Monday, July 14, 2025
The First Jesuits
Monday, July 7, 2025
Contending For The Faith---Part 41
- 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
A Fine-Tuned Universe
I wish to acknowledge the various sources I used in compiling this post, from hardcopy and online apologetics resources. I take no credit for the material herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post.---Introibo
The Vatican II sect has ceased to teach apologetics; and why should they? If all religions lead to God there's no reason to prove one right and another wrong. Moreover, Bergoglio even claimed atheists can go to Heaven, so why the need to prove to them God exists? For those of us who keep the One True Faith, we realize that we must make converts and spread the truth. The Vatican Council of 1870 defined: The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; "for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20)... (Emphasis mine).
One of the proofs of God's existence, that may be used against atheists and agnostics is the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe. If we consider some of the standard beliefs about the nature of God, for instance, that God is omnipotent and supremely good, then it is not at all surprising that if God exists, he would create a world that is highly complex, ordered, intelligible, and well suited for the existence of life, including intelligent life that enjoys the possibility of knowing about the universe and its creator. It is at least less surprising than that such an orderly world would exist purely by chance. Unless the existence of God is inherently more improbable than fine-tuning by chance, it would seem that fine-tuning is evidence--indeed proof of God's existence.
Let me clarify that the fine-tuning argument is not "Intelligent Design" as advocated by Philip Johnson and others beginning in the mid-1990s. That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist.
What could account for this fine-tuning? It could be necessity, chance, or by purpose. The first possible explanation for fine-tuning is physical necessity. This means that either the constants are necessary, brute facts of reality or that they deterministically derive from a deeper necessary law of physics. As physical necessity is not a very good theory to begin with (it doesn’t seem plausible that physicists will be able to derive the precise values from a deeper theory) and, more importantly, it doesn’t explain why the constants are fine-tuned (this just remains an immense coincidence), it’s reasonable to discard physical necessity as an explanation of fine-tuning.
The second possible explanation for fine tuning is chance. If there is only one universe, physicists calculate that it would be incredibly unlikely that the values of the constants would be in the small range that would allow our complex universe to exist. Chance only becomes plausible if there are a tremendous number of alternate universes with different values of the constants — a multiverse. However, the multiverse fails to be a good solution for numerous reasons. The multiple universe hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning. The fact that positing an untestable speculative theory of an infinite number of observable universes is a clear deviation from the tried-and-true scientific method is reason enough to discard chance.
With the elimination of two of the three possible explanations of fine-tuning, we are left with the only remaining explanation: the values of the constants are the result of intentional design by an intelligent agent, Whom we call God.
Below is a list of different parameters which the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any conceivable kind to exist. None of the information is mine; it comes from many sources, and I take no credit---Introibo
I would like to credit the following sources as indispensable (but not an exhaustive list):
Bernard J. Carr and Martin J. Rees, “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World,” Nature, 278 (1979), pgs. 605-612.
John M. Templeton “God Reveals Himself in the Astronomical and in the Infinitesimal,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984 (1984), pgs. 194-200.
Jim W. Neidhardt, “The Anthropic Principle: A Religious Response,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984 (1984), pgs. 201-207.
Richard Swinburne, “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, edited by John Leslie (1990), pgs. 154-173.
For a Life-Permitting Universe, There Must be A:
strong nuclear force constant: if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable; if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
weak nuclear force constant: if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in Big Bang, hence too much heavy-element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars; if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy-element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
gravitational force constant: if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy-element production
ratio of electron to proton mass: if larger: insufficient chemical bonding for stable molecules to be possible, if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding for stable molecules to be possible
polarity of the water molecule: if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist; if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life’s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
ratio of proton to electron charge: if larger: inadequate chemical bonding; if smaller: inadequate chemical bonding
axial tilt of Earth: if greater: latitudinal surface temperature differences would be too great; if less: latitudinal surface temperature differences would be too great
Getting things "just right" in any singular category above would be astronomical; for all of them combined--all but impossible absent an Intelligence.
Scientists now know that any of these constants, if they were changed even a small amount (sometimes a few percent bigger or smaller), the complex universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. In other words, without the constants being precisely fine-tuned, there would only be fundamental particles — they wouldn’t come together to form atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, or life.
