To Counsel The Doubtful And Instruct The Ignorant

 Once more, my readers have informed me that the boors at the blogs Pistrina Liturgica (hereinafter "PL") and The Lay Pulpit (hereinafter "LP") are continuing their pathological quest to cast doubt upon the orders of Bp. Daniel  Dolan and, by extension, the priests he ordained. My interest in this matter is quite simple; I don't want any Traditionalist succumbing to the irrational fear that the sacraments received from Bp. Dolan (and his priests) are doubtful. PL and LP contend that Bp. Dolan's orders are dubious because of an alleged one-handed ordination by Abp. Lefebvre in 1976. For the background, please read my post of March 2, 2015, entitled "The Burden Of Proof." The owner of PL goes by the moniker "The Reader," and the owner of LP calls himself "The Watcher." Ironically, neither one can read with comprehension or watch out for major blunders in basic logic.

 Now, the "Watcher" has once again renewed his attack against both Bp. Dolan and myself in his post on LP called "Still A Moot Point" of 8/1/15.  In order to allay the fears these hate-filled calumniators may cause, I will lay out the claims he makes (as stated by his own writing) and definitively prove both LP and PL wrong. I will then address attacks on my character in the footnotes to that post.

I) Claim: We are not saying that Bp. Dolan's orders are invalid, we simply claim there was a doubt about that validity, and therefore he needs conditional re-ordination/consecration.

Response: The Church teaches that whenever a Catholic cleric sets out to perform a sacrament, it is presumed to have been done correctly and validly. The burden of proof (BOP) lies with those claiming that a defect occurred. (“When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)).  PL and LP simply have not carried the BOP that the alleged "one-handed ordination" ever took place.

The simple "presence of doubt" does not, as LP thinks, overcome the presumption of validity and require anything to be done. You must now ask, "Is the doubt well founded (i.e. reasonable) or is it based on hearsay without credible evidence?" The mere existence of doubt does not require anything to be done. People can doubt anything except their own existence (you must exist in order to doubt your existence) and your immediate sense impressions (whether what you see is real, in a dream, or caused by aliens, the fact of the impressions themselves cannot be doubted). So in all other matters you must ask if the doubt is well founded. People doubt the moon landing took place, that the Earth is really round, and question if  Elvis really died. These are all doubts.Would any rational person believe them?

There was doubt about Abp. Lefebvre's validity because of an alleged "Masonic connection" of his ordaining and consecrating prelate. Yet they do not call upon all those whose orders derive from Abp. Lefebvre to get re-ordained/consecrated. Why not? Using THEIR invented principle, the fact that there was doubt should be enough for every clergyman ordained and/or consecrated by Lefebvre to get a conditional re-ordination/consecration. Since LP's hatred extends only to Bp. Dolan, he conveniently forgets that there was doubt as to the validity of the Lefebvre ordination (and subsequent consecration) as well. It matters neither in the case of Bp. Dolan or Abp. Lefebvre because unreasonable doubt existed. 

II) Claim: The letter of the nine SSPV priests prove there was a doubt about the validity of Bp. Dolan's ordination.

 It only shows the existence of "doubt" to the same degree and extent as the "doubt" about Abp. Lefebvre. Like the alleged "Masonic connection"  and "doubt" in the Abp. Lefebvre case, the letter of the nine priests does not show reasonable doubt because it:

• has no magical significance because NINE (always capitalized or otherwise emphasized by PL and LP) priests saw nothing
• never declares there were witnesses
• never names even one witness
• has one signatory who was a 12 year old kid living in Kentucky when the ordination took place
• has one priest who redacted his name
• has one signatory who was graduating high school in Colorado
• is therefore SOLELY based on hearsay and conjecture

There is no reasonable doubt here. If I had a letter signed by nine priests declaring "The Watcher" guilty of a crime, and none of those priests saw anything or had any witnesses (or any other evidence), would you think him guilty? As a matter of fact even with STRONG evidence, you must presume him innocent until proven guilty! That is the presumption granted to us in American civil law. Likewise, in ecclesiastical law, the sacraments conferred by a Catholic cleric are presumed done correctly and validly until the opposite is proven. LP and PL have done nothing to carry that burden of proof.

 The fact that priests signed the letter, does not help their case either. "The Reader" had claimed the "charism" of the priesthood would not allow them to sign unless they were "morally certain."

• How can anyone be morally certain of something they never saw and for which they have no witnesses--nor did they even claim   to have a witness?

• If the "charism" of the priesthood would preserve them from signing the letter, can someone please explain why pre-Vatican II theologians, like Henry Davis, wrote about solicitation in the confessional? Solicitation for sex in confession is also listed as a canonical crime in canon 2368 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If the "charism of the priesthood" could prevent them from signing letters of which they are not morally certain, or other moral failures (another invented principle of PL/LP) why doesn't it prevent the more serious offense of solicitation? Answer: precisely because this "charism" is an invented theological premise. 

• To the credit of the SSPV, they stopped harping on that letter years ago. Not so LP and PL, unfortunately.  

III) Claim: The fact is, that, except for these hard-core naysayers, virtually EVERYONE in Traddieland knows about Dannie’s defective ordination.  As Pistrina so rightly put it, “Everybody -- and we mean e-v-e-r-y-B-O-D-Y -- who counts in this matter knows what happened.”  These naysayers can wallow in their denial all they want, but the truth is, they know it too – and, again, they know that the vast majority of traddieland now believes Dannie’s orders to be defective, and that if it actually did “go to court,” they wouldn’t have a case. 

•  If e-v-e-r-y-B-O-D-Y knows the one-hand ordination happened, why can't you name s-o-m-e-B-O-D-Y who witnessed it? Seems like a pretty simple task unless you're a liar! Isn't it remarkable that LP and PL have all these witnesses, and yet for "personal reasons," not even ONE will come forward with a signed and sworn declaration?!

• "Secret witnesses" are no witnesses at all. If you were sitting on a jury, would you find someone guilty of a crime based on hearsay from nameless, faceless "witnesses" ? How do you know exactly what they are testifying to, or if they even exist? 

• They now claim to have just found (!) a SSPX priest who witnessed the alleged one-handed ordination! This comes right after my post of March 2, 2015, showing they have no case. What a coincidence. This priest's name is....you guessed it! He chooses to remain anonymous as well! If anyone seriously thinks this priest exists, please contact me via the comments; I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

• Unless and until this case "goes to court" we must presume that the sacrament was done properly and validly without any worries. The presumption is on correct and valid administration unless/until invalidity is proven. LP hasn't even given rise to a reasonable doubt about the administration of the sacrament with one-hand--an administration both LP and Pl admit might not be defective even IF they carried their burden of proof.

IV) Claim: And we use that word “case” advisedly, for one of those commenters, one “Introibo ad Altare Dei,” is a lawyer.  And, as a lawyer, he knows full well that, until such a case actually does go to court, no priest is going to be a whistle-blower and “tell” on another priest.  It’s just not done.  And if that priest has not authorized Pistrina to divulge his name -- and he hasn’t – then he’s not about to reveal it himself.  So, “Introibo” can safely play his hypothetical “produce your witness” game, because he knows that Pistrina’s hands are tied – that they are not at liberty to divulge it

• LP likes to trumpet the fact I'm a lawyer, which appellation has a negative connotation in many circles. Now, however, he's ascribing to me some strange ideas to which no sane person (or lawyer) would ever adhere. 

