Our Lady In The Old Testament

 

To My Readers: This week's post is from Mr. Dominic Caggeso, whose ability to connect today's situation to the Old Testament is nothing short of astounding. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific question or comment for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a while longer to respond this week. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Our Lady in the Old Testament

By Dominic Caggeso

One of the benefits of getting older is realizing the precious and unique nature of each moment. Youth tends to view its remaining time as almost boundless, making individual moments seem less special.  However, as one approaches the middle or the end of one’s life and looks back, one sees the importance of decisions, relationships and all manner of occurrences, discovering that each was very unique and meaningful after all. Perspective sheds light on the significance of each moment.

What is true for an individual’s life is also true of the Church’s life. Many Catholics, including myself, tend to view our time in Church history with a myopic lens. Our collective attention as Catholics is drawn to the immediate condition of the Bride of Christ. The Second Vatican Council and its aftermath has defined the state of the Catholic Church, in so much as we strive to preserve the Faith without a pope, slogging through splits, arguments and the hovering and persistent threat coming from the secular world. 

With this limited view, it seems to me that there is a monotonous nature to the last couple decades of Church history, devoid of special character or importance. In other words, we cannot see the forest through the trees.  But, just as the elderly are able to perceive past moments in context when they look at their life as whole, so too can Traditional Catholics see the unique nature of contemporary Church history when it is contextualized in the longer view. Each bygone event in Church history has set the stage for the next occurrence, forming a seamless progression of events leading up to our present day.  

Recent events in Church history are neither random nor coincidental. God has foreknown them from all eternity and has either directly willed them or permitted them to occur.  They are immensely imbued with meaning and importance, far greater than we can perceive or imagine.  In my recent book, Divine Poetry, I think that I give a persuasive demonstration of this truth. Divine Poetry endeavors to show that the entire history of the Catholic Church has been prefigured by the entire Old Testament, even in the same chronological order, right up to our present day! God has not only foreknown Church history but has directly caused it to mirror the events of the Old Testament.  This further proves how unique, meaningful and important was each event in Church history, including contemporary events.  

Our Lady’s Apparitions In Light of the Old Testament

Unlike the history of the Catholic Church, which is largely unrecorded in Holy Scripture, the Old Testament has been solidified and made immutable through precise and deliberately chosen words. We can confidently contemplate and draw meaning from Old Testament stories, knowing that Heaven, through the Church’s granting of the Biblical canon, has given us a proper orientation. Thus the linking of events in Catholic Church history to Old Testament events through typology adds another layer of meaning and significance. In this post, I wish to demonstrate just a little bit of the omniscience of God by showing that events in Church history occur with the same deliberateness and purpose that is so clearly perceived in the Old Testament.  To honor Our Blessed Mother in the month of May, I intend to show how certain Marian apparitions are so unique, momentous and important as to have been prefigured by specific stories in the Old Testament relating to the Ark of the Covenant and the prophets. 

Our Lady is the new Ark.  Just like the Old Testament Ark, She is incorruptible, revered, and bore the presence of God. Perhaps you might also be aware that God spoke to the Israelites from the “oracle” of the Ark (Numbers 7:89) just as Our Lady came and spoke to us from Heaven throughout Church history.  She is a prophetess for our times.  A prophet is one who speaks forth the mind of God. Our Lady, through Church approved, pre-Vatican II apparitions such as Lourdes, Fatima and Guadalupe (among others) gave us messages from Heaven. These messages take the form of both actual spoken words and vivid images that surround and permeate each particular apparition. So as not to make an exhaustively long post, I’ll demonstrate three Marian apparitions, namely Guadalupe, Rue de Bac (the Miraculous Medal), and Fatima.

Our Lady of Guadalupe

One aspect about Our Lady’s apparitions that is so striking is the images that Heaven employs.  They are straightforward and distinctive, capturing the imagination of children and adults alike. Layers of meaning are conveyed in the most simple actions. Our Lady of Guadalupe is very notable in this regard, employing imagery and vivid color through Juan Diego’s tilma, which seems inexhaustible in its ability to convey Heaven’s wonders. Apart from the tilma, we have the words in which Our Lady spoke to Juan Diego and also the roses which bloomed miraculously overnight in the middle of December. Of all the miracles in which Heaven could have used to prove the authenticity of Juan Diego’s claims, flowers were chosen. 

As I have just mentioned, Church history seems to be chronologically prefigured by the Old Testament. After being inspired with this idea, I was excited to explore the Old Testament for possible typological connections with Marian apparitions. This very idea filled my heart with joy! My mind grabbed onto the peculiarities in each apparition, like the cave at Lourdes or the flowers at Guadalupe.  Knowing that Our Lady is the new Ark, I searched the Old Testament for those same concepts in connection with the Ark. My heart swelled, my mind raced, and to my astonishment, the parallels unfolded in the most glorious fashion. It was so simple and so beautiful.

I would like to give you the chance, child of Mary, to experience this same feeling as well. Dear reader, with this idea of Old Testament prefigurement in mind, and with the miracle of the roses from Guadalupe in mind, can you think of any stories in the Old Testament in which flowers miraculously bloom overnight before the Ark? Think of Moses’ brother, Aaron, and the Israelites time in the Sinai Desert. Has it occurred to you yet? By now, you probably have already said to yourself “Yes, in the story of Aaron’s blossoming rod, flowers miraculously bloomed overnight before the Ark”!

In that story, the Israelites were rebelling against Moses’ authority.  They didn’t believe that Moses was selected by God to be His special representative. To prove to the Israelites once and for all that Moses was invested with God’s authority, each of the twelve tribes were told to produce a rod.  These rods were left overnight before the Ark. In the morning, the rod from the tribe of Levi (Aaron’s rod) was found to have miraculously bloomed, proving that God had chosen Moses and Aaron.  Then the rod was placed in the Ark “that it may be kept there for a token of the rebellious children of Israel, and that their complaints may cease from me lest they die.” (See Numbers 17:10). 

Just as Moses and Aaron were vindicated by these miraculous blossoms, so too was Juan Diego proven to be Our Lady’s messenger by producing flowers that had likewise bloomed miraculously before the new Ark.  Just as Aaron’s rod was to be placed in the Ark and kept as a perpetual reminder to the children of Israel, so too has Juan Diego’s tilma been miraculously preserved so as to give us a perpetual reminder of Our Lady’s intercession. However, in the Old Testament, the reminder was meant to stop the Israelites from grumbling and complaining to God.  This is not the case in Church history, for Our Lady of Guadalupe is recorded to have said “I will hear their weeping, their complaints and heal all their sorrows, hardships and sufferings” because She is our merciful mother!

Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal

My wife and I had the occasion to visit France in 2004.  In Paris, in a convent on an obscure street named Rue de Bac, lies the incorrupt body of St. Catherine Labouré.  She received the Miraculous Medal from Our Lady in 1830. Like the tilma and roses of Our Lady of Guadalupe, there are very particular details surrounding Our Lady’s visit to St. Catherine that uniquely stand out. Do you remember that St. Catherine was awoken in the middle of the night by a little boy?  St. Catherine was a nun, living in a convent.  Little boys were distinctively out of place there, especially in the middle of the night.  The little boy, whom St. Catherine believed to be her guardian angel, told her that Our Lady was waiting for her in the convent chapel.

Again, dear reader, I would like to ask you to contemplate. Do you know of any stories in the Old Testament in which a little boy is awoken in the middle of the night as he sleeps close to the Ark?  Did your eyes widen when you remembered the story of the little boy, Samuel?  Can this be a coincidence? The goodness, omnipotence and beauty of God strongly suggests otherwise.