Conclusion
The argument from fine-tuning is a great refutation to use against atheists and agnostics. When atheists object "that's not evidence," ask them what they mean by "evidence." If they mean God cannot be the result of a scientific demonstration, they are correct. Yet we know many things with real evidence outside of a scientific demonstration; to say otherwise is scientism not science. If they persist that only scientific demonstrations give truth, ask them how that very contention ("only scientific demonstrations give truth/produce evidence") was scientifically demonstrated. Second, ask if they believe his/her mother loves (loved) him/her. If they say "yes," ask them how it was scientifically demonstrated. Yet, they have evidence and are totally justified to say their mother loved them.
Finally, I'd like to quote the great St. Athanasius who mention fine-tuning so many centuries ago. Not far into On the Incarnation, St. Athanasius celebrates the evident beauty and design of the cosmos. Here is a paragraph worth quoting in full:
[Some] say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would be all uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all. (p. 27)
Monday, June 30, 2025
Sharia Law: Coming To A City Near You?
Islam poses an ever-growing threat to our world. Of course most people don't see it, and label anyone who exposes this evil sect as "Islamophobic," another made-up word (like "homophobic") that implies a mental illness ("phobia") for those who dare to disagree. I have sounded the warning against Islam here on this blog since its inception. The rehabilitation of Islam began (where else?) with Vatican II. In its heretical document Nostra Aetate:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom. (para. #3; Emphasis mine).
In the document Lumen Gentium, it is heretically taught:
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. (para #16; Emphasis mine).
Two falsehoods are presented: (1) Moslems worship the same God as Catholics, and (2) it is more important to forget the murder and torture of Christians and to stop trying to convert Mohammedans to the One True Church; what matters is purely naturalistic "social justice" in "mutual understanding" with these barbarians. It is also presented as acceptable to view Christ as a mere "prophet" and to put the Satanic Mohammed on the same level with Our Lord. Sheer blasphemy.
The first subtle brainwashing came in the form of changing the name by which followers of Islam were called. In the time of my Patron Saint, the great King St. Louis IX, the word Saracen was used. Its meaning is aptly "thief, marauder, plunderer."
(See books.google.com/books?id=W4H97SA6pMAC&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false).
The term Moor was used loosely as "infidel," and Mohammedan designated them as followers of the fake prophet they served.
Until I graduated high school in the early 1980s, all textbooks referred to the followers of Islam as Moslems--one of the terms I still use. Since the mid-1990s, the term was replaced by Muslim. The following explains why the change was made:
According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z...Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.
(See historynewsnetwork.org/article/524; Emphasis in original).
This post will center on two matters: (1) the totally false idea from Vatican II (and ubiquitous on social media) that Moslems worship "the same God" as Christianity; (2) the danger of Sharia law. Throughout this post, the false book of Islam will be spelled "Koran" or "Qur'an" depending on the spelling used by my source at that juncture. I wish to credit my numerous sources I read regarding Islam (in addition to the ones specifically cited), both print and online. I take no credit except for the compilation of the information into a terse and readable post.---Introibo
Asking the Right Questions
Some apologists for the Vatican II sect teaching on Islam have asserted (without citation to be read in context) that some approved theologians and Church historians pre-Vatican II claimed Moslems worship the True God in a false manner. I cannot attest to the veracity of this but what might have been meant (if it was really written) is that Moslems may intend to worship the True God. The question should not be "Do the Moslems worship the True God," rather, it should be asked, "Does Islam profess the True God?" It will be made obvious it does not. Since they worship what they profess, Islam does not objectively worship the True God.
Islam has always been placed in the same category as the Jews--"infidels"--aka non-baptized monotheists. Mohammed combined the beliefs of pagans (hence the Koran speaks of a "Pegasus"), Jews (they do not eat the flesh of "unclean" animals like pigs), and Catholics (veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary). For both Moslems and Traditionalist Catholics, God is not just an additional fact about reality; rather, God is the foundation underpinning the whole of reality. There is nothing commendable about merely believing that God exists: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder." (St. James 2:19). The question we need to answer is not "Is there a God?" but "Who is God?" What is God’s character, nature and identity? What are his attributes? The answer to these questions will make it clear that Moslems do not profess the True God of Catholicism.
