Sunday, November 16, 2014

Snuffing Out Faith And Morals---Like A Candle In The Wind

"I don't want everyone to like me. If certain people I knew liked me, I'd think less of myself because of it."--Attributed to Winston Churchill

"Woe to thee when everyone speaks well of thee, for so their fathers did of the false prophets." -- Our Lord Jesus Christ (St. Luke 6:26)

 Antipope Francis has an admirer in the person of rock music icon Elton John (b. 1947 as Reginald Dwight). John is a practicing sodomite, and "married" his lover David Furnish. They have two children, both boys, born of the same surrogate mother; one in 2010, the other in 2013.

 Elton John has said Frankie is a "saint" and should be "canonized" now. (With all the requirements of canonization trashed, why limit it to those who have died, right?)  Keep in mind that John has no intention of amending his life, rather he likes the fact that Bergoglio is joining him in the quest to completely eradicate true Faith and Morals. Frankie wants to conform to the world and not have the world conform to Christ.

 Mr. Mark Shea, a Vatican II sect apologist, sees John's praise of Frankie as something wonderful (of course). According to Shea, Frankie is causing John to "revisit what the Gospel has to say." Furthermore, John doesn't need a set of moral precepts, but an "encounter with a person." This is Modernist drivel, pure and simple.

 I would like to alert my readers to the depravity of Elton John, and the evil he perpetrates upon the world. Then you can better appreciate both the "Francis Effect" and the "Shea Delusion." Consider the following:

1. Blaspheming Christ in the name of perversion.

  • In 2010, John described Jesus as a"compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems." (See The Guardian, 2/19/10, "Sir Elton John Claims Jesus was Gay" by Adam Gabbatt)

  • According to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, John had previously made the public claim that, "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely." 

  • This year, John stated Christ would've backed "gay marriage." He said, "If Jesus Christ was alive today, I can not see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen." His cited authority for this comment was..."Pope" Francis! According to Elton John, Frankie has"... stripped (the Vatican II sect) down to the bare bones and said it's all basically about love..and inclusiveness." (See The Telegraph, 6/30/14, "Elton John says Jesus would've backed gay marriage. Millions will presume he's right" by Tim Stanley)
2. Music from Hell.

  • Elton John has collaborated for years with one Bernie Taupin, who writes most of the lyrics for John's music. In an interview for US magazine, Taupin stated that John's "home is laden with trinkets and books relating to Satanism and witchcraft." (7/22/80, pg. 42)

  • Earlier that year, Taupin told People magazine that he too decorates his walls with "Satanic art," and said, "the occult fascinates me." (6/23/80 issue)

  • Many of John's songs are blasphemous, and promote social rebellion, as well as drug abuse. 

  • In the song "The Bitch is Back," John sings, "Eat meat on a Friday that's alright"; "Raising Caine I spit in your eye"; and "I get high in the evening sniffing pots of glue." 

  • In the song "Tiny Dancer," we hear Christians called "freaks": "Jesus freaks, out in the street, handing tickets out for God"

  • John is noted for his outlandish costumes on stage, most of which portray him as feminine or androgynous. Although once married to a woman, John divorced her and declared himself a bisexual. Later, he said he had enthusiastically embraced homosexuality. 

  • John performed a duet with the foulmouthed rapper Eminem (birth name Marshall Mathers). John received much criticism for this as Eminem has been known to speak against homosexuals. Why would John befriend this man? They take their marching orders from the same place--and it's not Heaven. Eminem told Spin magazine in a cover story entitled "The Devil and Mr. Mather's," that he met a spirit in his bathroom who identified itself as "Slim Shady." This spirit began to channel the music and lyrics to his songs and propelled him to super-stardom. Eminem's rap music is saturated with violence and hatred. In the song "I'm Back," he praises the Columbine killers. He actually tried to defend the song because "no one ever looks at it from the point of view of the kids who were bullied." Yeah. And maybe we should look at WWII sympathetically from Hitler's point of view? However, Elton John, who would not befriend anyone who spoke against sodomites, nevertheless will overlook such speech when the speaker also promotes the occult and other vices; homosexuality isn't the only sin that takes you to Hell. 
 Mark Shea wants us to believe Elton John has revisited the Gospel. No, Mark, he's revising it to justify his perversity---even citing to Francis himself-----in order to make people believe the unnatural is acceptable. Does Francis condemn any of this, you ask? Why no! Elton is having an "encounter," don't you see? (Hopefully, not the kind of encounters wherein you get AIDS). 