• In a state of sedevacante, this rumor will never "go to court." Both PL and LP know this, which is why they don't have to worry about being called on the carpet.

• No priest will be  a "whistle-blower" and "tell" on another priest? "It's just not done"? Really? Wasn't the letter of the nine priests "telling" on Dolan? They stated (with no proof) "you were ordained with one hand." 

•  Do you mean to say that a priest who KNOWS a defect occurred in the rite of ordination of another priest has no moral duty to come forward and protect the souls of Catholics from dubious sacraments? "Lex animarum est suprema lex"--the salvation of souls is the supreme law! Where does this "duty not to tell"originate? Canon law? Moral theology? "The Watcher's" Book of Priestly Ethics? 

•  LP's invented principle sounds appropriate for the V2 sect, since they do not believe in exposing ("telling") on pederasts.

V) Claim: Fr. Cekada wrote a monograph on the validity of ordination conferred with one hand. Why bother unless the one-handed ordination took place? 

•  Explained many times before, Fr. Cekada in October of 1990 denied one hand was used and, unlike those nine who signed the letter, he was actually there as an eyewitness. Later, he wrote his monograph as a way to "argue in the alternative" i.e.,"even IF what you said were true (and I'm not saying it is), you would still be wrong and here's why,,"

VI) Claim:  It is also an accurate barometer of his intransigence, arrogance, and lack of good will.  If he were truly humble and wise, he would have taken that simple, EASY step; he would have seized such a providential opportunity to show that he was good and humble, and to show -- for once in his life -- some real good will.  But he didn’t.   Instead, he took the denial path, getting his sidekick, Tinhorn Tony, to cobble up his pathetically bungled monograph, with the hope that no one would check its accuracy.  But someone did; and the result is that most of Traddieland considers not only Dannie’s orders doubtful, but those of all whom he has “ordained” as well.

•  As I've stated before on this subject, it is far from "prudent" to scandalize (unnecessarily) those good Traditionalists whom went to Bp. Dolan and his priests, thinking that perhaps the sacraments they received were null and void. It has nothing to do with a lack of humility and everything to do with good judgement not to "fix" something that was never "broken" in the first place!

• "Most of 'traddieland' (i.e.,Traditionalists) consider Dannie's (Bp. Dolan) orders doubtful (and) those of all he has 'ordained' as well."  Most Traditionalist believe this to be the case? When did LP conduct the professional survey? More speculation and conjecture based on their hatred. 

• Despite attempts to explain "We're not saying the ordinations are invalid"--that's exactly what they want you to believe to drive you away from the Churches run by Bp. Dolan and his priests. Claiming moral turpitude isn't enough; they can get everyone away from the cleric they hate because in the practical order there is no difference between a doubtful sacrament and an invalid one; you MUST stay away!

VI) Claim: (This is an attack against me in the notes to his post)  It is interesting to note that Pistrina’s original articles about Dannie’s one-handed orders dealt only with doubts about their validity.  These articles brought people like “Introibo” (and even Checkie himself, although he camouflaged himself as “anonymous”) out of their subterranean woodwork to go to bat for Dannie – all to no avail.   Pistrina successfully shot down each and every one of their arguments and objections.  Then, later on, when a Pistrina article mentioned a witness to Dannie’s defective ordination, “Introibo” – having “struck out” with his “validity” argument -- crawled out of the woodwork again to attack Pistrina from a new angle: that the witness does not exist.  But that doesn’t matter, because – again – it’s not necessary to the “doubt” argument.

• The "doubt argument" is fallacious for the reasons I gave above. 

• They know Fr. Cekada ("Checkie") commented anonymously....how??

• As to validity, I've hardly "struck out" with my arguments--but here's a new one that makes having sworn statements from witnesses so vital:

MORAL CONTACT SUFFICES FOR VALIDITY

 With Sacramentum Ordinis (1947) of Pope Pius XII, His Holiness sought to define precisely the matter and form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders (deacon, priest, and bishop).  His objective was to make reception of the sacrament less subject to doubt not more so. 

 For the lawful administration of the sacrament, the bishop must always physically touch the head of the ordinand with his hands. When this contact is not had, a moral contact (tactus moralis) suffices for validity (See AAS, XL (1948), p.7, n. 6) According to theologian Clancy, "By 'moral contact' is meant an extension of the hand, apart from any bodily contact, above the head of the ordinand, but effected in such a manner that contact is virtually rather than actually accomplished...The fact that the Holy Father declared that a 'moral contact' suffices for validity is consistent with his intention that there be no occasions for doubts or scruples concerning the ordination. Therefore, the notion of 'moral contact' can be interpreted with some degree of latitude. Any lowering of the hand of the bishop above the head of a specific candidate in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the intention of the bishop in the minds of those standing about would suffice for the validity of the ordination...It is difficult to conceive of an error or mistake in the first and necessary imposition of hands which would nullify the sacramental effect or bring it into doubt. Here, as in the ordination of a deacon, physical contact with the head of the ordinand in the imposition of hands is required for the lawful administration of the sacrament. A moral contact, however, is sufficient for the validity of the ordination." (See Clancy, Walter The Rites and Ceremonies of Sacred Ordination CUA Press (1962), pgs. 68, 70--Emphasis mine--See also theologian Halligan, Nicholas The Administration of the Sacraments ,The Mercier Press (1962), pg. 395, fn # 39, "Physical contact is required, although moral contact suffices for validity.")

 Clancy goes on to state that in his opinion, one hand would suffice for validity, but recourse should be had to the Holy See. The point here is that for "one hand" to be used, Lefebvre would have had to have held his other hand at his side or below the head of the ordinand. If he made physical contact with one hand and held the other slightly over the head with no contact--both hands were used--one physically, the other morally. This would make it certainly valid! It's hard to imagine the archbishop ordaining several men correctly, and then leaving one hand by his side in the case of Dolan. As long as there was MORAL CONTACT there is no doubt. What exactly did those "witnesses" see? Did they (erroneously) believe both hands needed to physically touch the head? The letter of the nine priests doesn't help, nor do faceless, nameless "witnesses" who gave no written statement.

 Of course, LP and PL will NOW claim that one of their "international correspondents" or some other alleged "witness" plainly saw the other hand of the archbishop resting at his side. (Remember the bridge for sale in Brooklyn? Contact me if you believe that one!!)

VII) Final Claim: Another attack on me.  

lawyers all too often aren’t so much interested in finding the truth as they are in winning the argument.  And when they don’t have the truth on their side, they must resort to using whatever “debating team” tricks they can find to “cloud the issue” and carry their point.

In this case, they accuse Pistrina of trying to prove that Dannie’s one-handed ordination is invalid, when in fact Pistrina has made no such claim.  (“Introibo” and others have repeatedly made this false accusation, which Pistrina has repeatedly had to rebuff.)  What Pistrina actually said was that there was doubt – which there is.  But “Introibo” – being the typical lawyer that he is – figures that repeating the same charge over and over again somehow gives it credibility.  This is a favorite lawyer’s trick -- and politician’s trick, for that matter.  (That is why political ads are repeated so often: “repetition is the mother of belief.”)