In this Old Testament story, Samuel is awoken by God in the middle of the night and told that the house of Heli was about to end. Soon afterward, Heli’s two sons, Ophni and Phinees, took the Ark into battle at which point it was stolen by the Philistines. The Ark went throughout Philistia, causing plagues and curses upon the Philistines until they were compelled to return the Ark to the Israelites, along with metal cast images of the plagues they had endured. See 1 Kings 3-6.

After St. Catherine entered the chapel, being awoken by the young boy, Our Lady appeared. Just as the Lord told Samuel that the house of Heli was going to be removed from their position as the high priest, Our Lady told St. Catherine "The days are evil. Terrible things are going to happen in France. The King's throne will be overturned.” Our Lady then gave the Miraculous Medal to St. Catherine, which after having received acceptance by the Church, spread throughout France, then the world, leaving a wake of healing and blessing wherever it spread.  In the Old Testament, the Ark left a trail of plagues and curses upon the Philistines, but in Church history, the new Ark had the opposite effect. The Philistines cast metal images of their plagues, but in Church history it is the image of Our Lady that is cast in metal!  Absolutely glorious!  

Our Lady of Fatima

As I mentioned above, Our Lady is not only the new Ark, but also a prophetess. If that is so, then perhaps certain of Her apparitions are prefigured by prominent stories of prophets in the Old Testament.  Such seems to be the case with Our Lady of Fatima.  Just like Guadalupe and Rue de Bac, Our Lady of Fatima is overflowing with imagery.  I am certain you all know very well the story of Fatima, but allow me to lay out some particular details.

The three children’s claims were vindicated to the crowd by the miracle of the sun.  At that point, no one present doubted that Our Lady was appearing to them. That day, on May 13th 1917, it had been raining hard and everyone was soaking wet.  During the miracle of the sun, when the sun came crashing down towards earth, everyone and everything was made dry. Complementing the imagery of the rain storm at Fatima, Our Lady appeared to the children while standing on a small cloud.

With these poignant figures in mind, let us again scour the Old Testament for paralleling images. I propose to you the story of Elias on Mount Carmel. In that story, Elias was having a contest with the prophets of Baal.  They were each to erect an altar and prepare a sacrifice on it, but they were not to set fire to it.  Then they were both to pray to their respective deity, to send down fire from Heaven to consume the sacrifice.  The deity who did so would be declared the True God. “All Israel” was present on Mount Carmel to witness this contest.  

Before he prayed, Elias first instructed that his altar and his sacrifice be drenched with water, thus making the miracle all the more amazing. After having prayed, God responded to Elias by sending fire from Heaven which not only consumed the sacrifice but dried up all the water surrounding Elias’ altar.  After this miracle, everyone present on Mount Carmel declared Elias to be the prophet of the True God. Then, Elias saw a small cloud to the west which turned into a torrential downpour, thus ending the three-and-one-half year drought. You can read this story in 3 Kings 18: 31-45.

In both stories, it was fire from Heaven which convinced the crowds, for indeed, the miracle of the sun at Fatima was “fire coming down from Heaven”. The miracle of the sun caused everyone and everything to be miraculously dry just as the fire from heaven dried up all the water that drenched Elias’ altar. It was pouring rain on May 13th just as “there fell a great rain” that day on Mount Carmel. Finally, Elias saw a “little cloud” just as Our Lady appeared on a little cloud at Fatima. Clearly, these connections are again too numerous and specific to be a coincidence!

Conclusion

It seems to me that other Marian apparitions are prefigured in the Old Testament as well. You can find these on my YouTube channel “Maccabean Uprising."  Or, you can find them in a booklet that I published, complete with colored pictures.  This can be found at www.maccabeanuprising.com/books. On this website you can also find my recent book, Divine Poetry, which details the astonishing chronological parallels between the entirety of the Old Testament and Catholic Church history, right up to our present day. 

Glory be to God!  And may we honor Our Lady, especially in this month of May.

God The Holy Ghost

 

To My Readers: This week my guest poster Lee returns after a brief hiatus with an excellent post on God The Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. There is no better time for such a post as today, the day after Traditionalist Catholics celebrate the Feast of Pentecost. Please comment as always. If you have a particular question or comment for me, I will respond as usual, but it may take me a bit longer to reply this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

God The Holy Ghost

By Lee

As we have arrived at the season of Pentecost, we are reminded of two things. The descent of the Holy Ghost on His Church (the Twelve Apostles) and the gifts in the form of fire which He bestowed on them. Gifts which were for the purpose of a divine mission. These gifts enabled them to perform many miracles in the early Church to prove it is a spotless bride which belongs to a spotless head. Christ promised the Apostles the Paraclete would come in John 16:7 but it wasn't until all things in its proper time were fulfilled. Therefore, the Holy Ghost had to proceed from the Father and the Son in perfect time and unity. A friend of mine exclaimed that the Catholic Church started when Christ's side was opened with a lance when dying on the cross. While my dear friend was close to being right, Pope Leo XIII explains, "The Church which, already conceived, came forth from the side of the second Adam in His sleep on the Cross, first showed herself before the eyes of men on the great day of Pentecost. (Divinum Illud Munus #5-- 1897; Emphasis mine). This implies a birth date. Just as we are conceived 9 months before our birth, the Church is conceived and then born.

On The Importance of The Holy Ghost

In his booklet, The Holy Ghost, Our Greatest Friend the great Dominican writer Fr. Paul O' Sullivan explains: 

The doctrine of the Holy Ghost is without doubt the most important of all the Church's teachings because, if we do not know and love the Holy Ghost, we cannot possibly understand the other great truths of our Holy Religion. Without the Holy Ghost we are blind. Not only is this doctrine the most important, it is the most wonderful, the most consoling, the most sublime of all doctrines, for with the Holy Ghost we can do all things easily and well. He is the Spirit of Love, of Peace, of Joy, the Spirit of Divine Consolation. He is the Light of Our Souls and the Strength of Our Wills: Yet, strange to say, this doctrine is little understood by great numbers of Christians. Some have a vague knowledge of the Holy Ghost, but very few indeed have a real grasp of all the Holy Ghost has done for them and is most ready to do if only they allow Him. 

We love and honor the Eternal Father whenever we say the Our Father, and this not once, but many times a day. Whenever, too, we speak of the Great Creator of Heaven and Earth, the God of the Universe, we think of the Eternal Father. We pray to the Son, not only when invoking the Blessed Trinity, but when praying to Our Lord Jesus Christ. We honor His Incarnation, His life, His Passion and death. We honor His Sacred Heart, His Holy Name, and above all we honor Him in the Holy Eucharist. But many rarely or ever think of the Holy Ghost! They know very little about all the wonderful things He is ready to give them—the peace, the immense joy, the consolations, the love He is offering them. 

“How extraordinary,” Cardinal Manning exclaims, “it is that Christians know so little about the Holy Ghost though He is the Author of our Sanctification, the Giver of all Joys and Consolations!” His Eminence was in his youth a sincere Protestant. He became, with the help of the Holy Ghost, a fervent Catholic. Under the same divine guidance, he became a priest, a bishop and finally a cardinal, He ever cherished a great devotion to the Holy Ghost and solved all his doubts and difficulties by praying to this Holy Spirit. When called on to make any important decision, he first of all bent his head in silent prayer. If the problem were graver, he devoted more time and fervor in asking for guidance. Thanks to the graces he thus received, he was able not only to attain high personal sanctity but to render great services to the Catholic Church in England. He wrote two beautiful books on the Holy Ghost. Cardinal Newman gives us a touching example of love for the Holy Ghost. He, too, was brought up by his parents in the Protestant religion. Unfortunately, he had the strongest prejudices against the Catholic Church. 

