The Naked Truth About Pornography

 

Our Lady of Fatima is claimed to have said, "More souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh (sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments) than for any other reason." While it's true that no one is bound to believe in private revelations, even those approved by the Church, I do believe in Our Lady of Fatima. I will not get bogged down with arguments over the alleged "true meanings" of messages, but I wholeheartedly believe this quote is true and accurately recorded. Given the state of the world today, it was prophetic.

Two considerations: 

1. Sins of impurity damn more people than murder (including abortion and euthanasia), theft, lying, calumny, superstition, false worship, drug and alcohol abuse, unjust anger, assault etc. That's astounding. If you think about it, there is good reason. People have natural sexual inclinations, and they can be difficult to control as God intended. Most other sins develop over time. I'm sure that not very many people, who have never used drugs or alcohol, will suddenly wake up one day and think, "Today might be a good day to start taking heroin." 

2. Our Lady spoke these words in 1917! With the advent of the Internet and readily available pornography, how many more (and more serious) sins of impurity are committed 105 years later? 

The purpose of this post is to expose one of the greatest evils of our day: pornography. Its devastating effects are physical and mental, as well as spiritual. If you or someone you know is addicted to porn, let this post serve as a warning to break the habit now. My sources are many and diverse. I take credit for none of what is written below except for its compilation. WARNING! The contents of this post are of a delicate nature and may be found disturbing by some. Reader discretion is strongly advised.---Introibo 

Twenty Terrible Statistics

1. According to a recent report by the BBFC, 75% of parents believed their child had never encountered porn, but of those children, 53% reported that they had in fact seen porn.

2. According to research by the NSPCC, of the adolescents who had been exposed to porn, 28% were first exposed by accident, 19% were unexpectedly shown pornography by someone else, and only 19% searched for it intentionally.

3. Despite the fact that porn can be wildly unrealistic and often glorifies violence, sexism, or racism, one recent survey found that over half of boys (53%) and over a third of girls (39%) reported believing that pornography was a realistic depiction of sex.

4. A Swedish study of 18-year-old males found that frequent consumers of pornography were significantly more likely to have sold and bought sex than other boys of the same age.

5. A 2015 meta-analysis of 22 studies from seven countries found that internationally the consumption of pornography was significantly associated with increases in sexual aggression, both verbally and physically among males and females alike.

6. A UK survey found that 44% of males aged 11–16 who consumed pornography reported that online pornography gave them ideas about the type of sex they wanted to try.

7. Consistent with other research on the topic, one study showed that almost half (46.9%) of those surveyed said their porn tastes/preferences escalated to the point of them being interested in more extreme pornography that had previously disinterested or even disgusted them.

8. As of April 2021, according to an analysis of the most trafficked websites worldwide, 2 porn sites are in the top 10 most visited sites, with a third porn site coming in at 13th (Xvideos, Xnxx, and Pornhub at 7th, 9th, and 13th respectively).

9. According to data from the SEMrush Traffic Analytics tool, as of May 2021 porn sites received more website traffic in the U.S. than Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, Pinterest, and LinkedIn combined.

10. “Teen” is one of the most consistently popular porn themes, and research shows that this theme is (a) becoming increasingly popular, and (b) includes the portrayal of underage characters.

11. One review of 20 studies on the topic found that teen pornography consumption negatively impacts adolescents’ self-esteem and mental health.

12. In 2018, 45 million images of child sexual abuse material (sometimes referred to as “child porn”) were reported, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. In 2019, that number jumped to 69.1 million. 

13. According to a 2020 survey, approximately 45% of teens who consumed porn did so in part to learn about sex.

14. The Internet Watch Foundation recently reported that during 2020, approximately 44% of all child sexual abuse material reported to the IWF involved self-generated material. That’s a 16% increase from 2019, when only a third of reports involved self-generated imagery.

15. Of domestic minor trafficking victims who had been forced into porn production, the average age they began being filmed was 12.8 years old.

16. Porn is a global, estimated $97 billion industry, with about $12 billion of that coming from the U.S.

17. In 2019 alone, the equivalent of nearly 6,650 centuries of porn was consumed on one of the world’s largest porn sites.

18. 1 out of every 8 porn titles shown to first-time users on porn home pages describe acts of sexual violence.

19. According to Pornhub’s analytics, “Lesbian” was the most-searched-for porn term on the site in 2018. In 2019 and 2021, it was “Japanese.”

20. Survey results show that one in four 18 to 24-year-olds (24.5%) listed pornography as the most helpful source to learn how to have sex.

(See fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stats-that-will-blow-your-mind). 

The Teaching of the Church

According to theologians McHugh and Callan:

"Impurity is a mortal sin because it is a disorder that affects a good of the highest importance (viz., the propagation of the race), and brings in its train public and private, moral and physical, evils of the most serious kind. Man has no more right to degrade his body by lust than he has to kill it by suicide, for God is the absolute Lord over the body and He severely forbids impurity of every kind. Those who do the works of the flesh, whether according to nature (e.g., fornicators and adulterers) or against nature (e.g., sodomites) or by unconsummated sin (e.g., the unclean, the impure), shall not obtain the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9 sqq.), nor have any inheritance with Christ (Ephesians 5:5)."

(See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:509; Emphasis mine). 

Pornography is at an all-time high in consumption. The reason, which is fairly obvious, has been the advent of the Internet. No longer relegated to filthy magazines, which no decent person wants to get caught buying or reading, the Internet brings porn right to you with ease. I've read some estimates that say as much as 34% of all websites are pornographic. Many people try to turn this into a strictly religious issue, with some even claiming that porn has societal benefits (e.g., men will be less likely to commit rape, there will be less adultery, etc.). However, the Church, in Her wisdom has said (as per Her theologians) that impurity (of which porn is the most prominent example) "brings...moral and physical, evils of the most serious kind." It shall be shown below how porn:

1. Rewires the human brain for the worse.

2. Has a high correlation to violence against women (including rape)

3.  Has a high correlation involving child molestation 

The Brain on Porn

In recent years, one of the most interesting findings about the effects of pornography focuses on how pornographic images rewire the brain. Gaining an understanding of exactly how the brain can be rewired is important in order to have a full understanding of how viewing pornography can impact the behavior of those you love.