 Actually, "necessity is the mother of invention," so they had to invent a trumped up ordination defect with non-existent witnesses to fulfill their need of scaring people away from "dubious sacraments" given by clerics they hate. There are no lawyer "debating team tricks" ("if the anathema don't sit you must acquit.") Let me lay it out:

1. All sacraments conferred by a Catholic cleric are presumed to be done correctly and validly according to Church teaching. This holds true of Abp. Lefebvre's ordination of Dan Dolan.

2. The fact that there is doubt about something means nothing. There are those who doubt that Elvis really died 38 years ago, and he's working incognito in a supermarket somewhere. Doubt must be REASONABLE not mere speculation.

3. The letter of the nine priests in the SSPV was written only after Fr. Dolan left the SSPV in 1989. They had no problem with him prior to that time.

4. None of the nine were there. They saw nothing.

5. They never claimed to have witnesses.They simply stated "You were ordained with one hand" with no proof.

6. Fr. Cekada was there and claimed in 1990 that he saw everything was done correctly. Bp.Dolan doesn't even need a witness (although he has one) because the burden of proof is on those who claim a defect occurred (see #1).

7. Why does PL (and LP) want Bp.Dolan conditionally ordained/consecrated? Answer: Since there is some "doubt" from people who weren't there (and alleged witnesses, all of whom remain anonymous for secret reasons) you must remove the "doubt" by being ordained with two hands. They completely omit the details of the alleged "one hand" ordination thereby excluding moral contact EVEN IF it was not done lawfully according to the rubrics, and these witnesses are more than fabrications.

For the record, I disagree on Fr. Cekada's application of moral theology to the Schiavo case. I agree with Fr.Jenkins who opposed him. I disagree with Fr. Jenkins on the "dubious" Thuc consecrations and agree with Fr. Cekada. This doesn't make either of them evil. We live in a time when theological questions that arise don't always have answers since the defection of the hierarchy in the wake of Vatican II. For the record, I wouldn't waste my eyesight on reading PL or LP. If I ever feel the need to read the rantings of a loon, I'll pick up a copy of Mein Kampf. I only respond when it's brought to my attention they are casting doubt on a cleric's orders by means of calumny and keeping good Traditionalists away from the sacraments. As far as the other things that allegedly happened in Ohio, I know nothing. However, after seeing how these two consistently lie, can you believe anything they have to say?

 I hope I have successfully counseled the doubtful not to listen to either of these lying blogs, and avail yourself of the sacraments given by Bp. Dolan and his priests. I would like to think I've instructed "The Watcher" and "The Reader" but as a famous movie line goes, "Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."

The Lyin' King

 I can only shake my head in disbelief and disgust over "Cecil the Lion." What disgusts me is not so much the killing of the lion, but the culture's reaction to it. Unless you've been living under a rock, Cecil was a protected animal surreptitiously lured away from his safe haven in Africa by a disgusting man from America, who then ruthlessly killed him. I love animals, especially cats. I've owned cats since I was a small boy; they are awesome pets. I have no sympathy for the man who did this, one Walter Palmer, who should be punished. In a sane society, that would be the end of the story. I've heard several commentators in the media refer to this animal as having been "murdered." Vandals have struck Palmer's vacation home, painting the words "Lion Killer!" on the garage door. They left a trail of pigs feet, covered in what appears to be blood, as well as a jar of lion-shaped cookies. No one should defend Palmer's actions, but by the way people are acting, you'd think he had killed a little baby.

 Contemporaneous with Cecil's demise is the attempt by Congress to defund the number-one  baby- killing organization, Planned Parenthood. This occurred in the wake of some pro-life advocates posing as representatives interested in buying aborted baby parts and taking videos of what transpired. In so doing, they exposed Planned Parenthood officials discussing the selling of body parts from aborted babies for research. They have released a fifth video that catches a Planned Parenthood official discussing how the abortion business sells “fully intact” aborted babies. The supporters of murdering children have rushed to Planned Parenthood's (hereinafter "PP") defense claiming the videos were edited, the organization does much good, and federal money can't be used for abortion anyway.

 The New York Times ("All The News That Fits Our Views") published an op-ed piece written by Katha Pollitt entitled "How To Really Defend Planned Parenthood" on August 5, 2015.  To show you how depraved post-Vatican II culture is, I've reprinted the most pertinent parts of that article in red below.

"But the videos do cleverly evoke visceral feelings of disgust — graphic images, physicians using the words “crush” and “crunchy” — to activate the stereotype that abortion providers are money-grubbing baby killers.

Why women end up having second trimester abortions, why they choose to donate fetal tissue, what good the research achieves — who cares, when there is outrage to provoke and express?

There are two reasons abortion rights activists have been boxed in. One is that we’ve been reactive rather than proactive. To deflect immediate attacks, we fall in with messaging that unconsciously encodes the vision of the other side. Abortion opponents say women seek abortions in haste and confusion. Pro-choicers reply: Abortion is the most difficult, agonizing decision a woman ever makes. Opponents say: Women have abortions because they have irresponsible sex. We say: rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, life-risking pregnancies.

These responses aren’t false exactly. Some women are genuinely ambivalent; some pregnancies are particularly dangerous. But they leave out a large majority of women seeking abortions, who had sex willingly, made a decision to end the pregnancy and faced no special threatening medical conditions.

We need to say that women have sex, have abortions, are at peace with the decision and move on with their lives. We need to say that is their right, and, moreover, it’s good for everyone that they have this right: The whole society benefits when motherhood is voluntary. When we gloss over these truths we unintentionally promote the very stigma we’re trying to combat. What, you didn’t agonize? You forgot your pill? You just didn’t want to have a baby now? You should be ashamed of yourself."

Sorry for making you feel sick. However, Pollitt does (unintentionally) make one point that many pro-lifers have forgotten: the real truth. She wants us to think abortion is some enshrined "right" and pro-abortionists should say it and not dodge the issue. Sick and warped, but it is honest about what they really think. The pro-life movement knows the real issue is that abortion is MURDER. Properly defined, murder is the taking of innocent human life. It doesn't concern animals. Abortion is the murder of unborn children. It's not about the how the woman got  pregnant or how she feels about it. We in the right to life fight shouldn't try to divert people from the heart of the matter: Inside every pregnant woman is a living, growing human person.

 Let's bring to light some facts:

1. PP's Founder: Margaret Sanger

• Sanger was a racist who contributed to the eugenics movement in the U.S. She contributed to getting compulsory sterilization laws in 30 states for vulnerable people she considered "feeble-minded."

• She presented to a KKK rally in New Jersey back in 1926. According to her autobiography, “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered” (pg. 366)

• Below are her quotes PP never wants you to read:

“Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).

“Stop our national habit of human waste.” (Woman and the New Race, 1920, Chapter 6).

“By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.” (Woman and the New Race, 1920, Chapter 7).

“The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” (“A Plan for Peace,” 1932).

2. PP's Aims

• 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups.

• According to Dr. Maureen L. Condic, an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine: 

"... 89 percent of U.S. counties did not have an abortion provider in 2011 (down approximately 1 percent since 2008). These counties were home to almost 40 percent of American women in their reproductive years (ages 14 to 44). The study concludes that while the abortion rate continues to decline (as it has been doing since the early 1980s), “no evidence was found that the overall drop in abortion incidence was related to the decrease in providers or to restrictions implemented between 2008 and 2011.” 