A Morally Defective "God" That Produces Evil Followers
It is my contention that Allah is morally defective, is lacking in omniscience, and gives commands that are contrary to basic ethical principles. All this is easily explained because the Koran is a book written by Mohammed under the guidance of a demon he thought to be the angel Gabriel. Islam relies on a multitude of revelations. But only one, the Koran, (also spelled Qur'an) is considered to be the eternally existent word of Allah, channeled through his chosen prophet six centuries after the crucifixion of Christ. It is considered to be uncreated and unalterable, inerrant, having ethics beyond question, and eloquent above anything the world has ever experienced.
The evidence proves this wrong. The Koran comprises 114 suras (chapters), some revealed in Mecca, others in Medina. Meccan suras feature Mohammad as God’s final prophet—a prophet greater than all the prophets who came before him. Far from being divine, the Koran is clearly written by a human and has its origin from the Father of Lies. If Allah is God, he would be omniscient. If the Koran was dictated by angel Gabriel from Allah himself, the Koran must be inerrant. Using the Koran (The Holy Qur'an Arabic Text with English Translation [2013]) it will be shown that Allah cannot be omniscient and therefore is not "God."
Allah Doesn't Understand the Theology He Condemns
- Allah thinks since Christ was begotten, it means there was sexual reproduction. In Koran 6:101, the book asks rhetorically, "How can He [Allah] have a Son when He has no consort?"
- Allah thinks Christianity teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is part of the Most Holy Trinity. "And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?" (Koran 5:116)
- Allah tells an historical falsehood; Christ was not crucified by the Jews. "And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." (Koran 4:157-158).
Far worse than the above is the immorality that is openly commanded by Allah. That will be examined next.
God is Necessarily Morally Perfect
God is the greatest conceivable Being. (I'm not using St. Anselm's ontological argument. It is what both the Church and Islam teach). If a being is in some way morally imperfect, then it is not a perfect being and therefore not the greatest conceivable being (i.e., not God). Moral perfection entails being all-loving; wanting what is best for others. This, to me, is axiomatic. Every good parent knows this fact. A rebellious teenage son or daughter will break a parent's heart precisely because they love him or her despite his or her defiant and wicked behavior. If a parent didn't love their child, it wouldn't hurt so bad. The fact is that parents do love their children, despite their waywardness.
Allah has a different character than the True God. It is significant that of the "99 beautiful names for Allah," which Moslems memorize and use for worship, not one is "love" or "loving." The Koran stresses that Allah loves only those who do good, and that he does not love those who do evil. Here are the suras and verses:
"Allah loves not transgressors" (2:190)
"He loves not creatures ungrateful or wicked" (2:276)
"Say: 'Obey Allah and His Apostle;' but if they turn back Allah loveth not those who reject Faith." (3:32)
"Allah loves not those who do wrong" (3:57, 140)
"Allah loveth not the arrogant the vainglorious" (4:36)
Compare to Jesus Christ:
"Christ died for the ungodly... God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us...If when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life? (Romans 5:6,8,10). Christ loves all humans, hates all sin, and Wills their salvation contingent upon them coming freely into the Church and dying in the state of grace. No one is lost except through their own fault.
Allah hates sinners which is why he:
Commands the murder of non-Moslems: "Koran 2:191: "And kill them (non-Moslems) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Moslems)."
Koran 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Moslems) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …"
Allows Moslems to commit adultery with slave girls: Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
Commands Moslems to steal from Non-Moslems and enjoy doing it: “Enjoy what ye took, for it is lawful and good” (Koran 8:69).
Allows Moslems to lie, for Allah is himself a deceiver: The Koran overtly teaches that Allah is the master of deception. As Koran 3:54 and 8:30 put it, “Allah (is the) best (of) the deceivers” (literal translation)
Commands Moslems to fight, kill, or violently subjugate non-Moslems simply for being non-Moslems: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Koran 9:123)
"Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain." (Koran 9:111)
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Koran 9:29)
A False and Morally Bankrupt Prophet
Mohammed behaved wickedly, just as the false moon god he served taught. There is an excellent circular I read compiled by Mr. Stanley Robertson. Although not a Traditionalist, Mr. Robertson has done an excellent job of exposing Islam as a false and wicked sect. Below, I set forth some of his pertinent points. The author's citations are retained as he wrote them.