In an article about pornography and the male brain, Dr. William Struthers, author of Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brian, wrote:

“The on-demand availability of robust sexual stimuli presents a unique problem for developing and maintaining a healthy sexuality. The ease of access, variety of images, and the vigorous sensory constitution of this media go beyond the strength of mental imagery and fantasy. People can see whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. In doing so they can generate, serve, and satisfy their sensual nature. Pornography creates a world today where the consumer (usually men) has the ability to bring up at their whim graphic (and sometimes interactive) depictions of nudity and sexual encounters. Women are perpetually available for their pleasure with minimal immediate consequences. People become disposable.”

(See Struthers, W.M. (2011). Pornography and the male brain. Christian Research Journal, 34 [5]).

Some of the most powerful studies of the brain and pornography come from investigating brain scans. In one experiment, the brains of men were scanned while they viewed porn. When neurologists looked at their brain imaging scans, men’s brains reacted to women as if they were objects, not people. This is important because it is the process of dehumanizing a person that makes violence against them much more acceptable. (See Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399-423). 

Research comparing the brains of people who are addicted to pornography versus those who are not has found that addicts like pornography just as much as others, but they desire it much more. So, when brain scans of men who are addicted to pornography are compared to non-addicts, they both respond the same way in their “liking centers” but respond differently in the “desire centers” of their brains. When addicted men were shown pornography while their brains were being scanned, their dorsal anterior cingulate, ventral striatum and amygdala were activated – showing a strong desire for the material, more so than other, non-addicted men. In short, all men tested liked pornography, addicted men felt like they had to have it. In an interesting twist, the men who were addicted to pornography had first seen porn much earlier in their lives than did the healthy men. (See Wilson, G. (2014). Your brain on porn: Internet pornography and the emerging science of addiction cited in Wired for Intimacy). 

The more dopamine that is released in your body, the more you are drawn to a particular experience. The highest amount of dopamine is released when someone is sexually stimulated and experiences sexual release. We learn from neuroscience that dopamine works alongside opioids. Dopamine influences the desire for an experience; the opioid makes you like it. Internet porn provides unlimited sexual stimuli, stimulating dopamine to continuously release to a chemical level that is nearly impossible to match through natural human bodily experiences. Thus the brain becomes trained for a level of stimulation (to quickly and constantly available computer images) that can’t possibly be duplicated in real life.

In the process of using more and more pornography, the brain gets used to self-stimulation to porn and feeling a pleasurable release. What people don’t usually realize is that gradually, their brain starts to fight them. Professor Wilson (Your brain on porn: Internet pornography and the emerging science of addiction) found that when the brain keeps experiencing abnormally high levels of stimulation (such as with sexual release while watching porn), it moves into a protective mode of lowering the dopamine release, so that people will want less of the overly stimulating experience. So with less dopamine, the viewer becomes less satisfied with self-stimulating to the same old porn. The individual is then compelled to desperately seek stimulation that might elicit the same levels of a dopamine experienced previously. The brain changes, physically, and becomes desensitized to the images it saw before and needs more and more to reach the same levels of arousal. A porn addict is thus born. 

This addiction can break apart marriages, lead men not to be aroused by real life partners so as to preclude having children, and can lead to financial ruin. Moreover, since porn addiction goes hand in glove with Internet addiction, such people have less gray matter in several important areas of the brain, such as the frontal lobes, the striatum, and the insula. These areas help people with self-control, prioritizing, and feeling empathy; when gray matter lessens, so do these important functions.

There is even more bad news...

Violence Against Women

The leading researcher about the content of today’s pornography is Dr. Ana Bridges, a professor of psychology at the University of Arkansas. Dr. Bridges is an author of one of the most prominent studies of pornography ever undertaken. She and her research team purchased the most popular pornography videos in the mid 2000’s. They methodically watched each one, coding the behavior that occurred in every scene of every movie. They found critically important implications for our understanding of pornography. Each pornography movie had several scenes – perhaps a dozen or more. In 88% of the scenes – not just the movies, but the scenes in these movies – there was verbal or physical aggression, usually toward a woman. What is even more interesting is the result of this violence, as scripted by the pornography industry. When there is aggressive talk or behavior toward someone in porn, 95% of the time, the target expresses pleasure or has no response at all. This teaches viewers that people enjoy being hit. It also teaches viewers that if they are hit during a sexual encounter, they should like it, or at least not object. Think about how an 11-year-old boy, or girl, would interpret what they see. If a woman is hit, she likes it. Pornography teaches boys to hit girls, and shows girls that they should like it. That is why pornography is a recipe for sexual violence. (See Ana J. Bridges, Raymond M. Bergner, and Matthew Hesson-McInnis, “Romantic Partners’ Use of Pornography: Its Significance for Women,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 29 (2003): 1-14). 

The data suggest “a modest connection between exposure to pornography and subsequent behavioral aggression,” though when men consume violent pornography (i.e. depicting rape or torture), they are more likely to commit acts of sexual aggression. Dangerously, pornography strongly affects psychotic men, who are more likely to act out their impulses.

Consumption of nonviolent pornography also increases men’s self-acknowledged willingness to force compliance with their particular sexual desires on reluctant partners. And though there are conflicting data on the relative effects of violent versus non-violent pornography, there is little doubt that the consumption of pornography leads to a significant increase in “rape myth acceptance,” which involves a reduction of sympathy with rape victims and a trivialization of rape as a criminal offense, a diminished concern about child sexual abuse, short of the rape of children, and an increased preparedness to resort to rape.