"Despite hysterical claims that defunding Planned Parenthood will set loose an apocalypse for women who rely on PP for cancer and STD screening, this simply hasn’t happened. There has been a 20 percent decline in the number of PP clinics since 1995, and over this same period, there has also been a steady decline in both STD and cancer incidence for women. No apocalypse here."

• According to David Daleiden, Project Leader at The Center for Medical Progress:

"In short, women will go to federally qualified health centers, which provide all the services Planned Parenthood does and more, except abortions. FQHCs also treat you regardless of your ability to pay (PP does not provide any services for free). Like many millennials, I have received care at FQHCs, and they are great."

3. What PP Does With Our Tax Money

According to PP's own records as reported by The Family Research Council: 

• From 2009 to 2013, cancer-screening and -prevention programs dropped by about half.

• From 2009 to 2013, breast exams dropped by 41 percent. (PP does not do mammograms.)

• According to PP’s 2013-14 report, out of total services for pregnant women (adoption referrals, prenatal services, abortion), abortion made up over 94 percent. Prenatal care made up only about 5 percent of pregnancy services.

• Meanwhile, PP’s abortion numbers have consistently increased every year, from 289,000 in 2006 to 327,000 in 2013.

4. More Than "Cells" Are Killed: A  Human Being Is Murdered

According to Dr. Dianne N. Irving: (See "Abortion and Rights," a special edition of the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, edited by Doris Gordon and John Walker of Libertarians for Life (Vol. 19, No. 3/4, 1999, Barmarick Publications, England)

"In sum, a human sperm and a human oocyte are products of gametogenesis - each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts - each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are denoted as a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bi-laminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week)."

4. Summary and Conclusion

• PP and their supporters lie about the concern and fate for women's health.

• They were founded upon eugenics/racism. 

• Their #1 business is abortion. They lie that it is not.

• Abortion is the taking of innocent human life, i.e. murder--and this is based on science. Even IF "we don't know when life begins," the burden of proof lies with those claiming it is non-life since human life could be taken. They lie that abortion is just about a group of cells.

• If PP were defunded, $500 million a year could be channeled to health care service providers that do more than PP ever did. They lie about their role in health care. 

"Pope" Francis tells us not to worry about these "small-minded rules," concerning abortion, and concentrate on the environment instead. As a result, the world weeps for "Cecil the Lion" and rushes to defend the murder of human babies by a racist organization. The media claims the videos exposing PP  are "lies" while PP is nothing but a pack of lies. PP is truly the "Lyin' King," and those like Ms. Pollitt, who defend murdering little babies with zest, have earned the title "King of the Beasts."

Getting Caught Up In "The Rapture"

 Recently, a movie entitled Left Behind was brought to my attention. It was released in October of last year and starred Nicholas Cage in a remake of the movie from 2000 staring Kirk Cameron. All of the Left Behind movies are based on a series of novels released from 1995-2007 by Protestant authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. The novels are concerned with the Protestant heresy known as "the Rapture."

 Originating in the 1700s and popularized in the 1800s, various Protestant sects began to teach that Christians will be taken up in the sky by God before the Antichrist rules the world, after which there will be a literal one thousand year rule of Christ on Earth. Even among so-called "Evangelical Protestants," they argue over whether the rapture will take place before, in the middle of, or after the Great Tribulation (referred to as pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib, respectively).  The term "rapture" comes from the Latin word rapiemur--"will be caught up." It is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, one of the "proof-texts" for Protestants: "Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." (Emphasis mine)

 The first movie, with Kirk Cameron (and its two sequels), is full of pre-trib theology, as were the books. Cameron, an evangelical Protestant himself, helped write the screen play with his friend and fellow sectarian Ray Comfort. (Although having the best of intentions, it is painful to hear Comfort debate with atheists. He makes believers look ridiculous, having once asserted that a banana was "proof of intelligent design" by God because of the way it fits the human hand. I wish I was joking, but I'm not.) The remake with Cage is so bad it was ridiculed by Christianity Today, calling it devoid of religious significance.

 "Consider: one of the characters proposes that the Rapture was caused by aliens, and the movie would be no different if this were true....In fact, most Christians within the world of the movie—whether the street-preacher lady at the airport or Rayford Steele’s [main character's] wife—are portrayed as insistent, crazy, delusional, or at the very least just really annoying. Steele’s wife’s conversion to Christianity is shown to have pushed her and her husband apart; we see that she’s decorated her house with crosses, throw-pillows that say “Pray” across the front, and encouraging posters.That is the deepest conception of Christianity that this movie has: posters, pillows, and crucifixes." (See http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/october-web-only/left-behind.html?paging=off).

The books are interesting insofar as they depict a "protestant pope"--John XXIV--getting "raptured" because he accepted the theology of Martin Luther! Those Catholics who rejected him are "left behind"! His fictitious successor, Peter II, is the false prophet of the Apocalypse who sets up the One World Religion. Some in the Vatican II sect have denounced the books as "anti-Catholic," but I think it's really just a matter of hitting too close to home by portraying a "Protestant pope"! (Are you listening, Francis?)

Surprisingly, some Traditionalists think the rapture to be true, or at least possible, not realizing it conflicts with Church teaching. Protestants point to Scripture verses such as St. Matthew 24:40-41, "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." And St. Luke 17:34-35, "I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” Remember,all of the Bible must be read with Sacred Tradition and the guidance of the Magisterium. Ironically, right after the main "rapture verse" (quoted above in First Thessalonians),  in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, we read, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."(Emphasis mine)

II Peter 1:20 states, "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." (Emphasis mine). Finally, in  II Peter 3:16, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Keeping all this in mind, what are we to make of the "rapture" as Traditionalists? Those Biblical "proof- texts" were always taught to be referring to the Second Coming of Christ. For the "rapture Protestants" He comes back, not once "to judge the living and the dead," but twice. This is heresy. The "caught up"refers to the resurrection of the bodies of the just on the Last Day. As for the "one taken, one left," if you read the next chapter in St. Matthew (chapter 25), it speaks of the sheep and the goats being separated on His right and left. The sheep (the Faithful) go body and soul to Heaven, while the goats (the damned) go body and soul to Hell. All pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the Church must endure throughout the Great Tribulation. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13)

 This heresy has led to the "prosperity preachers," like Joel Osteen and others, who tell us Christ suffered and died for us so we can believe in Him, thereby getting to live in a mansion while driving a Rolls Royce. So if you hear about "the rapture," don't you believe it. Worry not about being "left behind." Rather, pray that you don't get led astray. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved."

The Demise Of Extreme Unction

 One of the greatest tragedies of the Great Apostasy is the destruction of the Sacraments. With the exceptions of Baptism and Matrimony (which are valid in most cases), the other five Sacraments have been invalidated. Since Holy Orders was rendered null and void by the Pauline Rite (introduced by Montini [Antipope Paul VI] in 1968), the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well as the Eucharist it produces were invalidated. So were the other Sacraments that depend on a valid Apostolic Succession, to wit: Penance, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction. Much has been written about the changes to the Mass, but even with a valid priesthood, the changes made by the Modernists render the other sacraments dubious at best and certainly invalid at worst. In either case, Traditionalists must avoid dubious and/or invalid Sacraments in all circumstances.