At an early age he began to see that his own religion could not be the true one, so full was it of contradictions and errors. He spent years trying to find the Church of Christ. He read history, he argued with eminent divines and consulted many learned friends, but all in vain. He failed to recognize in the midst of so many claims the religion given us by Jesus Christ. Finally, one day he received from God, who was pleased with his good intentions, an inspiration. "What have I been doing!" he exclaimed. “I have labored much, I have studied, I have read many books, I have consulted good friends, but I have not prayed enough, I have not sufficiently asked God's light and guidance." Then falling on his knees he prayed fervently. The clouds of doubt began to disappear, and he at last saw the truth of the Catholic Church. He describes his conversion in the following beautiful hymn, written not long before his conversion.

Lead Kindly Light

Lead Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom, 

Lead Thou me on! 

The night is dark, and I am far from home— 

Lead Thou me on! 

Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see 

The distant scene—one step enough for me.

I was not ever thus, nor prayd that Thou 

Shouldst lead me on, 

I loved to choose and see my path; but now 

Lead Thou me. on! 

I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears, 

Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still 

Will lead me on, 

O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till 

The night is gone; 

And with the morn those angel faces smile 

Which I have loved long since and lost awhile.

He became a Catholic, and following his example, more than a thousand Protestant ministers were converted and a very host of laymen. 

Cardinal Gibbons had the following experience when still a parish priest: He was called to see a distinguished American senator who was gravely ill. Unfortunately, the sick man did not believe in the existence of God. He listened, however, attentively to Father Gibbons, who spoke to him of the goodness of God and His love for us, proving at the same time God's existence with several cogent arguments. These, however, made no impression on the Senator. Father Gibbons finally asked him whether, if such a good God as he had been describing did exist, he would believe in and love Him? “Most certainly,” was the answer. “Well then,” said Fr. Gibbons, “will you say the following little prayer sometimes: ‘O God of infinite goodness, if You exist, make me know You.’” 

This the sick man promised to do, and then came a flood of light! Some days after, Fr. Gibbons was once more summoned to the bedside of the dying man, who on seeing him, called out, “Father, I believe, I believe!” And for the remaining weeks of his life he manifested the liveliest faith in and love for God. A priest who is devoted to the Holy Ghost does more than a thousand others. The writer met one such priest recently. He was extremely modest and unpretentious, yet he got through a prodigious amount of work. He not only worked successfully himself, but he had the gift of attracting and inspiring others to work with him. In the course of conversation he mentioned that he had great devotion to the Holy Ghost, to whom he attributed all his success. When Catholic universities commence the year’s work, when law courts begin their annual sessions, at the opening of parliaments and other important corporations, the Mass of the Holy Ghost is solemnly said and His Divine guidance invoked, and as we shall see afterwards, individual members of these corporations beg light and help from the Holy Ghost in all grave emergencies. We, too, should make it our practice to seek in all things the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Pgs. 1-6)

Sins against The Holy Ghost

While much can be said about the gifts of the Holy Ghost which are exercised in confirmed Catholics in the state of grace, what often does not get discussed are the sins against Him. One verse from Scripture that should be on our minds is found in Matthew 12:31-32 which states "Wherefore I say unto to you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven Him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Emphasis mine). 

Commenting on these verses, theologian Cornelius a Lapide says, 

"Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven a man: but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. The word Spirit is in the genitive case, as is plain from the Greek πνεύματος. The blasphemy therefore of the Spirit is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Whence the Arabic translates, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; Syriac, Blasphemy against the Spirit of Holiness.

You will ask, what is this blasphemy? 1. Philastrius (On the Heresy of Rotorius) thinks it is heresy, especially that of Eunomius, who said that the Holy Ghost was not God. Thus also S. Ambrose (Lib. 1, de Spir. Sanc. sec. 3).

2. S. Hilary thinks that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is when a man denies that Christ is God. “The sin against the Holy Ghost,” he says, “is to deny to God the power of virtue, and to take away from Christ His eternal substance, by which, because God came into man, man shall in turn come to God; since God grants pardon to all other things, whilst this only is without forgiveness.”

3. S. Ambrose (L. 2, de pśniten. see. 4) thinks it is schism; also Simony, the sin whereby, for example, Simon Magus wished to buy the Holy Spirit of S. Peter.

4. Origen says it is every mortal sin after Baptism; committed, that is, after the grace of the Holy Spirit received in Baptism. Moreover, Pope Gelasius (de Anath. vinc.) understands by it sins which are not forgiven, either in this world, or in the world to come. But he thinks it refers to sinners who do not wish to repent. For he says, that man makes the sentence against himself irrevocable who wills to continue in such a state as that he cannot truly be forgiven.

5. S. Cyprian (L. 3, ad Quirinal, N. 28) says, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is every sin committed against God: but blasphemy against the Son of Man is every sin committed against man.

6. The same Saint (L 3, Epist. 14) thinks blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is denial of the faith in persecution.

7. Richard of S. Victor says, it is to hate and revile God.

I have summarily embraced eighteen expositions of the Fathers (viz., eleven of the Latin Fathers and seven of the Greek) in the foregoing paragraphs.

Lastly, theologians—and from them, catechists—out of various expositions of S. Augustine, collect six sins against the Holy Ghost; namely, presumption, despair, striving against known truth, envy of fraternal charity, impenitence, and obstinacy. They say that these are called sins against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through undoubted wickedness against the goodness of God, which is an attribute of the Holy Ghost. Thus, likewise, sins which are committed through infirmity are said to be done against God the Father, because power is one of His especial attributes. And sins which are done through ignorance, are said to be done against the Son, because of His attribute of wisdom.

Note, therefore, that Christ is here speaking not of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but only of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may take place by words; and the same reasoning will apply to thoughts and actions, as when anyone reviles works manifestly divine and miraculous, which God works for the salvation of men, by which He confirms faith and truth. Such a work is the casting out of devils; and because such works proceed from the goodness and holiness of God, they are attributed to the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son by procession and inspiration, as Love, Goodness, and Holiness. When, therefore, anyone calumniates such things, and knowingly out of malice ascribes them to an unclean spirit (as these Pharisees did), such an one is said to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for such an one directly fights against God and takes from Him His holiness and purity. The whole argument is expressed in the following syllogism:—

The author of the miracles which Christ performs is, according to you, 0 ye Scribes, Beelzebub:

But God the Holy Ghost is, in truth, the Author of these miracles :

Therefore, according to you, God and the Holy Ghost are Beelzebub.

What more horrible can possibly be said? What greater blasphemy can be imagined? S. Basil adds that there are such persons even now, who ascribe the fruits and actions of the Holy Ghost to the opposing unclean spirit. We many of us do this, when we call earnestness ambition, and impute the calumny of anger to one who is only moved by zeal and righteous indignation. Moreover, Christ opposes this blasphemy against God and the Holy Ghost to that blasphemy against the Son of Man by which some who were offended at Christ’s human conversation, calumniated what He did as man, as when they called Him a wine bibber, and a friend of Publicans and sinners. This was something more excusable, and less unworthy of forgiveness, because it had respect to Christ as Man rather than as God.