One study at a rape crisis center interviewed 100 sexually abused women to determine if pornography played a role in any past incidences of sexual abuse. While 58 percent could not say, 28 percent stated that their abuser had in fact used pornography. Of this 28 percent (women who were aware that their abuser used pornography), 40 percent (or 11 percent of the total group) reported that pornography actually played a role in the abusive incident they experienced. In some cases the abuser had watched pornography before abusing the woman, in one case he used pornography while committing the abuse, and in yet some other cases he forced his victim to participate in the making of a pornographic film.

Sex Crimes Against Children

A study of sex offenders and non-offenders revealed significant differences in adolescent pornography use as well as current use. Significant proportions of different types of rapists and molesters had used hard-core pornography (depictions of non-consensual acts) during their adolescence: 33 percent of heterosexual child molesters, 39 percent of homosexual child molesters, and 33 percent of rapists. The current use of hard core pornography was even greater for these groups: 67 percent of heterosexual child molesters, 67 percent of homosexual child molesters, and 83 percent of rapists, contrasted with 29 percent of non-offending pornography viewers. About a third of the sex offenders reported using pornography as a deliberate stimulus to commit their sexual offenses.

Another study examined the beliefs of three groups: real life, “contact-only” child sex offenders, Internet-only child sex offenders, and mixed offenders (contact and Internet). While all groups were more likely to minimize the gravity of their offense, the Internet-only group was more likely than the contact-only group to think that children could make their own decisions on sexual involvement and to believe that some children wanted, even eagerly wanted, sexual activity with an adult.

[See W.L. Marshall, The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders, The Journal of Sex Research 25 (1988): 267-288 (279); and Dennis Howitt and Kerry Sheldon, The Role of Cognitive Distortions in Paedophilic Offending: Internet and Contact Offenders Compared, Psychology, Crime & Law 13 (2007): 469-86 (478)]. 

Other Findings

The studies that support these facts may be found in Appendix 1 of The Porn Myth, by Matt Fradd, [2017], pgs. 191-212.

There is a correlation between the frequency of porn viewing and:

•  depression, anxiety, stress and various social problems
•  the motivation to pursue goals
•  changed sexual preferences
• poor overall health
• hurting oneself
• problems with intimacy

Porn and deviancy:

• Porn use increases the risk of developing sexually deviant tendencies such as beastiality by 31%
• The risk of committing a sexual offense increases 22% in those who use porn frequently
• States that had higher sales of porn magazines had higher rates of rape
• In one study, in 193 cases of rape, 24% of the rapists mentioned the use of pornography without any solicitation for such information

Porn and Marriage:

• Porn heightens belief that marriage is "sexually confining," that promiscuity is normal, and that raising a family is unappealing
• Women who discover a husband's porn use may experience depression, fatigue, and suicidal tendencies
• Porn use correlates to higher incidence of adultery
• Porn correlates with sadistic marital rape

How to Beat Porn

1. If you're not addicted, don't start. Just say NO (apologies to Nancy Reagan).

2. If you're addicted, seek counseling from a Traditionalist priest. See a doctor as there are sometimes medications that can help a person to overcome certain types of addictions. 

3.  It needs to be clear to children that their parents do not approve of immodesty or impurity in any form, that they oppose the pornographic exploitation of others, and that they are willing to correct deficiencies in this area. These attitudes need to be reflected in speech, dress and behavior at every level.

4. Pray frequently and stay close to the Sacraments. God will give you the necessary grace if you are sincere and persevere in your prayer life and in reception of the Sacraments.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that God's Laws are in place for our good both here (wellness) and hereafter (to get to Heaven). Don't be fooled into thinking that pornography is "harmless," "normal," or "prevents greater evils." Secular studies prove this is not the case. More importantly, porn is a mortal sin, making one worthy of Hell.

Say no to porn, and parents, please check what sites your children and teens visit. As Our Lord said, "And if thy eye scandalize thee[causes you to sin], pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." (St. Matthew 18: 9). 

A Fate Worse Than Death

 

In April of this year, 86-year-old Betty Sanguin died in her "Christian" sect's church. She did not have a heart attack or a stroke, nor was any ambulance called. She was killed in front of the congregation by her own request. The "Churchill Park United Church of Winnipeg" (Canada), held a  “Crossing Over Ceremony” for Sanguin who was diagnosed with ALS, better known in the U.S. as Lou Gehrig’s disease, a progressive, terminal disease for which there is no known cure. 

The church's leadership team had unanimously approved Sanguin’s request for the assisted suicide ceremony that was held in the sanctuary, as she had strong ties to the congregation.

The Rev. Dawn Rolke, minister of Churchill Park, told The Christian Post in a recent interview that it “seemed appropriate” to hold the ceremony in the sanctuary, as churches are often “host and home to all the raggedness of our lives and to some of our significant life rituals: baptism, marriage, ordination, funeral or memorial services.”

“For us, it was perfectly natural to hold this service for Betty in our sanctuary because death is a natural part of life and Betty had lived a good part of her adulthood in this faith community. Hers was a growing, changing spirituality; her faith was feisty, fierce and passionate, like Betty herself,” said Rolke.

“Some see medically-assisted death as a private matter and they sought to honor this individual’s request. Some felt it was right for Betty, in particular.”

Canada's healthcare system offers patients the option to have assisted suicide, what is known as MAiD or "medical aid in dying," in which a physician or nurse practitioner carries out the death by chemical injection.

At Churchill Park United Church of Winnipeg, the typical sanctuary seating was removed and replaced by comfortable chairs, tables, flowers and a recliner, which Sanguin sat in during the event as people came and went throughout the day to say their goodbyes. 

Friends and family visited Sanguin who was joined by her adult daughters and grandchildren, with Rolke leading the ceremony. 

(See christianpost.com/news/canadian-church-hosts-assisted-suicide-for-member-with-als.html). 

We've reached a point where murder is a "church ceremony." This post will focus on the subject of euthanasia; what it is, why it's wrong, and the teaching of the Church.