 Luckily, for Traditionalists who are no where near a priest,  Baptism and Matrimony can be conducted by laymen, when necessary,in the absence of such a True Priest. You can sanctify Sunday by a DVD Mass and spiritual communion. You can have your sins forgiven by an Act of Perfect Contrition.  You can travel far once a year to a real Church  for the True Sacraments.  Sadly, Confirmation and Extreme Unction are not readily available, even to those of us near a Church, due to Traditionalist bishops/priests needing to go all over to make the Mass and Sacraments available to as many of the Faithful as possible. One of the supreme crimes of the Modernists was making Extreme Unction, a glorious Sacrament to prepare us to meet Christ when the end comes, into a sentimental "Get Well Soon Card" delivered in person.

 To better understand what was done, you must realize the Modernists invert the primary and secondary effects of the Sacraments. Baptism, whose principle purpose is the remission of Original Sin (and all personal sins as well as the temporal punishments due to them in the case of adults), is now about "initiation into the community." As a matter of fact, the Vatican II sect refers to Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist as the "Sacraments of Initiation"--as if being in the "People of God" for an "assembly" is why Christ instituted these Sacraments. Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony are called the "Sacraments of Service"---ignoring the primary purpose of each; the offering of Sacrifice to God and the procreation of children, respectively. Finally, Penance (renamed "Reconciliation"), and Extreme Unction (renamed "Anointing of the Sick") are called "Sacraments of Healing." Keeping this in mind,let's examine how a Sacrament instituted by Christ was invalidated by the apostates of Vatican II.

Extreme Unction v. Anointing of the Sick

Purpose

Now let us see how they have changed the very purpose of Extreme Unction . According to the Catechism of St.Pius X,  "Extreme Unction is a sacrament instituted for the spiritual as well as for the temporal comfort of the sick in danger of death." (Emphasis mine)

The heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church writes, "By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ." Notice that any mention of the individual's possible death and dying have been purged.

Effects of the Sacrament

  "The effect is the grace of the Holy Ghost, whose anointing takes away sins, if there are any still to be expiated, and removes the trace of sin; and it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person. It gives him great confidence in the divine mercy. Encouraged by this, the sick man more easily bears the inconvenience and trial of his illness and more easily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel. This anointing occasionally restores health to the body, if health would be of advantage to the salvation of the soul. " (Council of Trent. 14 session on Extreme Unction).

From the Vatican II "Blessing of the Oil" (for the Anointing of the Sick): "Send, O Lord, the Holy Ghost on this and oil (...) to restore the body (...) in order that those who will receive this unction will have a help for the body.."

It is clear that the new doctrine insists on the bodily effect of the sacrament. It is an inversion of the traditional doctrine of the Church once more as demonstrated above.

Recipient of the Sacrament

According to theologian Kilker, for the valid reception of Extreme Unction, three requisites MUST be present: "1. He must be a "fidelis" (i.e. Catholic--Introibo) 2, He must have acquired the use of reason 3. He must be in danger of death from sickness or old age" (See Fr. Adrian J. Kilker, Extreme Unction: A Dissertation, Catholic University Press,Washington D.C. [1926], pg. 123). 

From the "Introduction to the rite of anointing sick and to the pastoral care of the sick" Dec. 7, 1972:

"Elderly people may be anointed if they are weak, though not dangerously ill." I have personally known of Vatican II sect parishes giving "group anointing of the sick" to any adult who is sick for any reason,including the common cold!! Furthermore, Kilker states that the sickness must proceed from an internal cause (Ibid, pg. 165) which excludes from validity the conferral (rampant in the V2 sect) of anointing those about to have an operation, go into military battle, or be executed, as these are all external causes of death. 

Minister of the Sacrament

The Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that the presbyter of the Church, who St. James says should be called in to anoint the person who is sick, are not priests ordained by the bishop, but the older men of any community, and that consequently the proper minister of Extreme Unction is not the priest alone: let him be anathema. " (4th Canon on Extreme Unction).

It is officially the same in the Vatican II sect, but there have been instances of anointings performed by "permanent deacons" and even "nuns." Most Vatican II sect "priests" are invalidly ordained in the new rite of Paul VI.

Matter of the Sacrament

"Olive oil alone[blessed by a bishop]" (Catechism of the Council of Trent). The Holy Office declared (September 14,1842), that "it is rash and close to error, to assert that this sacrament could be valid with another oil."

The Vatican II sect has virtually no more valid bishops to bless anything. In addition to this problem,
according to Antipope Paul VI's "Apostolic Constitution" Sacram unctionem infirmorum, November 30, 1972, "The sick are to be anointed with blessed olive oil or, as circumstances suggest, with another oil extracted from plants." (Emphasis mine)

Form of the Sacrament

Extreme Unction: "By this holy unction and His pious mercy, may God forgive thee whatever sins thou hast committed by the evil use of sight (hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch)." (Traditional Roman Ritual) "The anointing should be done on these parts: on the eyes because of sight, on the ears because of  hearing, on the nose because of smelling, on the mouth because of taste or speech, on the hands because of touch, on the feet because of walking. " (Council of Florence)

Anointing of the Sick:"By this holy unction and His pious mercy, may God help you by the grace of the Holy Spirit, in order that, delivered from your sins, God save you and restore you in his goodness.""The sick are to be anointed on the forehead and hands. " (Paul VI Apostolic constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum). This makes sense as traditionally, the sacrament was meant to cure/forgive the sins committed by the five senses. Since the Anointing of the Sick is primarily concerned with the body (things of this world is a must in Modernist theology) two anointings suffice.

In the new form, the principal effect of the sacrament (curing the sickness of the sins) is de-emphasized, and the secondary effect-a possible cure of the body-is added in the words, "restore you."

Intention of the Sacrament

It is clear that the intention of Extreme Unction and Anointing of the Sick is not the same. Even a validly ordained priest who forms an intention, positively excluding the primary effect of the Sacrament, based on the Modernist ideas inherent in the Anointing of the Sick most probably has a defective intention as well. 

Summary and Conclusion

The "Anointing of the Sick" is not a new name for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction instituted by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is creation of the Modernist theology of Vatican II and devoid of grace. It is a pseudo-sacrament.It is defective as to:

• The remote matter. There are no more bishops left to bless the oil, and in many cases olive oil is not used.

• The proximate matter. Five anointings are reduced to two and the form does not clearly and unambiguously express the principle effect of remission of sin.

• The minister is, in most cases, an invalidly ordained priest, or in some cases so-called deacons or nuns who don't even pretend to be ordained priests

• The stated purposes and effects are different.

• The recipients are sometimes not able to receive it validly.

• The intention can very well be defective in addition to everything else!

Please my dear readers, it is now more imperative than ever to give ample time to a Traditionalist priest for the administration of Extreme Unction. Do not let a loved one miss out on so great a Sacrament when the time of judgement draws near. Weep not only due to the pain of loss that comes with the death of a loved one, weep for those dying faithful who will be robbed of so much grace as Extreme Unction falls as yet another "victim of Vatican II."