Shall not be forgiven: Arab. Shall not be relaxed, i.e., shall with difficulty, and seldom be forgiven. For this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is most horrible, inexcusable, and altogether unworthy of pardon, and, considered simply in itself, takes away and excludes all medicine, and means of obtaining forgiveness. For such a blasphemer places himself in diametrical opposition to the Holy Ghost, and drives Him from him, yea blasphemes Him: the Holy Ghost, I say, by whom alone he could be absolved, healed, and sanctified. Similarly, we call an incurable disease one which does not admit of medicine, and rejects every kind of food. Nevertheless a blasphemer does not shut up the hand of God, so that God cannot have mercy upon him, although unworthy; and convert him, as He converted S. Paul, who confesses that he had been a blasphemer against God (1 Tim. 1: 13).

And whosoever shall speak a word, &c. Christ declares the same truth in still clearer words. A word, anything injurious, reviling, blasphemous, it shall be forgiven him, it is remissible, and is readily forgiven to the penitent. From hence, it is plain against the Novatians, that all persons who have lapsed into heinous sins, should he admitted to penance.

But whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, &c. Syriac, whosoever shall revile the Holy Ghost.

Here, first, Origen is condemned, who extended repentance, pardon, and salvation, to all sinners, after this life. For he said, after the great year of Plato, all things would be restored afresh, and that Judas would be saved; and Lucifer, together with the devils and the damned, would be brought back to heaven.

2. S. Aug. (21 Civit. 24), S. Greg. (4 dialog. 39), Isidore, Bede, S. Bern., and others, quoted by Bellarmine (Lib. 2. de Purgat. sec. 4), prove from this passage, that there is a Purgatory after this life. For it would be unmeaning to say, shall not be forgiven nor in the world to come, if there were no remission of sins in the world to come. Thus a person would speak vainly who said, I will never marry a wife, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, since no wife can be married in the world to come. Mark adds, and gives greater force to the saying: but shall be guilty of eternal damnation. Moreover mortal sins are expiated in Purgatory, so far only as pertains to their punishment, but venial sins as regards both fault and punishment. (The Great Biblical Commentary).

In his book The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Cardinal Manning quotes St. Augustine on what he says about the sins against the Holy Ghost:

In commenting on the sin against the Holy Ghost,, S. Augustine says :  And for this cause both the Jews and such heretics, whatsoever they be, who believe in the Holy Ghost, but deny his presence in the body of Christ — that is, in His only Church, which is no other than the Church, one and Catholic — without doubt are like the Pharisees who, at that day, though they acknowledged the existence of the Holy Spirit, yet denied that he was in the Christ.' He then argues as follows: 

For to Him [the Spirit] belongs the fellowship by which we are made the one body of the only Son of God; wherefore,' he says again,  Whosoever hath not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His. For, to whom in the Trinity should properly belong the communion of this fellowship but to that Spirit who is common to the Father and the Son? That they who are separated from the Church have not this Spirit, the Apostle Jude openly declared.'  In these passages S. Augustine distinctly affirms that, to deny the office of the Holy Ghost in the Church, is to deny a part of the doctrine of the — Trinity. So again, speaking of the absolution of sin, S. Augustine ascribes it to the operation of the Three Persons. 'For the Holy Ghost dwells in no one without the Father and the Son; nor the Son without the Father and the Holy Ghost; nor without them the Father. 

For their indwelling is inseparable whose operation is inseparable. . . . But, as I have already often said, the remission of sins, whereby the kingdom of the Spirit divided against Himself is overthrown and cast out — and, therefore, the fellowship of the unity of the Church of God, out of which the remission of sins is not given — is the proper office of the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son cooperating ; for the Holy Ghost Himself is the fellowship of the Father and the Son. . . . Whosoever therefore is guilty of impenitence against the Spirit, in whom the unity and fellowship of the communion of the Church is held together, it shall never be forgiven him, because he hath closed against himself the way of remission, and shall justly be condemned with the spirit, who is divided against himself, being also divided against the Holy Ghost, who, against Himself, is not divided... 

And, therefore, all congregations, or rather dispersions, which call themselves churches of Christ, and are divided and contrary among themselves, and to the congregation of unity which is His true Church, are enemies: nor because they seem to have His name, do they therefore belong to His congregation. They would indeed belong to it if the Holy Ghost, in whom this congregation is associated together, were divided against Himself. But, because this is not so (for he who is not with Christ is against Him, and he who gathers not with Him scatters), therefore, all sin and all .blasphemy shall be remitted unto men in this congregation, which Christ gathers together in the Holy Ghost, and not in the spirit which is divided against himself.' Like as in the old world the divine tradition of the knowledge of (rod was encompassed by corrupt and fragmentary religions, so the divine tradition of the faith is encompassed by fragmentary Christianities and fragmentary churches. 

The belief in the unity of God, before the Incarnation, was broken up into the polytheisms of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Since the Incarnation this can not be. The illumination of the Word made flesh renders impossible all polytheism and idolatry. The unity and the spirituality of the eternal (rod are now axioms of the human reason. But, as S. Augustine profoundly observes, the analogy still holds between the errors of the old creation and of the new. Satan, as he says, can no longer divide the true (rod, nor bring in among us false gods, therefore he has sent strifes among Christians. Because he could not fabricate  many gods, therefore he has multiplied sects, and sowed errors, and set up heresies. (Pgs. 23-26)

Going back to Fr. O'Sullivan's book from above, he tells of a consequential ending when one breaks from the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Ghost): 

The Great Sin Against the Holy Ghost and Its Punishment

The fall of Constantinople and its destruction is a striking example of the awful punishment meted out by God to those who sin against the Holy Spirit. The Greeks, led by their Patriarchs Photius and Cerularius, denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost and, after apparently renouncing their error, fell back into the same sin. They were threatened by Pope Nicholas V with God's anger if they did not repent. This they obstinately refused to do.

Three years later, in 1453, Mahomet II, at the head of a formidable Moslem army, surrounded the city and after fierce fighting defeated the Greeks and captured Constantinople —this, on the very feast of the Holy Ghost. Fearful massacres, pillage and fires lasted three whole days, reducing the inhabitants to an awful plight: Mahomet, on the fourth day, entered the city, took possession of the Imperial Palace and turned the cathedral into a mosque.

Constantinople has since then lain under the cruel yoke of the Turks for over 500 years. What a punishment!" (Ibid.pg.59)

Conclusion

By observing the 21st century and its continual downfall and loss of faith, there is no doubt it's clearly a result from a multitude of sins against God The Holy Ghost. While it is true that any sin can be forgiven if the proper dispositions are made in the confessional to a valid Catholic priest, many are not, simply because of the nature of such sins. The malice is great depending on the knowledge and the will of the sinner. 

Pentecost is indeed a special time to ponder, but it is more beneficial to examine ourselves and see if we have truly given in to such pride which is the root of despair, presumption, having repugnance of the known truth (such as from divine revelation), envy of another's spiritual good, obstinacy in sin, and finally impenitence. Those in the new religion or any false religion for that matter ought to seriously consider who they will have to stand before one day and start asking for the first gift of Fear of the Lord. Below is a good way to start.

Litany to the Holy Ghost

Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us.

Lord, have mercy on us. Father all powerful, Have mercy on us.

Jesus, Eternal Son of the Father, Redeemer of the world, Save us.

Spirit of the Father and the Son, boundless Life of both, Sanctify us.

Holy Trinity, Hear us.