Euthanasia: Definition and Explanation

Many sources have been used in the compilation of this post; especially in regards to Church teaching, most notably, theologian O'Donnell, Morals in Medicine, [1956], and Dr. Niedermeyer with theologian  Buonanno, Compendium of Pastoral Medicine, [1961]. ---Introibo

The word euthanasia comes from the Greek eu and thanatos and means "good death." Euthanasia may be deemed active or passive. The active/passive distinction amounts to this: passive euthanasia (also called negative euthanasia) refers to the withholding or withdrawing of a life-sustaining treatment when certain justifiable conditions obtain (see below) and allow the patient to die. Active euthanasia (also called mercy killing or positive euthanasia) refers to the intentional and/or direct killing of an innocent human life either by that person (suicide) or by another (assisted suicide).

Euthanasia may also be either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia occurs whenever a competent, informed patient autonomously requests it (suicide). Involuntary euthanasia occurs whenever a person is incapable of forming a judgment or expressing a wish in the matter (e.g., a defective newborn or a comatose adult) or when the person expresses a wish to live but is nevertheless killed or allowed to die (murder). 

The following Catholic principles must be used for the withholding or stopping of medical treatment.

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

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

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

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

Active and voluntary euthanasia is an act of suicide, as in the case of Betty Sanguin. Those who assisted her are guilty of murder. Those who approved and participated without causing the death may rightly be called accessories to murder. 

Suicide is a grave sin for three (3) reasons:

1. It is a most grave offense against the rights of God. The act usurps God's authority over life and death. "Thou, O Lord, hast the power of life and death." (Wisdom 16: 13). Human life has intrinsic worth because it comes from God, and God wills the salvation of all. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on a human nature and died for humanity, to give all a chance to get to Heaven. 

2. It is a grave offense against society. A community has the right to be benefited by the lives of their members. It has a demoralizing effect on those who loved the person. People valuable to society would rashly kill themselves in a fit of depression thinking they are not valuable. Even members of society not able to contribute in any substantial, material way would deprive others of an example of fortitude, or the opportunity to show charity and mercy to the needy. 

3. It is a grave offense against the natural law. You cannot "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless there is love of self (not inordinate). Those who kill themselves to escape pain and miseries, incur the greater evils of death and moral cowardice, to be followed by eternal damnation--the greatest of all evils and suffering.  

(Material directly above condensed from theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, [1930], 2: 117-123). 

The Church arrives at this conclusion based on the supernatural creation of the human soul, and the supernatural destiny of each person. In the words of Niedermeyer/Buonanno:

Euthanasia is the extreme consequence of a series of postulates which represent an ideological unity and which are directed against the sacred character of life: birth prevention, abortion, sterilization, suppressive selection. The rational principle common to all these postulates is an absolutely temporal intention; a materialism not always well dissimulated; the idea of unlimited autonomy of man, with the elimination of a supernatural moral law and of responsibility before God as Creator, Legislator, and Supreme Judge. (See citation above, pg. 202). 

The Vatican II sect, and most Protestant sects, are imbued with Naturalism, the view that this life arises from purely natural properties and causes; the supernatural being denied. This is displayed in anthropocentric "liturgy" (i.e., the Novus Bogus "mass"), naturalistic, invalid "sacraments," and Bergoglio telling us "‘The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old." Will it be any surprise if there's a Vatican II sect "suicide ceremony" in the near future? 

Most Common Arguments for Euthanasia

1. The Autonomy Argument. Since biological life is not the real, moral issue, then life is not intrinsically valuable or sacred simply because it is human life. The important thing is that one has biographical life and this involves a person's ability to state, formulate, and pursue autonomously chosen interests, desires, and so on. If a person autonomously chooses to end his life or have someone else assist him in ending his life, then such action is morally permissible. One should be free to do as one chooses as long as no harm is done to others.

2. The Equivalence Argument. There is no morally relevant distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible. Thus, active euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible.

3. The Mercy Argument. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person that his or her life be mercifully ended in order to avoid unnecessary suffering and pain.

4. The Best Interests Argument. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable. In some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights. Therefore, in those cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable. 

5. The Golden Rule Argument. Moral principles ought to be made universal. If I don't want someone to apply a rule to me, I shouldn't apply it to them. Similarly, if I want someone to apply a rule to me, I ought to be willing to apply it to others. Now suppose I were given a choice between two ways to die. First, I could die quietly and without pain, at the age of eighty, from a fatal injection. Or second, I could choose to die at eighty-plus-a-few-days of an affliction so painful that for those few days before death I would be reduced to howling like a dog, with my family standing helplessly by. The former death involves active euthanasia, and if I would choose it, I should be willing to permit others to choose it too. 

Responses to Most Common Euthanasia Arguments

A) Reply to the Autonomy Argument. First, it begs the question that there is no God and no Natural Law/Divine Law. The same could be said for all five arguments. However, all fail on separate and independent grounds as well. As to this argument, if we only need to protect people with "biographical lives," it would seem, then, that a person who no longer has such a life, who has no point of view, is no longer covered by the duty not to kill. However, if the person has lost the right not to be killed, it would seem that other rights would be lost as well, since the right to life is basic to other rights. In this case, it would be morally permissible to experiment on such a person or kill him brutally. Why? It is because we are no longer dealing with an object which has the relevant rights. 

B) Reply to the Equivalence Argument. Two distinctions can, and must, be made between passive and active euthanasia. First, the direct cause of death is different. In the latter it is the doctor or other human agent. In the former it is the disease itself. Second, the intent of the act is different. The Traditional Catholic view allows for withholding or withdrawing treatment in some cases where certain circumstances obtain, for instance, in cases where the patient is terminal, death is imminent, treatment is judged extraordinary, and death is not directly intended. Those are major differences proving that active and passive euthanasia are not moral equivalents.

C) Reply to the Mercy Argument. First, there are very few cases where modern medicine cannot alleviate suffering and pain. It is wrong ethical methodology to build an ethical doctrine on a few problem cases. The mercy argument violates this methodological principle by placing too much weight on an argument which only applies to a small number of situations. 