Death By Redefinition

 It is the ploy of Modernists in the Church (now emulated by secularists in the social order) to destroy the Truth by redefining it. Rather than deny a truth in the natural or supernatural order, it gets redefined out of existence. In this way, the unwary will think that the same thing is being taught, but it is something quite false and evil under the old terminology. I will elaborate on two examples. In the supernatural order, the Vatican II sect claims on paper to believe in Transubstantiation.

 This is the doctrine that, at the Consecration of the Mass, the whole substance of the bread and the whole substance of the wine is changed into the substance of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity--with only the accidents or outward appearances-- of bread and wine remaining. In the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, Modernist theologians Frs. Karl Rahner (d. 1984) and Edward Schillebeeckx (d. 2009) taught something drastically different, and most all bishops hopped on the heretical bandwagon. Schillebeeckx agreed with Rahner that the physical bread and wine were only a "sign" of Christ. In fact, for Schillebeeckx, the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist was not the consecrated species (former bread and wine), but the presence of Christ in the "assembled community." This is why Schillebeeckx says that "I kneel, not before a Christ who is, as it were, condensed in the host (sic), but before the Lord himself who is offering his (sic) reality, his (sic) body, to me through the host (sic)." (See Edward Schillcbeeckx, O. P. The Eucharist, [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968] p. 120.)

 This novelty is called Transignification. Having jettisoned belief in the Thomistic concept of substance, what changes is not the physical reality, but the significance it has for the people. You won't hear the local Vatican II "priest" mention transignification, but doesn't it all make sense of the practices in the Novus Bogus bread and wine service ("mass")? Consider:

• The minister ("priest" is a meaningless term in the V2 sect) turns towards the people with either his back to the tabernacle, or the tabernacle relegated to somewhere no one can see, because what really matters is what the "assembly" does--they somehow--are the "Body of Christ."

• All the genuflections  before the host and chalice at the consecration are reduced from six to two. Anybody can touch "communion"--- both to dole it out and eat it. You chew it like cud instead of letting it dissolve in your mouth. No more sacred hands of the priest specially consecrated for the task of touching Christ's Own Body will be found.

• If the host falls, you just pick it up and pop it in your mouth. The particles that fall are no worry, so why even bother with a paten?

• People stand for the wafer instead of kneeling when they take it in their hand. 

• The priest, in the Real Mass, makes the sign of the cross over the kneeling communicant with the Host as he states the effect of the Sacrament worthily received, saying (in Latin), "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting." The communicant says nothing. In the Novus Bogus, the "eucharistic minister" (e.g., the local female janitor who shacks up with her boyfriend and took a 'class' on so-called theology) says "The Body of Christ" as he/she holds it up.The communicant says "Amen" before it's placed into his unconsecrated hands and he pops it in his mouth to be chewed.

 Does it seem that the Vatican II sect clergy and laity really believe that they receive Christ Himself in Holy Communion, i.e. that Transubstantiation takes place? (It's a rhetorical question, I know). Ironically, it DOES NOT take place (Deo gratias), but they claim it does--at least officially. A 1992 Gallop poll stated that only 30% of the Vatican II sect laity still believe in the Real Presence. I can only wonder how much lower its gone in the last 23 years. 

 In the natural order, the Supreme Court has now redefined marriage as, well, basically anything that involves "love and intimacy." Taking it even one step further, to eliminate the contradiction between the basic tenets of Christianity and homosexuality, I came across an incredibly ignorant propaganda piece written by one Whitney Kay Bacon at the Huffington Post (no surprise there). Entitled, "So Gay Marriage Biblically Offends You? Then You Should Read This..." I will reprint her anti-intellectual drivel and respond below it in red. 

I want to start by saying that I am a Christian. I always have been and always will be... and I'm also a gay woman who is happily married to a beautiful British Woman named Megan. 

She's a Christian? By whose definition? Obviously her own. Married to another woman? By whose definition? Not that of Christ! To have same sex attraction and live celibate is one thing, but to claim you can proudly practice one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance and still be "Christian" is another. "Gay Christian" is analogous to "Meat-Eating Vegetarian." 

Since the recent Supreme Court ruling of legalizing same-sex marriages in the United States, I have seen the ugly and the uglier come out in people I never expected. Having moved to live with my wife in the UK, I find myself in awe at the complete and utter ignorance that has been clogging up my news feed and other social medial outlets in the past few days from my so-called American friends back in the South. It's important to state that I'm not generalizing all, as I've also seen a positive response from those Christian in the South; even including support from an amazing pastor. However, it saddens me that amongst the many rainbow-colored pictures on my feed, there is also a great deal of hatred.

Ah, yes, "hatred." To disagree with sodomite "marriage" even on religious grounds will be deemed "hate" and "bigotry." I know an Orthodox Jew who thinks it's wrong for me to eat the flesh of a pig, and I'm not one of God's "chosen people." Does he hate me? No. He disagrees with my religious convictions. Do I think he's a bigot? No. I know he wrong, go to Mass on Sunday, and happily eat a ham sandwich for lunch.

 What I don't understand is quite simply, this: why does gay marriage bother people so much? If you are making an unnecessary palava because you're offended by gay marriage then you seriously need to look at your own life and educate yourselves a bit. 

There are many reasons to be bothered by it. (See my post "The Supreme Perversion.") I recommend that Ms. Bacon stop using slang if she wants to be taken seriously as an intellectual. "Palava" is slang for "hassle." 

 If the sole reason you feel that gay marriage is wrong because it's a sin, and the Bible tells you this is wrong, then I sure as hell hope you don't have bacon with your eggs or indulge in shrimp. Oh, or better yet, do you have any tattoos? Ever been drunk, told a white lie or been divorced? Yep, whoops. Those are all sins, too. And all sins are equal, right? 

    

Wrong. All sins are not equal, there are venial and mortal sins which people commit. Common sense tells us that just as all civil crimes are not punished equally, the same would hold true for God's Law. We don't give the death penalty to someone jaywalking and we don't give community service to a serial killer. Even under the Protestant heresy of justification by Faith alone,the sane pastors realize not all sins are equal. Being divorced is not a sin if you can't live in peace with your spouse (he beats you, etc) and you remain celibate. As for the canard of Old Testament prescriptions against things like eating shellfish and the like, Ms. Bacon (you have to love the name in this context!) should do her research. 

 There are requirements in Leviticus only for the Israelites (e.g., Lev. 7:23, don't eat fat from ox, sheep, or goat, Lev. 7:29, procedures for peace offering to the Lord, Lev. 11:2, list of animals the Israelites may eat, etc.) There are lists of abominations spoken of that were for the non-Israelites as well.  It is in the latter group that homosexuality is listed (e.g., Lev. 18:20, don't have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, Lev. 18:21, don't offer children to Molech, Lev. 18:22, don't lie with a male as with a female, Lev. 18:23 don't have intercourse with animals, etc.). It is a mistake for people to mix topics intended only for Israel with topics that included the non-Israelites.  Furthermore, when we see that the New Testament condemns the idea of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, we could see the continuity between Old Testament moral law and New Testament moral law.

I don't see anyone going off the handle because of any of these 'sins' and I most certainly don't see protests or hurtful propaganda against those. Just because you disagree with something -- and we all have the right to do so -- it is an absolute disgrace to treat the LGBT community the way you do. What if we treated all sins in this way? Bacon eaters would be doomed.