Holy Ghost, Who proceedest from the Father and the Son, enter our hearts.

Holy Ghost, Who art equal to the Father and the Son, enter our hearts.

Promise of God the Father, have mercy on us.

Ray of heavenly light, have mercy on us.

Author of all good, etc.

Source of heavenly water,

Consuming Fire,

Ardent Charity,

Spiritual Unction,

Spirit of love and truth,

Spirit of wisdom and understanding, Spirit of counsel and fortitude,

Spirit of knowledge and piety,

Spirit of the fear of the Lord,

Spirit of grace and prayer,

Spirit of peace and meekness,

Spirit of modesty and innocence,

Holy Ghost, the Comforter,

Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier,

Holy Ghost, Who governest the Church, Gift of God the Most High,

Spirit Who fillest the universe,

Spirit of the adoption of the children of God,

Holy Ghost, inspire us with horror of sin.

Holy Ghost, come and renew the face of the earth.

Holy Ghost, shed Thy light into our souls.

Holy Ghost, engrave Thy law in our hearts.

Holy Ghost, inflame us with the flame of Thy love.

Holy Ghost, open to us the treasures of Thy graces.

Holy Ghost, teach us to pray well.

Holy Ghost, enlighten us with Thy heavenly inspirations.

Holy Ghost, lead us in the way of salvation.

Holy Ghost, grant us the only necessary knowledge.

Holy Ghost, inspire in us the practice of good.

Holy Ghost, grant us the merits.of all virtues. Holy Ghost, make us persevere in justice. Holy Ghost, be Thou our everlasting reward.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Send us Thy Holy Ghost.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Pour down into our souls the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Grant us the Spirit of wisdom and piety.

V. Come, Holy Ghost! Fill the hearts of Thy faithful, 

R. And enkindle in them the fire of Thy love.

LET US PRAY: Grant, O merciful Father, that Thy Divine Spirit may enlighten, inflame and purify us, that He may penetrate us with His heavenly dew and make us. fruitful in good works, through Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who with Thee, in the unity of the ‘same Spirit, liveth and reigneth forever and ever. R. Amen.

Vatican II Homo-Revisionists

 

A couple of weeks ago, a person on "X" (formerly "Twitter") responded to one of my posts that "There is no Vatican II sect." He goes by the moniker "Leo the Great" and is an apologist for Bergoglio's man-made sect. I explained that the dogma of Indefectibility means that the Church cannot give that which is evil and/or heretical to Her members. Yet, Vatican II and the Conciliar "popes" have given error and evil. Therefore, appearances to the contrary, these errors and evils did not come from the Church, but from those clerics who defected from the Church and created a de facto sect of counterfeit Catholicism. One of the examples I gave of evil being given to Vatican II sect members, was the decree Fiducia Supplicans (FS), which allows sodomite "couples" to be "blessed." 

To this, he replied, "Homosexuality has never been condemned." I shook my head in utter disbelief. He also stated the old canard that "the sin of Sodom was inhospitality." I really wonder if he was that badly informed, or was willfully distorting reality to make Bergoglio "pope." He is not alone, unfortunately, in his detachment from reality. There is a movement afoot in both liberal Protestant sects and now the Vatican II sect (in the wake of FS), to "normalize" sexual perversion. To give but one example, more and more Lutheran parishes are joining the "Reconciling in Christ" program, aka "Reconciling Works." Started in 1974, and having really taken off in the last ten years, its mission is to advocate " for the acceptance, full participation, and liberation of all sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions within the Lutheran Church.(sic)" 

(See reconcilingworks.org/about/). 

Here's but one prayer suggested to be used during a Lutheran worship service:

God of all mercy and consolation, come to the help of your people, and in particular your LGBTQIA+ children whom for too long the church was a harmful place. Turn those of us who have actively participated in the sins of homophobia, transphobia, and fear to live for you alone. Give us the power of your Holy Spirit that we may confess our sins, receive your forgiveness, and grow into the fullness of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Liberator. Amen. (Ibid). 

Notice the topsy-turvy morality: No longer are the perverts commiting sin, rather those who don't condone and celebrate that sin are the sinners. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." (Isaiah 5:20). 

They even have  LGBTQIA  Stations of the Cross for Lent. Here's the "reflection" for the Crucifixion:

Reflection

The epidemic of violence against the transgender community, and BIPOC transgender people in particular, should be a call to action for us all. We may never know the true number of transgender people who are victims of violence due to deadnaming, misgendering, and other factors that seek to erase their existence from our society. We all can and must do better for our transgender siblings because they deserve to live fully into the people they know themselves to be. What are ways you can live out your values of love, justice, and welcome for LGBTQIA+ people in your life? We extend an invitation to learn about the lives of transgender victims of violence, to say their names, and share with friends and family how you stand in solidarity with the most vulnerable in the LGBTQIA+ community.

(Ibid). [N.B. "BIPOC" means  Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. The reflection is therefore in particular about a non-White person who thinks they belong to the opposite gender.). 

If you are as sickened as I am by this blasphemous perversion, the purpose of this post is to answer the three new arguments of the "gay is Ok" movement, state clearly the teaching of the Church, and explain why "inhospitality" was NOT the "sin of Sodom" for which God destroyed the city. 

The New "Gay is OK" Arguments

Here is a summary of some new arguments to legitimize sexual perverts, and my response. N.B. The responses are not mine, but rather information compiled from multiple theological sources, and to whom I give full credit.  

Argument #1: Celibacy cannot be mandated, so it is wrong to require homosexuals to live celibate lives.

Celibacy is a gift that should not be forced on anyone. Genesis 2:18 says that it is not good for man to be alone, and in the New Testament, Jesus says celibacy can be accepted only by those to whom it is given (St. Matthew 19:11–12). Paul says he prefers all to be celibate, but recognizes that people have different gifts (1 Corinthians 7:7). Thus, requiring celibacy for all Catholics with homosexual desires violates this teaching, which the Catholic tradition has affirmed for two thousand years.

Reply: While no one should not minimize the genuine struggle those with unnatural desires have to remain chaste, this argument fails on two fronts. First, while celibacy may be a gift in some cases, it is mandated in others. For example, a married man whose wife leaves him may not remarry (St. Matthew 19:9).  Let's not forget the single Traditionalist Catholic man who never finds a wife, and single Traditionalist woman who never finds a husband. The single vocation is called to do the same as priests and religious. Sex is only permitted within marriage. Even if we do not have the “gift,” each of us is called to be sexually pure in such circumstances, and God will always give us the necessary grace to resist temptation and keep His Commandments. 

Second, this point equivocates on “lonely” and “alone.” Nowhere in the creation account are humans told that the man is lonely and in need of companionship. Rather, God’s verdict is that he is alone and in need of a helper. For what does he need a helper? To “fill and form” the entire planet.

Genesis is making an objective point about the man’s incompleteness, that is, his inability to populate the Earth, not about his subjective experience of loneliness, which requires a companion. In the state of Original Justice, Adam was perfectly happy and could not feel lonely.

Argument #2: Marriage is about "keeping covenant" with your spouse as a reflection of Christ’s love for His Church.

Ephesians 5:21–33 is a foundational biblical text on marriage. As this text portrays, marriage is essentially about commitment, which involves keeping our covenant with our spouse as a reflection of God’s covenant with His own people. Vatican II did away with the idea of marriage as a contract. Same-sex couples can do this just as effectively as heterosexual couples who are sterile or who are in old age and are married in Church. 