Second, though this can be abused, there can be a point to suffering. One can grow through it; one can teach others how a wise, virtuous person handles life's adversities including suffering and death. One can also show that one cares for his or her membership in community with others and that is not right to withdraw from one another in time of need. Further, one can affirm the fact that people have value and purpose beyond happiness, the absence of pain, or the ability to pursue autonomously chosen goals.

Third, life is a gift and we are not the sole, absolute owners of our lives. We are made in the image and likeness of God. He decides matters of life and death, not us. 

D) Reply to Both the Best Interests and Golden Rule Argument. Two responses have been offered which apply equally to the Golden Rule argument and the Best Interests argument. First, the arguments beg the question against a sanctity-of-life view in favor of a quality-of-life view. In other words, if life is sacred, or if persons have intrinsic value simply by being human and, thus, are ends in themselves, then active euthanasia inappropriately treats a person as a means to an end (a painless state of death). Not everything a person takes to be in his own best interests is morally acceptable. Similarly, not everything a person would wish to have done to him or her is morally good. Quality-of-life judgments are often subjective and can be morally bad.

Put differently, a person can dehumanize himself--- and actually does so--- in active euthanasia by intentionally killing himself (or if someone else intentionally kills the person). Hence, when one engages in active euthanasia, one abdicates one's privilege and responsibility to live out one's life in community with and for others. This signals a failure of the community to be present to the sick person in a caring way. It also signals a failure of the person himself to die in a morally appropriate way (e.g., to teach others how to suffer and die) and to undergo a manner of dying which does not hinder those left behind from remembering the person in a morally helpful way. 

Conclusion

The arguments for euthanasia can be answered on similar Naturalistic grounds. However, what is most important is spiritual. Recently, much ado was made when the detestable atheist owner of the drug-and-sleaze nightclub Studio 54, Mark Fleischman, underwent doctor-assisted suicide at age 82. His quality of life diminished over the last two years due to an undiagnosed "mystery illness." He went to Switzerland to the Dignitas suicide clinic to finish his life by his own hand, drinking a lethal dose of barbiturates. (Ironically, "dignitas" is Latin for "dignity"). 

According to his wife, "Mark used to not believe in God at all. He was a complete atheist," she said. "He started to believe in God during the last few weeks." When he took his life, Fleischman most likely sealed his fate forever. However, could God have been trying to get to him before he despaired and took his own life?

 As Niedermeyer/Buonanno teach:

In many cases surprising facts have become known by discovering before imminent death a richness of mental life---buried under the surface---that was hidden in completely demented persons. We also do not know what takes place in the dying. We merely perceive that the last moments are of decisive importance. These last moments can bring to many dying persons a great amount of grace and can still save an apparently lost soul.

When a man believes himself authorized to shorten, even by a few seconds, the life of his fellow creature, he deprives him of these decisive moments of grace---and in so doing, possibly still thinks that he is benefitting him.  (Ibid, pg. 203; Emphasis mine). 

The members of Betty Sanguin's false sect thought they were "benefitting" her. Unfortunately, those who usurp the authority of God, Who Alone can decide the length of a human lifespan, will most likely find themselves in eternal flames. A fate far worse than any "quality of life" issue they were seeking to avoid. 

Catholicism Versus Americanism

 

To My Readers: This week, yours truly has much to do at work, and I'm glad I have a guest post by Lee! I honestly don't know how this blog could continue publishing one post each week without him to take some pressure off me! His topic is on the much neglected and pernicious evil of what Pope Leo XIII called "Americanism." I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did. Please feel free to comment as usual. If anyone has a particular comment or question addressed for me to answer, I will do so as always, but it may take longer than usual.

Please say a prayer for Lee that God may reward him for all his good work here, and God Bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Catholicism vs. Americanism

By Lee

Over the last few years, the MAGA movement has become such a popular spectacle that as the forty-fifth president, Donald Trump, would say, "it's like nothing the world has ever seen." When there is a rally, more people attend these venues than sporting events. Live online viewership is just as massive despite the limited access due to censorship. Everybody gets energized and wait long hours just to hear #45 speak while listening to other speeches throughout the day. It fills people with hope with the goal of combating "woke culture" in exchange for a prosperous nation, along with the continuation of following the U.S. Constitution. The America First agenda also stresses respect for the individual rights of its citizens.

While the MAGA movement is for good policies such as strong border control, small businesses succeeding, anti-abortion laws, lower taxes, preserving resources of oil and gas, being anti-Communist, pro-second Amendment, and staying out of unnecessary foreign wars etc., there are some flaws within the movement. It's due to Americanism.  Pope Leo XIII coined this term in his encyclical Testem Benevolentiae on January 22, 1889. The letter condemns the general complacence with Protestantism and the adoption of pluralism. It also condemns the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and stressed that a Catholic had a duty towards the Church's teaching office (more on that below). 

 

First Some History

The land of the free and home of the brave is what America is known as, but was it really as free as we are told? Before the founding of America, the Catholic Church was already in the Americas during the 16th to early 18th centuries, spreading missionaries around to convert the Indian natives, while settling in different areas. As we see in the first general report on the state of Catholicism by Bp. John Carroll in 1785, Catholics were a mere handful. He conservatively estimated the Catholic population in those colonies to be 25,000. Of this figure, 15,800 resided in Maryland, about 7,000 in Pennsylvania, and another 1,500 in New York. Considering that the population in the first federal census of 1790 totaled 3,939,000, the Catholic presence was less than one percent, certainly not a significant force in the original 13 British colonies.

In his book Faith of Our Fathers Cardinal James Gibbons records the following account of how Catholics were treated in the colonies of America before and up to its birth in 1776:

"Maryland was the abode of happiness and liberty. Conscience was without restraint. A mild and liberal proprietary conceded every measure which the welfare of the colony required; domestic union, a happy concert between all the branches of government, an increasing emigration, a productive commerce, a fertile soil, which heaven had richly favored with rivers and deep bays, united to perfect the scene of colonial felicity. Ever intent on advancing the interests of his colony, Lord Baltimore invited the Puritans of Massachusetts to emigrate to Maryland, offering them lands and privileges and free liberty of religion; but Gibbons, to whom he had forwarded the commission, was so wholly tutored in the New England discipline, that he would not advance the wishes of the Irish Peer, and so the invitation was declined.