To think eating shrimp or even divorce and remarriage is on the same level as protesting the redefinition of marriage is so ridiculous as to defy description. The only "doomed Bacon eaters" would be cannibals wanting you as their main course, Ms. Bacon.

Therefore, if gay marriage or 'homosexuality' doesn't affect you personally in the way you live your life in any way, why do you feel the need to even get involved? Why worry about something that is, frankly, none of your business? For instance, I'm not divorced, but many people I know are, and I'm not going to judge them. We shouldn't judge anyone for the way they live their life. If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't have a gay wedding. Simple.

Yes! And if you lived in the U.S. during the pre-Civil War days this paragraph would read: "Therefore, if  slavery doesn't affect you personally in the way you live your life in any way, why do you feel the need to even get involved? Why worry about something that is, frankly, none of your business? For instance, I'm not divorced, but many people I know are, and I'm not going to judge them. We shouldn't judge anyone for the way they live their life, or what they own. If you don't agree with slavery, then don't have a slave. Simple."

I know what you must be thinking. If the LGBT community can protest and stand up for their rights, then why can't Christians? They have every right to stand up for what they believe in also... To a degree, yes.

"To a degree"?!? I hope you see where we're heading in society. Didn't she also state that SHE was "Christian"? It seems the truth comes out as she squarely places herself in the sodomite camp exclusive of Christianity. 

Christianity and gay rights will always butt-heads. Luckily, we have the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, where we've seen it in the favor of gay rights; e.g. where a gay couple were wrongly turned away from a B&B due to the owners Christian views, to in favor of Christianity; e.g. the nurse who was wrongly fired for telling her lesbian colleague she's committing a sin. I don't expect the battles to ever fully cease, but choose your battles wisely. Is this really worth your time? 

Given her initial premise, why will Christianity and "gay rights" butt heads? In answer to her last question, yes, saving traditional marriage is worth my time--and every one committed to Truth.

 Could your time not be better spent with showing kindness and acceptance -- isn't that what being a Christian is truly about, rather than showing hatred? It is not your duty to judge and tell others how to live theirs to ensure your angelic conscious is clear. 

Again, the tired "hate and bigotry" card,because they have no real arguments. "Not your duty to judge..." Hmm...is Whitney Kay Bacon the nom de plume of "Pope" Francis?

However, it does change the lives of the LGBT community and gives us freedom and the same rights as anyone else. This means that now my wife and I, if we ever decide to move back to the U.S., can do this freely and can move to any state. Your hatred towards this is unjust and unfair and don't even try to the quote the Bible at me; you may want to actually read it first.

It should be pretty obvious to all that Ms. Bacon is the one who needs to read the Good Book.

To all of the haters, how would you feel if your rights were completely stripped from you because you had a divorce or because you had a baby out of wedlock, for instance? How would you like someone judging and telling you that you're going to hell because of this?

"Haters." Nothing else to say."Your rights are completely stripped away" if the government doesn't support a new definition of "marriage"? I never realized that polygamists and NAMBLA ("North American Man-Boy Love Association") are having all their rights stripped away because there's no "group marriage" and the 40 year old pervert can't marry a 10 year old! As far as going to Hell is concerned, it's an act of charity if someone thinks you're going there to tell you to amend your life. Some Protestants think I'm going to Hell, and they care about me.I tell them the same thing--they will go to Hell if they don't convert. I'm not worried because I know they're wrong. Apparently, Ms. Bacon doesn't have the same clear conscience and convictions--she must feel something is amiss in her life! (There is, and I hope she converts to live in celibacy).

As a Christian, I wholeheartedly believe that God does not make mistakes and he would not have accidentally made millions of people (and animals) gay by chance. We are all who we are for a reason and no one should ever make you feel bad for that. 

Here she assumes homosexuality is predestined genetically. There is no scientific proof of this, and even if so, that doesn't make it morally acceptable behavior. Suppose there's a gene that predisposes one to alcoholism. Go drink and drive, and let abstinence be damned? What about a gene for pedophilia? Go be a Vatican II sect "priest" ? Animals have no immortal soul and their acts are not moral or immoral,so bringing them into a theological discussion is beside the point. 

  If anything, my relationship with God is better than ever, and I know that I am definitely not going to hell or that my lifestyle is wrong. It's important for people to know that you can be a Christian and gay. 

She knows this...how?  Unfortunately, her understanding of her relationship with God is like her understanding of the Bible. Can you be "Christian and an adulterer" with no intention to repent and amend your life?

You do not have to choose one or the other. We need more people like Christian singer Vicky Beeching, who came out as a lesbian last year, to look up to as role models.

So, my dear fellow Christians, from one Christian to another, please mind your own business and PLEASE make sure that your hands are clean before you point your finger at me and my community. Amen.

I see, "clean hands" means we must have no sin to condemn another,so since we all sin we must not condemn anyone else. I wonder how she (and Frankie) feel about Adolph Hitler? Remember, "clean hands," "don't judge," and "all sins are equal!" 

Be afraid. Be very afraid. The time will soon come when the only place you'll find sanity is in the dictionary. 

Opus Diaboli

 Mention Opus  Dei ("The Work of God") and you will receive a wide variety of responses to "The Work" founded by "St" Josemaria Escriva. To the secular world (as well as most in the Vatican II sect), it's seen as a very "conservative,"and "traditional" organization which is devoted to the "papacy." As people have inquired as to this organization, I will seek to answer three questions: (1) Who was Josemaria Escriva?, (2) What is Opus Dei?,(3) Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?

1. Who was "Saint" Josemaria Escriva?

            According to an excellent summary in 30 Days magazine (June-July 1995):

"Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was born in Barbastro, Spain, on January 9,1902, son of a cloth merchant and a pious housewife. He was ordained to the priesthood in Zaragoza on March 28, 1925.

On October 2, 1928, in Madrid, Father Escriva founded the first Opus Dei institute, inaugurating a women’s branch on February 14, 1930, also in Madrid.

In 1939 the first edition of Camino (The Way) was published, setting forth Escriva’s 999 maxims to serve as a guide for Opus Dei members. On May 24, 1941, the Archbishop of Madrid, Leopoldo Eijo y Garay, publicly defended Opus Dei against accusations of secrecy from some sectors in the Spanish Church.

The Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, the association for lay affiliates of Opus Dei who aspired to the Opus Dei priesthood, was founded on February 14, 1943. On June 25, 1944, the first ordinations of Opus Dei priests took place.

Escriva came to Rome on June 23, 1946, returning to Madrid in August with Holy See encouragement for his initiatives. Pope Pius Xll’s promulgation Provida Mater Ecclesia (February 2, 1947) gave juridical status to secular institutes such as Opus Dei. Finally on June 16, 1950, Opus Dei received its definitive approval from the Holy See. The organization became the first secular institute approved directly by the pope and took on the title "Priestly Society of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei." In 1962, Fr. Escriva pleaded in vain with Pope John XXIII to grant Opus Dei a different status from other secular institutes, which were answerable to the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. A few years later, Pope Paul Vl also set aside the request, saying the time to grant it had not yet come.

Escriva passed away on June 26, 1975, and on May 12, 1981, the process for his beatification was initiated.