Reply:  Commitment is not the primary point of this passage, although it is important. Marriage is specifically portrayed as a gendered institution with husbands and wives, not merely “spouses.” In Ephesians 5:31, St. Paul refers back to the creation account as the Divinely decreed institution for humanity, which is specifically about Christ as the Groom and the Church as the Bride. To ignore the gender component of marriage is to violate God's design of marriage. While it is true the Church has always allowed those who are sterile (through no fault of their own) and the elderly to marry, the fact they cannot procreate does not change the gender component of what a marriage must be like. They still reflect God's design and some can adopt children providing them a father and mother; something sodomites cannot do. 

Argument #3: This argument is more "recycled" from the past than new--but it has come back into vogue. "Both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 tell how a centurion asked Jesus to heal the young man referred to in the original Greek as his “pais." The word was commonly used for the younger partner in a same-sex relationship. It is usually translated into English as boy, servant or slave. In recent years progressive Bible scholars have concluded that the centurion was in a homosexual relationship with the “slave who was dear to him” in the gospel story.  However being gay today implies an egalitarian relationship, while the centurion and his pais were obviously unequal male partners, as was common at the time." (See qspirit.net/gay-centurion/). Therefore, Christ healed the homosexual and did not condemn the behavior so, it is blasphemously asserted, Christ does not condemn homosexuality. 

Reply: There is actually no indication that the centurion had a homosexual relationship with his servant boy just by use of the word “pais.” While these relationships did exist, to assume that this centurion was having sexual relations with the servant, based on the simple fact that he had a servant, would be analogous to asserting that a man had a wife and then assuming that he must have cheated on his wife, because some men do that. In fact, St. Luke uses the word doulos (the general word for servant) to describe this young male ( St. Luke 7:2). Furthermore, of the 24 uses of pais in the Greek New Testament, it is never used of a homosexual relationship. It was something Modernist "scholars" twisted to say something it never asserted. As shall be demonstrated below, Christ actually condemned homosexuality in Sacred Scripture.  

The Church has Unequivocally Condemned Homosexuality

The Third Lateran Ecumenical Council 1179 A.D.

Canon 11: "...Let all who are found guilty of that unnatural vice for which the wrath of God came down upon the sons of disobedience and destroyed the five cities with fire, if they are clerics be expelled from the clergy or confined in monasteries to do penance; if they are laymen they are to incur excommunication and be completely separated from the society of the faithful..." 

(See papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum11.htm).

Pope St Pius V:

Cum Primum  April 1, 1566:

"Having determined to do away with everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, we resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are more repugnant to God than any others and raise His wrath: that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. For such faults peoples and nations are scourged by God Who, according to His just condemnation, sends catastrophes, wars, famine, and pestilence ... and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to the same punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity]." (Emphasis mine).

Horrendum Illud Scelus August 30, 1568:

P I U S , B I S H O P

Servant of the Servants of God: For perpetual memory. That horrendous crime, for which polluted and filthy cities were burned by the frightful judgment of God, pains Us most bitterly, and gravely stirs our soul, so that, insofar as it is possible, we might strive to crush it.

I. It is reasonably established in the [Third] Lateran Council that any Clerics who are discovered in that act of incontinence that is against nature, because of which the wrath of God came upon the children of unbelief, should be expelled from the clergy, or be cast into monasteries for the purpose of doing penance.

2. However, lest the contagion of such a disgrace, from the hope of impunity – which is the greatest incentive to sin – strengthen in boldness, we have decided that the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime are to be more gravely punished, so that the avenger of the civil laws, the secular sword, might certainly deter those who do not fear the death of the soul.

3. And therefore, seeking to more completely and forcefully pursue what We already decreed regarding this matter at the beginning of our Pontificate, any and all priests and other secular and regular Clergy of whatever grade and dignity who practice such a dire sin We deprive of every clerical privilege, and of every Ecclesiastical office, dignity, and benefit, by the authority of the present canon. So that, having been degraded by Ecclesiastical Judgment, they may be handed over to the secular power, which may exact from them that same punishment that is received by laity who have fallen into this ruin, which is found to be constituted in legitimate ordinances....

Given at St. Peter’s in Rome, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1568, on the third Kalends of September (August 30), in the third year of Our Pontificate. (Emphasis mine). 

1917 Code of Canon Law:

Canon 2357: section 1:  Lay persons who have been legally found guilty of a crime of sexual immorality committed with a minor under 16 years of age or rape, sodomy, incest, pandering, are ipso facto infamous, besides being subject to other penalties which the Ordinary may deem proper to inflict.(Emphasis mine)

Canon 2359: section 2: Deprives clerics (guilty of the same crimes enumerated above) of "any office, benefice, dignity, or position which they may have and in more serious cases be deposed."

(See Canonist Bouscaren Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (1951), pgs. 931-932).

Homosexuality is infallibly condemned as evil by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). All the Church Fathers and approved theologians unequivocally condemn unnatural vice.  

Approved Theologians:

Prummer: "Sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance." (Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 236).

Jone: "Sexual paresthesia is had when sex life is not affected by venereal matters, but by objects all together foreign to sex life. The following are forms of this perversion: (a) Sadism...(b) Masochism...(c) Fetishism...(d) Homosexuality..."(Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 151). 

McHugh and Callan: "Worst among the sins of impurity, as such, are crimes of unnatural lust...For procreation requires heterosexual intercourse, a condition disregarded by sodomy, which is the lustful commerce of male with male...or of female with female (tribadism, sapphism, lesbian love)." (Moral Theology, [1930], 2:543). 

Cronin: "The sexual function can only be exercised in a way consonant with the generation of offspring. Any other use of it would be a perversion of the natural order and, therefore, a violation of the natural law." (The Science of Ethics, [1939], 2:63). 

(All emphasis mine).

Church Fathers and Doctors:

St. Augustine: “[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way." 

St. John Chrysostom: "But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration!…Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time!… For that rain was unwonted, for the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain. Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable?"

Pope St. Gregory the Great: "Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime. For sulfur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites, burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench, should perish by fire and sulfur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire."

St. Peter Damien: "Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices.… It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.…"

(As cited in the pamphlet The Sin of Homosexuality, [1949], Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, no author given). 

Sacred Scripture:

Old Testament

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."

(Emphasis mine).

New Testament

1 Corinthians 6:9: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

1 Timothy 1:10: "... law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly ... the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching."

Romans 1:26-27: "Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

St. Jude 1:7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

(All emphasis mine).

It should be clear that homosexuality stands condemned by Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as contrary to both Natural Law and Divine Positive Law. Moreover, the Church considers it one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. 

Was the Sin of Sodom Really "Inhospitality"?

The story of Sodom, told in Genesis 19, explains how Lot (Abraham's nephew) was met by two strangers at the gate of the city. These men were actually angels in disguise. Lot brings them to his house and, after a meal but before going to bed, the men of Sodom (young and old) surround the house and demand to have sex with them. Lot refuses to allow the gang rape of his guests and (tragically) offers them his virgin daughters instead. The men of Sodom are not interested in the women, only wanting sex with the men. The mob is about to break down the door of the house, when the "men" reveal themselves and save Lot by striking the mob with blindness. Revisionists tell us this is a case of attempted gang rape and  being "inhospitable" to guests, it is not "loving and consensual relations" that God would not condemn.

That Sodom was condemned for unnatural vice (later to be named after the city itself--"sodomy") is made clear by the New Testament, specifically, the epistle of St. Jude 1: 7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Emphasis mine). Doesn't leave much room for declaring "the sin of Sodom" as being a lack of hospitality.