On the 2d of April, 1649, the General Assembly of Maryland passed the following Act, which will reflect unfading glory on that State as long as liberty is cherished in the hearts of men.

Whereas, the enforcing of conscience in matters of religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence in those commonwealths where it has been practiced, and for the more quiet and peaceable government of this province, and the better to preserve mutual love and unity amongst the inhabitants, no person whatsoever within this province professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall from henceforth be anyways troubled or molested for his or her religion, nor in the free exercise thereof, nor anyway compelled to the belief or exercise of any other religion against his or her consent.”

Upon this noble statute Bancroft makes the following candid and judicious comment: “The design of the law of Maryland was to protect freedom of conscience; and some years after it had been confirmed the apologist of Lord Baltimore could assert that his government had never given disturbance to any person in Maryland for matter of religion; that the colonists enjoyed freedom of conscience, not less than freedom of person and estate, as amply as ever any people in any place of the world. The disfranchised friends of Prelacy from Massachusetts and the Puritans from Virginia were welcomed to equal liberty of conscience and political rights in the Roman Catholic province of Maryland.”

Five years later, when the Puritans gained the ascendency in Maryland, they were guilty of the infamous ingratitude of disfranchising the very Catholic settlers by whom they had been so hospitably entertained. They “had neither the gratitude to respect the rights of the government by which they had been received and fostered, nor magnanimity to continue the toleration to which alone they were indebted for their residence in the colony. An act concerning religion forbade liberty of conscience to be extended to ‘Popery,’ ‘Prelacy,’ or ‘licentiousness of opinion...’ ”

When the rule of the Catholic Proprietary was overthrown and the Puritans had gained the ascendency in the Province, the new Commissioners issued writs of election to a general assembly—writs of a tenor hitherto unknown in Maryland. No man of the Roman Catholic faith could be elected as a burgess, or even cast a vote. The Assembly obtained by this process of selection, justified its choice. It at once repealed the Toleration Act of 1649 and created a new one, more to its mind, which also bore the title: “An Act concerning Religion,” but it was toleration with a difference. It provided that none who professed the Popish religion should be protected in the Province, but were to be restrained from the exercise thereof.

For Protestants it provided that no one professing faith in Christ was to be restrained from the exercise of his religion, “provided that this liberty be not extended to Popery, or Prelacy, nor to such as under the profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness. That is, with the exception of the Roman Catholics and churchmen, together with the Brownists, Quakers, Anabaptists, and other miscellaneous Protestant sects, all others might profess their faith without molestation.”

After the overthrow of the Puritan authority, and the advent to power of the members of the Church of England, the second act of the Assembly was to make the Protestant Episcopal Church the established church of the Province.

The Act imposed an annual tax of forty pounds of tobacco per poll on all taxables for the purpose of building churches, and maintaining the clergy. In 1702 it was re-enacted with a toleration clause: “Protestant Dissenters and Quakers were exempted from the penalties and disabilities, and might have separate meeting-houses, provided that they paid their forty pounds per poll to support the Established Church. As for the ‘Papists,’ it is needless to say that there was no exemption nor license for them.”

Other examples outside of Gibbons description of Maryland include the thirteenth colony of Georgia which in 1732 brought into being a charter granted by King George II. Its guarantee of religious freedom followed the fixed pattern: full religious freedom was promised to all future settlers of the colony "except papists," that is, Catholics. Rhode Island, famous for its supposed policy of religious toleration, inserted an anti-Catholic statute imposing civil restrictions on Catholics in the colony's first published code of laws in 1719. Not until 1783 was the act revoked.

The Problem with Religious Liberty

When the U.S. Constitution was put into force by 1789, the Bill of Rights were created that same year and ratified on December 15th 1791.

The famous 1st Amendment reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The good that comes out of this is the Catholic Church gets to exercise its religion freely without prohibition from an established government. However, the problem is the idea that all​ religions are granted a God-given right to exercise it thereof. This was condemned by popes as well as the idea of freedom of conscience and that of publishing any writings regardless of its content. 

The same year the Bill of Rights was ratified (1791) Pope Pius VI was quite explicit in his condemnation of religious liberty as a so-called right. He called it a “monstrous right,” and an “imaginary dream.”

He states, "The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men. But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals? ( See Brief Quod aliquantum, of March 10, 1791, in Recueil des Allocutions, Paris: Adrien Leclere, 1865, pp. 53)

Some years later, Pope Gregory XVI wasn't any less forceful when he said:

"Now we consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate...

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say...

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth...

Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books." Mirari Vos, 1832, para. #13,14,15

Pope Pius IX lists in the "Syllabus of Errors" (1864) the following condemned proposition: "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." — Allocution “Maxima quidem, CONDEMNED” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

Contrast this with Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae and you'll see the opposite. It states:

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom...

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right...

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind. The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community."

As we see the error of religious liberty taught by the Vatican II sect "Church," we also see how it mimics the Bill of Rights. This only leads to more erosion in society. Religious liberty focuses on man being the center of attention and not the rights of God.

1776 Project

Shortly after the Resident-in-Chief (Biden) was sworn into office, one of the first things he did was stop Trump's 1776 project from going through. This project was an attempt to have public schools teach the history of United States in the most respectable patriotic way as a deflection to the "woke" 1619 project.

In America, we are all taught how great the founders of this country were. They are treated as invincible and to be admired. While much of their lives were trail-blazing, and developed our nation into a much more free society, it is good to note that most of them were Freemasons and Deists.

In her book, Star Spangled Heresy, Solange Hertz gives us an example of who Benjamin Franklin was:

"There has hardly been a more devoted student of Alchemy than Franklin, who was well aware that the real aim of the Great Work was also social and political. A leaflet distributed by the Christophers in March, 1975 featured the following Prayer composed by him:

God grant, that not only the love of liberty, but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man, may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say, ‘This is my country.'