In spite of the opposition of a large part of the Catholic clergy and a majority of the Spanish bishops (55 of 56), the Vatican announced on August 23,1982 that Pope John Paul had decided to grant the status of Personal Prelature to Opus Dei." 

 Escriva had the idea of a way (deemed "The Way") for sanctity concerning laity remaining in the world, but it was very different from that of traditional spirituality such as St. Francis De Sales. According to one writer: 

"The basic difference between the two[traditional spirituality and The Way of Opus Dei] can be expressed as movements in opposite directions. One answers [the call to vocation] from outside the world and moves toward it, bringing its presence toward it. This is the evolution of the religious state. The other is a "being in the world"; it starts from being of the world. Such is the Opus Dei’s secular spirituality....This is what made Card. Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I, say that while St. Francis de Sales proposed a spirituality for lay people, Msgr. Escriva proposes a new lay spirituality."(See D. LeTourneau, L'Opus Dei, pg. 26; Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, he debased the priesthood, and paved the way for Vatican II's Modernism. One report states:  Escriva was happy when his first three priests were ordained, but he was also very sad that they did not remain laymen(!)

He was devoted to the Modernism of Vatican II. This explains Wotyla's ("Pope" John Paul II) hurry to "canonize" him in 2002. One need only look at the "miracles" attributed to him to see they were as phony as his teachings:

• A Carmelite nun is allegedly cured of lung cancer, yet there is no evidence she actually had cancer in the first place

• A child with hypertension was cured after taking medications--this too was classified as a "miracle"

• A doctor with cancerous lesions on his hands caused by taking X-rays without gloves was cured after he stopped doing so - another so-called miracle.

  2) What is Opus Dei?

 Opus Dei is organized like a religious order, comprised overall of priests and laity. Entering "the Opus" is considered to be a vocation and there are a rule and vows, although married members take different ones. It is a personal prelature, meaning that, there is a prelate, clergy and laity under the direction of the Congregation of Bishops. As opposed to a diocese, people are bound to the prelature by membership as opposed to geographical area. 

They have four classes of membership:

• Numeraries: The elite, who take vows, or promises - of poverty, chastity and obedience. Some live in communities and turn over their financial revenues to "The Work" which then takes care of their needs. Numeraries are both priests and laity.

• Associates: They make the same promises. They are not from the same class nor of the same intellectual rank as the numeraries.

• Supernumeraries: These are the most numerous, many are married. Their promises are less constraining.

• Cooperators: These take no "vows," but participate in "corporate apostolic works." It is possible they may be non-Christians.

The idea is sanctification in the world. There have been reports of abuse of authority,Freemasonic-like secrecy, a certain feeling of superiority through a gnostic-like knowledge given to members, and harsh penances. It has been likened by some authors to a cult.

 3) Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?

 In a word:NO. 

• It was the first institution to take in non-Catholics and even non-Christians, 

• For Escriva and his organization, freedom of conscience comes before Truth. Hence he said, "[Religious] Pluralism is not to be feared but loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom."

• Escriva had Protestant, schismatic, Jewish, Moslem and even pagan benefactors who were very good financial brokers for Opus Dei; it was already an active force for "political ecumenism." In Spain, the group refused to take a stand against abortion, not wanting to violate the "conscience" of the non-Catholics.

• Montini (Antipope Paul VI) used the work of Escriva for his personal meditations

• The Opus Dei member ultimately learns not only to respect, but to love, religious pluralism

• In an interview publish 12/18/13,the prelate of Opus Dei, Bishop Javier Echevarría replies to a question about women in the Church as follows:  "Q:In an interview published in this newspaper, the president of the Focolare Movement, Maria Voce, has asked that a greater role be given to women in the Church. Do you agree? A: Certainly. For, as the Holy Father has reminded us, the Church is a woman: one only needs to remember the role of our Lady. The topic of the role of women isn’t new, and in fact women have played an important role in the development of the Church. Moreover, Opus Dei has always viewed women as playing a central role in the life of the Church." With a Modernist like Frankie, we know that he would love deaconesses and priestesses, and Opus Dei would be supporting it.  (See http://opusdei.or.ke/en-ke/article/people-have-recognized-in-pope-francis-an-authentic-priest/)

In summation, don't be fooled by the seeming piety displayed by many members of Opus Dei. They are a front promoting the same Modernism as the sect to which they belong. In that same interview above, the leader of Opus Dei praises Antipope Francis and states, "In countries with a Christian tradition, Opus Dei (through its activities for spiritual formation) offers a path for rediscovering the faith in the midst of one’s daily occupations. This is what the New Evangelization means: to re-enkindle in Christians (who sometimes see themselves as such only because of their cultural context) the flame of a living and personal relationship with God." A "relationship" as each individual sees fit, divorced from the True Church.

It's Not Easy Being Green

 Antipope Francis has issued his 40,574 word "encyclical" on the environment. It took me this long to get around to reading it. As far as I can tell, it has two main uses: a cure for insomnia, and lining for a bird cage. If you want to find Catholic theology, look any place except here. There are NO citations to the True Magisterium pre-Vatican II. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is mentioned for the first time in paragraph # 82, and only appears 23 times in total.

 We are told that "our common home" is the Earth. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our true home is Heaven, and while we must be good stewards of this planet, we must strive to get to humankind's ultimate purpose--the Beatific Vision.The only way to do this is by being good members of the One True Church, and making as many converts as possible so they can hopefully join us there. Not so, saith Francis. "Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities – and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing."(para #7). What I find disturbing is calling a collection of heretics and/or schismatics "Churches." Even more disturbing is the "issues" of which he speaks do not pertain to Faith and Morals or the conversion of said heretics. Another proof (as if any were necessary) that Frankie cannot be pope. 

 We are warned that “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God.” Was he talking about the legalization of sodomite "marriages" in Ireland and the U.S. ? No! It's a quote from a schismatic bishop telling us about polluting the environment!  In paragraph #175, the false pope tells us: "The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions"In other words, a One World Environmental "Police Force" putting us another step closer to a One World government.

At the end of the encyclical Laudato si, Frankie proposes two different prayers: one for those who believe in the One Triune God, and the other for those who do not believe in Him (infidels, pagans, your local Wiccan priestess, etc.). This shows his desire to have all religions, all beliefs, all opinions unite against his perceived "ecological threat" because this world is what matters--salvation be damned (literally)! Francis has  done away with the First Commandment, the worship due to the true God. It started with Paul VI's heretical ecclesiology, embodied in Vatican II. It continued with "Saint" John Paul the Great Apostate and his ecumenical abomination at Assisi, visiting Lutheran churches, praying in synagogues, and kissing the Koran. It continued with "retired pope" Ratzinger's statement that the papacy (which he never held anyway) was the greatest hindrance to "ecumenical progress." It continues with Francis wanting all false sects to unite as one ecumenical denomination behind a one-world police state enforcing global ecological sanctions. Remember: Saving the environment, not your soul, is what really matters. It sort of makes sense when you consider  Francis believes the souls of the damned are annihilated. 

 "Going green" in the early ecological movement was easy. Now, it entails a One-World Ecumenical Religion in the service of a One-World Government to "save the planet." This is the Modernism of Vatican II and Francis as displayed in the latest piece of anti-Catholic literature he wrote. One can only hope the Vatican II sect itself is biodegradable.