Mohammed:
- Said Allah hates those who don't accept Islam. (Qur'an 30:4, 3:32, 22:38)
- Permitted stealing from unbelievers. (Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764)
- Permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)
- Murdered those who insulted him. (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)
- "If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him" (Qur'an 2:194)
- Jihad [War] in the way of Allah elevates one's position in Paradise by a hundred fold. (Muslim 4645)
- Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves. (Bukhari 5:268, Qur'an 33:50)
- Slept with a 9-year-old child. (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)
- Ordered the murder of women. (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)
- "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Qur'an 9:123)
- Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women. (Abu Dawood 2150, Qur'an 4:24)
- Demanded captured slaves and a fifth of all other loot taken in war. (Qur'an 8:41)
- Was never tortured, but tortured others. (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764)
- "And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39)
- Blessed the brutal murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440)
- What are the Greatest Commandments? "Belief in Allah and Jihad [War] in His cause" (Muslim 1:149)
- Died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute
- Advocated crucifying others. (Qur'an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)
- According to his followers: Had others give their lives for him. (Sahih Muslim 4413)
The True Triune God worshipped by the One True Church of Jesus Christ is not the object of worship professed by Islam. Therefore they do not worship the same God. Allah has been shown to be (a) non-Trinitarian, an essential attribute God revealed; (b) culpably ignorant of theology he opposes; (c) morally defective and commands evil of his so-called prophet and followers.
Speaking of Evil: Sharia Law
Moslems derive the term sharia from the Qur'an, where Allah declares, “Then We put thee on the (right) way of religion: so follow thou that (way), and follow not the desires of those who know not” (45:18, Ali). The Arabic for “way” here is sharia, which in this context refers to the commands Allah delivered to Mohammad. Since the Qur’an (4:65) also orders Moslems to obey Mohammad’s decisions, the body of laws that came to be called “sharia” includes the commands of both Allah and Mohammad.
The Evil of Sharia Law
Sharia Law involves the following:
Jihad: Jihad is holy war against the infidels of the world. All Muslims are obliged to kill the infidel. An infidel (or kafir) is a non-Moslem. Many Moslems think that killing an infidel guarantees going straight to paradise.
Apostasy: All apostates are to be killed. An apostate is any person who renounces Islam and changes his religion. Christians are not allowed to convert Moslems to Christianity. Conversion is perceived as blasphemy and carries the death penalty. Distributing Christian literature can result in a five-year prison sentence under Sharia Law.
Criticism of Islam: The death penalty applies to Moslems who criticize Mohammad, the Qur’an or Sharia Law. Severe penalties also apply to Christians who speak out against Islam.
Freedom of Worship: Although Islam pays lip service to “people of the book” (other "Abrahamic religions"), the reality is that most all Islamic countries are persecuting Christians, targeting their places of worship, and killing and imprisoning believers. Persecution is intense in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Maldives, and other countries with a strong Islamic influence.
Female victims of rape: Sharia Law protects rapists. A woman making an accusation of rape has to provide four male witnesses. If she is unable to do so, she will be charged with zina, for which the prescribed punishment is flogging or stoning. Thousands of women are imprisoned as a result of unsuccessful charges of rape. Some are even stoned to death. On October 27, 2008, Aisha, a 13-year-old girl in Kisayu, Somalia, was stoned to death for adultery; later, her aunt told the British Broadcasting Corporation that Aisha had been raped by three armed men. Rapists are seldom brought to trial, let alone punished.
Miscellaneous crimes: Fornication and adultery: Fornicators are to be whipped, and adulterers are to be stoned to death. Theft: Any person found stealing is to have a hand cut off. Battery and assault: An injured plaintiff can extract legal revenge; lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) is in effect.
The strongest evidence that Sharia makes Islam more oppressive than other religions is the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (CDHRI). 45 Islamic nations have signed the Cairo Declaration that proclaims a number of human rights only to renege on them if they contradict Islamic Sharia. It is a devious way to give the appearance of caring about human rights when in reality it guts the historic 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by declaring Sharia the only source for Muslim 'human rights'. It was revised in 2020 to not specifically invoke sharia law, but it does not renounce it. A good PR job and nothing more.