And this is followed by a truly singular rendition of the first verse of Psalm 126: “If the Lord does not build the house, in vain the masons (!) toil.” Let him who reads understand where and by whom the dream of a man-made world government is nourished.

Franklin’s religion does not have to be conjectured. Not only do we know he assisted David Williams in his Apology for Professing the Religion of Nature (complete with liturgy!), but he also left in writing his own “Articles of Belief,” a document conveniently overlooked by those who would like to regard him as a Christian. 

Stirred by Newton’s novel theories of the universe, he espoused the cosmic spiritualism of Alchemy based on hierarchies, much as described by Dr. Taylor. He says furthermore:

I cannot conceive otherwise than that the Infinite Father expects or requires no Worship or Praise from us, but that he is even infinitely above it. But, since there is in Men something like a natural principle, which inclines them to DEVOTION, or to worship of some unseen Power; and since Men are endued with Reason superior to all other Animals, that we are in our World acquainted with: Therefore I think it seems required of me, and my Duty as a Man, to pay Regards to SOMETHING. I conceive then, that the INFINITE has created many beings of Gods, vastly superior to Man, who can better conceive his Perfections than we, and return him a more rational and glorious Praise ... It may be that these created Gods are immortal; or it may be that after many Ages, they are changed, and others supply their Places ... It is that particular Wise and good God who is the author and owner of our system, that I propose for the object of my praise and adoration. For I conceive that he has in himself some of those Passions he has planted in us.

Franklin concludes from this that his God might like some praise after all. “Let me then not fail to praise my God continually, for it is his Due, and it is all I can return for his many Favours and great Goodness to me.”

Clearly this created God with human passions, one among many, who made man merely one of the animals, is not the God of the Christians, but only Franklin’s. Bernard Fay notes,

 “It is difficult to affirm that Franklin’s credo was the Freemason’s credo; but it is clear that it was a Masonic creed,” corresponding “more exactly than any other to the tendencies of Freemasonry and to the phraseology which Desaguliers and Anderson utilized in their ‘Constitutions of the Freemasons.’” And we might add, corresponding to the tendencies of the dawning space-age: “This Masonic religiosity, as found in Desaguliers and Franklin, did not intervene as a conservative element in society, but as a ferment of transformation,” precisely the stuff of the Great Work, now carried on in the New World as in the old.

Like all sophisticated Gnostics of any age, Franklin publicly supported the prevalent religion. Using the handy, ambiguous language of Masonry, his utterances are often accepted as orthodox Christianity by believers or half-believers, but interpreted correctly enough by the initiated. Franklin was a member in good standing of the Presbyterian Church and never missed a sermon of the young liberal Rev. Hemphill, who seldom mentioned God. When despite Franklin’s defense Hemphill was evicted by his frustrated congregation, Franklin joined the Anglican Church.

He seldom attended its services, but when the famous preacher George Whitefield brought the “Great Awakening” to America, Franklin became one of his most ardent supporters. This led many to believe he had suffered a conversion, but Fay remarks wryly, “The support given by Franklin was only a Masonic support conforming with Masonic doctrines and the spirit of Desaguliers,”- indeed an early form of Marxist dialectics in action, for, “It is true Whitefield ... converted the crowds, but wherever he preached the parishes became detached from their pastors; wherever he passed, the life of the Church was disorganized” and the work of revolution furthered. As for Franklin, he said he saw “a positive advantage in the existence of many different churches, for that created competition, and after all, competition was good for every kind of trade.”

He seems to have believed in some sort of immortality, if we are to credit the famous Epitaph he wrote for his tombstone:

The body of Benjamin Franklin, Printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stript of its lettering and gilding, lies here food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost, for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and beautiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author.

This is no Christian Resurrection of the body, glorified through the Son of God. The immortality he expects would be only natural, a re-incarnation into another body of some kind. The “work itself,” as Franklin calls himself, is subject only to alchemical transmutation according to the alchemical maxim known to every neophyte: “No generation without corruption.”

That Franklin recognized no extra-natural forces is easily proved by a celebrated anecdote. At a party at Lord Shelburne’s in England, Fay relates:

There were a number of scholars from both the continent and England, some able ministers who succeeded in purifying God, such as Priestley and Price; other churchmen who were expert in avoiding God, like the Abbé Morellet of France who ministered to courtesans and atheists.

Franklin and the Abbé were conversing:

...about the Bible and Christ, and Franklin, half-smiling, said that the Biblical miracles no longer seemed like miracles to him, that he could calm the waters quite as easily as Jesus Christ. The Abbé was too polite to contradict him but too educated to believe the statement... Franklin sensed what was going on in his mind, and calling the company together, they went to the pond. A slight breeze was ruffling its surface with a thousand tiny ripples, and Franklin slowly encircled it while the party waited in a curious silence. Then, raising his staff abruptly, Franklin whirled it three times above the water and inscribed some magic hieroglyph in the air. With a wave of his hand, Franklin then turned to the company and showed that the water was calming down. In a few moments the pond was as glassy as a mirror and a vague light glimmered over the immobile watery surface. The spectators stared at each other without knowing what to think. Then they surrounded the doctor, overwhelming him with compliments and adulation, but he escaped from them and disappeared down a shady walk, still conversing with Morellet. He leaned on his cane heavily and laughed softly. The Abbé was frankly mystified, so Franklin then showed him that his staff was hollow and that he had filled it with oil. It was this oil, spread over the water, which had stilled it. A hedge fortunately hid them from the others, for the Abbé burst into a clear peal of laughter which was joined by Franklin’s. They laughed all the more when they saw through the twigs that the party was still standing by the pond, fearfully exclaiming over the event. Franklin’s miracles were the delight of the crowd, and deeply appreciateby the philosophers and Masons, for they enlightened humanity and made for progress. All the lodges of France and England sang the praises of their illustrious brother."