N.B. Some wonder how Lot could be considered a good man when he offered his daughters to be raped. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) answers: "Lot interceded in behalf of his guests in accordance with his duties as host, which are most sacred in the East, but made the mistake of placing them above his duties as a father by offering his two daughters to the wicked designs of the Sodomites..." Lot tried to spare his guests (which he did not realize were angels disguised as men) from being sodomized and failing his duties as a host. The evil of sodomy was known even then, and duties of hosts were considered sacred. In his zeal to prevent this dual evil, he committed a sin in offering his daughters to be raped. However, even in this, his sin did not even come close to the savage brutality and iniquity of the Sodomites. (Emphasis mine).

Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself Condemns Homosexuality

Homo-revisionists will claim that "Jesus never condemns or even mentions homosexuality. If it were really evil, He wouldn't have remained silent on the matter." 

Actually, Christ refers to the city of Sodom no less than four times. Each time Our Lord refers to that immoral city, He refers to its sinfulness and agrees that it stands condemned:

• St. Matthew 10:15, "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Clearly implying that on Judgement Day, Sodom and Gomorrah will stand condemned)

• St. Matthew 11:23-24, "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

• St. Luke 10:12, "I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day."

• St. Luke 17:30, "But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from Heaven and destroyed them all."

The Inescapable Logic

First, Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "sexual immorality and perversion." (St. Jude 1:7)

Second, this perversion is homosexuality, because Genesis 19 clearly states it was men wanting sex with two angels who appeared as men, and they had no (sexual) use for women.

Third, Our Lord Jesus Christ is recorded referring to Sodom no less than four (4) times, and each time He agrees the city stands condemned for this sin ("sodomy") and calls Sodom "wicked." 

Therefore, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality. True, He never uses the word "homosexuality," but He never specifically condemned "rape" by name, so are we thereby to blasphemously assume He didn't condemn it? 

Conclusion

Bergoglio and his homo-revisionist allies have both a strategy and a specialized message to persuade this new generation that God "blesses same-sex relationships." When someone asks, "What harm is there to blessing same-sex relationships," here is the answer:

1. It makes a mockery of the Sacrament of Matrimony which is meant for the procreation and education of children. It builds up the Mystical Body of Christ. 

2. Marriage is no longer seen as being about procreation, but about hooking-up.

3. It makes the unnatural and perverted seem acceptable and normal.

4. Children will be more likely to experiment with perversions and become perverts themselves. 

5. Children raised via adoption (or conceived by surrogate mothers for same-sex "marriages") will be heavily influenced by the perverts. Many will be molested. Of parents 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).  

Moreover, with women willing to sell their bodies as surrogates for different men, don't be surprised if unintended incest spikes when half-siblings marry, not knowing their background, and an increase in special needs children spawned by them, will result.

Of special mention: my X account was restricted temporarily after my condemnation of sodomites in my exchange with "Leo the Great;" so much for "free speech." As I've stated before, I believe that the two greatest dangers facing us in the Great Apostasy are occultists and sodomites. Big Sibling is watching--and uses they/them pronouns. May the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary save us. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 27

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Did Morality Evolve?

To My Readers: This post tackles the attack against morality by skeptics, agnostics, atheists, and others who reject objective moral values. They claim that God is unnecessary to having morality; that it evolved as humans evolved. Darwinian evolution is false. The Church teaches that one may believe in the evolution of the body, but the soul is created out of nothing by Almighty God. I will not address whether or not evolution of the body should be believed. Following the example of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, I will admit ad arguendo, that the atheist's premise of Darwinian evolution is true, and then explain why it doesn't advance their false idea that morality evolved or is independent of God. I take no credit for the content of this post. Besides the cited works, I read many books and articles (online and print), that helped form this post. I take no credit except in condensing everything into a terse and readable post.

In Christian charity, I ask you all to say a prayer today for the repose of the soul of my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, who went to Judgement exactly 19 years ago. He was God's chosen instrument to preserve the Church in the dawn of the Great Apostasy. I miss him greatly, and he is responsible for my conversion and my decision to start this blog; passing on the One True Faith he gave to me. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

"If there is no God, everything is permitted."---Attributed to Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881)

The infamous American serial killer, Jefferey Dahmer (d. 1994) made this remarkable statement before his death:

If you don’t . . . think that there is a God to be accountable to . . . what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought, anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we . . . died, you know, that was it, there was nothing. (From transcript of Dateline NBC news program of 11/29/94). 

Dahmer aka The Milwaukee Monster, murdered 17 young men in cold-blood from 1978-1991. He ate some of their body parts and committed necrophilia (i.e., sex with dead bodies). After his conviction, he began reading the Bible and became a "born-again" Protestant in 1994, just six months before his death. He made the above statement explaining that, since he had been an atheist when he committed the murders, he did not believe in objective moral values as a result. 

Let me be clear: by the phrase objective moral values I mean certain things are morally right and certain things are morally wrong independent of  the human mind. Therefore, even if Joseph Stalin had conquered the world for Communism, and brainwashed everyone in the world to believe that Communism, and all its evil ways was good--it would still be wrong. However, in order for that to be true, there must be something independent of the human mind; an external and eternal standard by which we can judge things as good or evil. That standard is to be found in the omnibenevolent nature of God. If there is no God, no objective standard, then moral beliefs are no more than mere opinions. You might not like it when people kill other people, but it's just your opinion. When an animal kills another animal, we don't call it "murder." 

Some atheists/agnostics/skeptics believe that morality is an adaption—a survival aid—like opposable thumbs, feet, teeth, or ears. The implication? Moral beliefs like “Love your neighbor” and “Be kind to one another” aren’t true duties; they’re just evolutionarily hardwired into us to help us survive. Such ingrained beliefs aren’t objectively good; we’re biologically duped to believe them to be good. (For an example of such thinking, See Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm, [1989]). 

A massive difficulty with the hardwiring theory is this: Why should we trust any of our beliefs? Naturalistic evolution isn’t interested in truth but in survival. In other words, we may hold beliefs that help us survive—for example, that we possess value and that we have moral obligations to fulfill. However,  these beliefs may be completely false. In fact, if naturalistic evolution were responsible for our beliefs, and we happened to believe naturalistic evolution is true, then this would have come about completely by accident. We would hold accidentally true beliefs, which, in turn, would mean knowledge is impossible.

Remember: Generally, knowledge is a belief that is true and is warranted or "properly accounted for." In other words, knowledge excludes beliefs that are just true accidentally. For example, suppose it’s 12:30 p.m., and through an antique shop window I happen to look at a non-working clock, which by chance indicates 12:30. I would not be warranted in concluding that it’s 12:30 p.m. I may have a belief that is true—the first two components of knowledge—but I happened to get lucky. This doesn’t qualify for knowledge; it’s not properly warranted (which completes the definition of knowledge).

The genetic-and-social-conditioning explanation for morality, if true, turns out to be either trivial or incoherent. Consider what the behaviorist psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) declared: 

If I am right about human behavior, I have written the autobiography of a nonperson. . . . So far as I know, my behavior at any given moment has been nothing more than the product of my genetic endowment, my personal history, and the current setting. (See Thomas W. Clark, Encountering Naturalism: A Worldview and Its Uses, [2007], pg. 94). 

If so, then Skinner’s own views were nothing more than the product of his genetic endowment, personal history, and the current setting (trivial, and thus to be ignored). Now, if he was speaking for everyone’s belief-forming processes, then he had somehow risen above all deterministic influences to offer a reasoned, truthful conclusion (incoherent, since it completely goes against what he said).