Doesn't The United States Constitution protect us from Sharia?
For now it does. In November 2011 the MacDonald-Laurier Institute poll of Canadian Moslems found that 75 percent of respondents want Sharia Law. In December 2012 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the imam at Australia’s largest mosque had issued a fatwa (legal ruling) against Christmas. In July 2011 Moslems called upon England to establish three independent states within the U.K. There are also Moslem groups in the United States calling for the implementation of Sharia Law in America. For a terrifying expose on Sharia Law and the threat it poses to America, see:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1495&context=honors
Conclusion
As America and other Western (formerly Catholic) countries become "Islamified" the infidels who worship a false moon god will have greater representation and influence to change laws, and perhaps even amend the Constitution itself. Think it farfetched? In the wake of 9-11 (just 24 years ago) If I had said there would probably be a Moslem mayor in the near future, I would have been laughed to scorn. Now, it is Zohran Mamdani who is laughing as Christian dupes (like AOC) join Islam in seeking his election as mayor of New York City.
Consider how Vatican II has paved the way for Mohammedans:
"Pope" "Saint" John Paul II kissed the Koran and prayed, "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam." Maybe he should be given the title "John Paul the Great Mohammedan."
"Pope" Benedict XVI called for Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Moslem immigrants and "to dialogue" with them on religious issues. Ratzinger told participants that the Catholic (sic) Church is "increasingly aware" that "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world."
"Pope" Francis prayed towards Mecca and said, "Islam is a religion of peace, one which is compatible with respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence."
Do not be fooled. Any Traditionalist who behaves immorally does so in spite of Church teaching. Any Moslem who behaves immorally does so because of the teachings of Islam. As the population of Moslems nears the one million mark in NYC, and continues to swell unabated in once-Catholic Europe, remember well the words of Pope St. Pius V, "[Moslems] are the enemy of the Catholic Faith." (See Salvatoris Domini, March 5, 1571).
Let us pray from The Litany of St. Louis IX, King of France (for private use only):
St. Louis, victor over the Saracens, pray for us!
Monday, June 23, 2025
The Heresy That Keeps Coming Back: Reincarnation
1. "Many Catholics think that a single life of anywhere from a few seconds' duration to 110 years is not enough time to determine the destiny of a soul for all eternity. They feel that God would be unloving if He (excuse the conventional pronoun) were to condemn a sinner to hell, but irrational if He rewarded a baby born dead with heaven. Some of these Catholics see the wheel of rebirth as a more plausible form of purgatory. "
2. "The other main reason that Catholics -- and other Americans -- adopt a reincarnational worldview turns on evidence. Much, perhaps most, of what passes as evidence comes from the popular media. Stories about people who have seeming memories of a previous life or mysterious phobias or obsessions or talents that cannot be explained by events in this life abound, and they often set people to wondering. The History channel serves up occasional stories of apparent rebirth, and these are based on research by paranormal investigators.
There is also some reputable academic research being done on reincarnation that trickles down into public awareness. This is the work of Ian Stevenson, the famous reincarnation researcher affiliated with the University of Virginia who died in 2007. Stevenson and his associates traveled over the world tracking down little children, usually aged between 3 and 5, who claim to have memories of past lives. In hundreds of cases from all over the world their memories would match actual events that happened to the adult they remembered being." (See http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/-why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in-reincarnation-/10313.html)
A case in point of inherent unreliability was that of Bridey Murphy. Through hypnosis, a woman allegedly regressed to 18th century Ireland. She suddenly spoke Gaelic, described the coastline where she lived, discussed the customs and spoke like a life-long Irish native. Upon further investigation, "Bridey Murphy" (the name of the person she allegedly was in this "past life") never existed but was a figment of the woman's imagination. She was raised by her grandmother who spoke Gaelic and kept history books on Ireland which she related to her granddaughter. The hypnotic subject had forgotten the language and history as she got older, but it was brought back under hypnosis with the mind giving life to the memories by manufacturing a name. (Let's not forget that some of these subjects, who dabble in the occult, could be under demonic control).