Hertz continues to explain the spirit of belief in the founders of America in the late 1700's:

"Like Franklin, most of its Founding Fathers were not Christians. Although they often made references to the Deity, the God they invoked was their God, . . . the God of nature in Christian dress. In fact the most influential among the were not so much deists as thoroughgoing pantheists, for, being avowed rationalists, they looked for divinity only in nature.  . . .

In Alchemy, a Green Dragon signifies the Great Work in its beginnings, and it cannot have been coincidence that the Revolution was planned and carried out by men who met regularly in a Boston tavern of the same name. So diligently did they promote the serpent's cause that America today finds herself immersed in a sea of neo-Gnosticism so pervading and controlling her moral, intellectual political life that, by comparison, the Albigensian heresy which once ravaged the whole of Christendom now looks like a harmless childhood disease.  . . .

Any citizen doubting that the Old Religion of the alchemists is the state religion of the U.S. need only make a pilgrimage to the nation' s capital, beginning with the Prayer Room established  . . . by joint resolution of Congress in 1954. He will find there for his devotion a small central altar flanked by two seven-branch candelabra, above which rises a stained glass window showing George Washington kneeling. Below the Father of his country is the Great Seal of the United States. Above him is the truncated pyramid surmounted by the eyes of Horus, which constitutes the seal of Masonry and the Illuminati."

Freemasons: The Greatest Enemy to Both Church and State

The very principles of the Founding Fathers (Masonic principles) were condemned by numerous popes.

Here is a great description from Pope Leo XIII Humanum Genus:

"With the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavors to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many places they have procured that the education of youth shall be exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced into the instructions on morals.

Then come their doctrines of politics, in which the naturalists lay down that all men have the same right, and are in every respect of equal and like condition; that each one is naturally free; that no one has the right to command another; that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves. According to this, therefore, all things belong to the free people; power is held by the command or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers may lawfully be deposed and the source of all rights and civil duties is either in the multitude or in the governing authority when this is constituted according to the latest doctrines. It is held also that the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place.

That these doctrines are equally acceptable to the Freemasons, and that they would wish to constitute States according to this example and model, is too well known to require proof. For some time past they have openly endeavored to bring this about with all their strength and resources; and in this they prepare the way for not a few bolder men who are hurrying on even to worse things, in their endeavor to obtain equality and community of all goods by the destruction of every distinction of rank and property.

What, therefore, sect of the Freemasons is, and what course it pursues, appears sufficiently from the summary We have briefly given. Their chief dogmas are so greatly and manifestly at variance with reason that nothing can be more perverse. To wish to destroy the religion and the Church which God Himself has established, and whose perpetuity He insures by His protection, and to bring back after a lapse of eighteen centuries the manners and customs of the pagans, is signal folly and audacious impiety. Neither is it less horrible nor more tolerable that they should repudiate the benefits which Jesus Christ so mercifully obtained, not only for individuals, but also for the family and for civil society, benefits which, even according to the judgment and testimony of enemies of Christianity, are very great. In this insane and wicked endeavor we may almost see the implacable hatred and spirit of revenge with which Satan himself is inflamed against Jesus Christ. - So also the studious endeavor of the Freemasons to destroy the chief foundations of justice and honesty, and to co-operate with those who would wish, as if they were mere animals, to do what they please, tends only to the ignominious and disgraceful ruin of the human race." April 20 1884 #21-24

Jerusalem

On December 6th 2017, President Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It was primarily intended to bring peace, although the move itself was not without its detractors. President Netanyahu of Israel, for his part, thought it heroic and historic.

From the Catholic perspective on the matter, we need to revisit Pope St. Pius X perspective. On a Jewish website https://www.jpost.com/Christian-News/Today-in-History-Pope-Pius-refused-to-support-a-Jewish-Jerusalem-442696 he is remembered in infamy for his following statements: “We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.” All that the Pope could promise the Jews coming to Israel would be that he would do his best to turn them into Catholics. “And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.” The Pope then stuck the nail in the coffin: “Gerusalemme, he said, must not get into the hands of the Jews.” 

Sodomy Accepted

Sixty years ago sodomy was shameful and not talked about. Twenty to the thirty years ago, it was laughed at and made fun of but people didn't really care whether somebody was a homosexual or not. Within the last ten years, a new acceptance of sodomy is more rampant than twenty years ago. One of Trump's worst problems is his acceptance of "gay marriage" and "LGBTIA+" in general. I would say most don't agree with him who are part of the movement, but for the sake of "free opinion" many tolerate it and move on.

Yet, while in office, he was strongly against transgenders fighting in the military. Nevertheless, when Dave Rubin and his partner announced that they were having a baby through a surrogate, Prager U, The Blaze, and many other so called "conservatives" congratulated him. 

When Christ isn't acknowledged as King, the Church and State are separated, and thereby Protestantism dominates the public. This results in nothing but problems continuing to grow as a result. The toleration of sodomy and the legalization of that type of "marriage" is by far one of the worst abominations; but hey it's America, "do what thou wilt," right?

Conclusion

​Much more could be said about vaccinations/masks mandates, and feminism, all of which have created a decay in society. However, the bottom line is that we can either pledge our allegiance to Christ and His One True Church or to the liberal Masonic teachings of Americanism. This isn't to say that we should despise America (if one lives here) for its past, nor not to have anything to do with politics or society in general, but to keep a real perspective for the benefit of a Catholic's duty in America.

Let's not forget the words of Pope Pius XII on voting:

"It is a strict duty for all who have the right, men or women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains, especially out of cowardice, commits a grave sin, a mortal fault.

Everyone has to vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. Now, it is evident that the voice of this conscience imposes upon every sincere Catholic the duty of giving his or her vote to those candidates, or those lists of candidates, who really offer sufficient assurances for safeguarding the rights of God and the souls of men, for the real good of individuals, families, and society, according to the law of God and moral Christian doctrine." (Pope Pius XII, Address to the Delegates of the International Conference on Emigration, Oct. 17, 1951)

With that in mind, I say what the Mexicans once said in their country "Long live Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe (Patroness of the Americas)."