg. 356; See also  Charles Holcombe, “The Daoist Origins of the Chinese Martial Arts,” Journal of Asian Martial Arts, January 1993, pg. 13). 

        It is shown how many martial arts are based on the pagan idea of a “god” within that is to be actualized through meditation, breathing patterns and exercises. As faith in an outside creator God and morality wanes, the search for stability and meaning keeps shifting inward. Eastern religions and personal spiritual disciplines are pouring into that gap. Witness the incredible spread of yoga and meditation, which actually were created to foster Eastern-style “enlightenment” but are now popular in Protestant and Vatican II sect churches. Martial arts also use terms like "inner tranquility" and "enlightenment" that are "spiritual" without being "religious." Therefore, atheists can hop on board and deny a Personal God for an impersonal force that allows them to still use the term "atheist" loosely and feel special. Also, moral absolutes are absent in Eastern paganism--perfect for our relativistic culture. 

        Proselytizing Martial Artists

        It is important to realize that no proselytism may be necessary, and a Traditionalist could conceivably join a dojo if the following conditions are met:

        • Ascertain whether the instructor under consideration is himself a believer in Eastern religion. Don't merely take him at his word, see how the dojo operates. Is he treated like a "superman" to whom all must bow and no one can question?
        • Is the martial art street-fighting based, or a sport? If so, there is probably no Eastern religion involved
        • Keep an eye out for Eastern religious books, symbols, and the like, that might be in the dojo. This may help one discern what practices and beliefs are being espoused during training.
        • It may also be wise to observe an advanced class. This will help the prospective student determine whether Eastern philosophy is taught as training progresses
        If a person is involved in a martial art that teaches Eastern paganism, make the person aware. Then see how they respond. Point out that there are places they can go where they can train without pagan indoctrination. If the person knows and agrees with the paganism, see my post on the New Age which has a section on proselytizing such people who have paganism wholly or partially infecting them.

        The martial arts can be a useful means of exercise, sport, and self-defense. Unfortunately, many can also be doorways to paganism/occult practices and cults of personality. It is important that you learn to discern the wheat from the chaff. If someone gets involved with the wrong martial art, they need to get out and get their kicks elsewhere.