Another Problem with "Evolving Morality

Here’s another problem: Given naturalism, it’s hard to avoid the theory’s arbitrariness of moral beliefs—even if they help us to survive. Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse’s gives an example of how people could have developed “termite values” (cannibalizing each other, needing to live in darkness) rather than those of “savannah-dwelling primates.” Supposedly, we could explain away certain abhorrent moral practices in other cultures by rationalizing that these somehow enhance their survival.

If a naturalist (i.e., an atheistic worldview that nature is all that exists) happens to think moral values are objective and that we are duty-bound to them (this is naturalistic moral realism), he still has to grapple with significant challenges. He faces the “is-ought problem” (also called “the naturalistic fallacy”): How do we move from what is (the descriptive) to what ought to be (the prescriptive). There are lots of “natural” phenomena with biological, survival-enhancing explanations that we intuitively know are profoundly wrong, however advantageous to creating progeny.

The atheist Michael Shermer (b. 1954) considers the question “Why should we be moral?” to be much like “Why should we be hungry or h***y?” He insists “the answer is that it is as much a part of human nature to be moral as it is to be hungry, h***y, jealous, and in love”; such drives are hardwired into us by evolution. (See Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule, [2004], pg. 57).  So all Shermer can do is describe how human beings actually do function; based on scientific observation, he can’t prescribe how humans therefore ought to behave. There is no difference between whether I ought to be moral and whether I ought to be hungry; both are functions of evolutionary hardwiring. These states just are, and, randomly, we could have evolved quite differently.

To further illustrate the arbitrariness of this hardwiring, consider the book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, coauthored by an anthropologist and a biologist who maintain that the act of rape can be explained biologically. When a male can’t find a mate, his subconscious drive to reproduce his own species allegedly pushes him to force himself upon a female. Such beastly acts happen in the animal kingdom all the time (e.g., with mallards, orangutans, or scorpion flies).

While the authors don’t advocate rape (they don’t want to move from is to ought), my question is: If the rape impulse happens to be embedded in human nature from antiquity, and if it confers biological advantage, how can the authors imply that this behavior ought to be ended? Their resistance to rape, despite its “naturalness,” suggests that true moral values aren’t rooted in nature after all. Pure natural hardwiring may produce beliefs that enhance fitness (leaving us with more offspring), but it can’t produce goodness, and value.

Alternatively, God’s existence makes excellent sense of objective morality. Rather than moving from no value to value, the theist begins with value (God’s good character) and ends with value (divine-image-bearing humans with moral responsibility and rights). God perfectly bridges the chasm between is and ought. 

The Insufficiency of Instinct

Another difficulty with naturalistic evolutionary morality is this: The naturalist’s viewpoint is hard to reconcile with acts of self-sacrifice that we typically consider morally praiseworthy and heroic. An individual ant or termite may feel compelled to sacrifice itself for the colony. But if it somehow knows it’s giving up all the existence it will ever have, then why is there any obligation to sacrifice itself for the colony if it can overcome its self-sacrificing instinct? If a man sees his child drowning but feels too scared to risk his life, why condemn him? He’s just acting in accordance accordance with his strongest instinct. Charles Darwin (1809–1882) himself doubted that humans have free will, since every action is “determined by heredity, constitution, example of others or teaching of others.” He claimed that this view “should teach one profound humility” since “one deserves no credit for anything . . . nor ought one to blame others.” (Ibid).  Humility? Why not passivity? Why rescue the drowning child and risk losing your own life? What’s more, why sacrifice our lives for other merely advanced animals that are here by chance?

Even if morality were to have progressed through biological evolution and historical processes (e.g., abolishing slavery and widow-burning), this wouldn’t mean that morality is invented (as opposed to discovered), or that moral standards don’t exist, or that slavery and widow-burning were good “back then.” We’ve seen that moral reform or improvement strongly implies that ideal standards exist—even if humans have been slow to grasp them. Furthermore, moral progress through biological evolution (even if Darwinian evolution were true) doesn’t exclude God from the picture. Indeed, God is needed to ground the moral values and human rights we intuitively recognize. If biological evolution is true, and if people have progressed in moral understanding and recognition of humans being special, then God could have utilized these processes in the unfolding of his purposes. We begin with value (God), and so we need not be surprised that humans have value.

Can an Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic Be Good Without God?

Many Traditionalists have made the classic mistake of assuming that lack of belief in God entails lack of morality. Even if they reject God’s existence, Confucians, Buddhists, and adherents to certain versions of Hinduism uphold certain moral beliefs that compare favorably with what Traditionalist Catholics uphold. In fact, there are some atheists a person would rather have as neighbors, than some of those who profess belief in God. Belief in God isn’t a requirement for being moral. Nevertheless, there’s something more basic to consider: The existence of a personal God is crucial as a coherent foundation of objective morality, and personal accountability. That is, one can’t be a moral being unless God exists—whether or not one believes God exists—and atheists as well as theists have been made in God’s image. Thus, both can recognize basic moral goodness and evil when they’re functioning properly.

Atheist philosophers have claimed that morality doesn’t depend on God; we don’t need God to be good. Protestant-turned-atheist William Rowe (d. 2015) writes: “The claim that God is needed for morality to be objective is absurd.” (See William Rowe, “Reflections on the Craig-Flew Debate,” in Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate, ed. Stan W. Wallace, [2003], pg. 66). Atheist Michael Martin (b. 1932) argues that people can know that, e.g., rape is wrong, without appealing to God’s existence—it’s wrong because it violates the victim’s rights and tears apart the fabric of society. (See Atheism, Morality, and Meaning ,[2002]). Of course, neither Rowe nor Martin tells us how such rights or values could emerge from valueless matter. Matter has properties (shape, mass, color, texture, and so on), but moral value isn’t one of them.

Sam Harris, one of the emboldened so-called “New Atheists,” declares that we can know objective moral truths (right and wrong) without “the existence of a lawgiving God,” and we can judge Hitler to be morally reprehensible “without reference to Scripture.” (See Sam Harris, The End of Faith, [2004], pgs. 23-24). However, here we have an example of a common confusion: between knowing and being. One can know what’s right without believing in God, the Bible, or the Church. Nevertheless, the claim that goodness doesn’t depend on God fails to explain how valuable, rights-bearing beings could exist in the first place. Goodness is bound up with personhood, and without the existence of a personal God (who created all other persons), no moral values would exist, period. 

If God doesn’t exist, moral values and duties must have emerged from valueless processes. In fact, and in contrast, from no values, values cannot come. However, God’s existence offers a ready explanation for the existence of value in the world. If goodness somehow existed as part of the furniture of the universe (reflecting Plato’s theory of forms), then it would be an astonishing cosmic coincidence that creatures would evolve over billions of years and somehow be duty-bound to moral values just waiting “out there” . . . as though these values were somehow anticipating the emergence of humans.  Again, God’s existence connects preexisting goodness (in God’s character) with these valuable creatures (in God’s image).

Conclusion

A solely materialistic universe might produce in us feelings and beliefs of obligation—like the protection of our children or the survival of our species—but that’s a different matter from actually having such obligations we ought to carry out. False Darwinian evolution, even if true, does nothing to show there are objective moral values and duties. Atheists will often appeal to various secular ethical theories in hopes of finding morality without God—but they inevitably end in failure. May God have mercy on such people and lead them into His One True Church.