 When a man such as Elton John lauds Francis (as he continues unabated on his evil ways corrupting Faith and Morals), what does this say about the so-called "pope"? Mark Shea and Frankie will condemn me as a "self-absorbed, Promethean, neo-Pelagian." Ironically, the same duo will look at Elton John and declare, "Who am I to judge?" 

Monday, November 10, 2014


 In all my posts, I've never discussed the form of sedevacantism known as sedeprivationism (the thesis advanced by the late theologian Bp. Guerard Des Lauriers that the "seat is deprived" of a valid pope).

 The most vocal and erudite proponent of the thesis is Bishop Donald Sanborn, who wrote a magnificent article about it. I just recently had the good fortune of reading it and was very impressed. As the article is a good ten pages long, I thought I would try to condense it down as concisely as possible and omit the theological jargon where feasible. In this way, I hope my readers will be better acquainted with Sedeprivationism which may very well prove to be the state the Church is in since the Great Apostasy of Vatican II.

 1. The Roman Catholic Church is Indefectible.

 This is a dogma of the Faith taught by all pre-Vatican II theologians. It means that the visible Church will endure until the end of the world, and that, right until the end of time, it will keep Christ's religion incorrupt. (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 3:25).

2. A Heretic Can't Be Pope.

 This is the universal teaching of the theologians as well as Pope Paul IV in Cum ex apostolatus. Public heresy automatically severs the heretic from membership in the Church, and if you are not a member of Christ's Mystical Body on earth, you cannot be the visible head of that Church. (See Fr. Cekada, Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope for a complete explanation and list of citations. Available at www.traditional

3. Vatican II and The Post-V2 "Popes" Teach Heresy.

 The list here is endless. We could begin with Lumen Gentium claiming that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Roman Catholic Church, rather than "is identical with," and continue right up to the present with Francis claiming, "There is no Catholic God," and atheists can go to Heaven. Those who wish to "recognize and resist" Frankie as pope, like the Society of St. Pius X, will often say that the pope has "no authority to change" the basic constitution of the Church. They have it backwards. The fact of the change means they had no authority. It was lost through heresy.

4. There Must Be Perpetual Successors To Saint Peter In The Primacy Given By Christ.

 This was infallibly defined in 1870 by the Vatican Council. However, it does NOT mean there always has to be someone in the office. Theologians, such as Dorch, have clearly taught that there could be an interregnum of many, many years between popes. Having no pope does not mean we have no papacy.

Up to this point, sedevacantists, who hold that Francis is in no way the pope, agree with the sedeprivationists (hereinafter SP). The only difference between the two positions is how and why Francis is not the pope. Differing with the sedevacantists, SP hold Francis is a material, but not a formal pope. Read on to find out what this means.

5. There Is Such A Thing As Material Succession.

 The Greek Orthodox have valid sacraments, which includes valid bishops. However, they do not have formal apostolic succession, only material secession. That is, they occupy the place of bishops(material)but lack all jurisdiction and authority (formal).
They have no legitimate right to the authority of the office of bishop, since they were designated by those who were legally excluded from the Church.

6. Vatican II "Popes" Have Material Succession.

 Sedevacantists put the V2 "popes" in the same boat as the Greek Orthodox, they succeed materially and without formal, legitimate designation. SP say they also succeed materially, but they DO have legitimate designation. Both sides agree they lack all authority and jurisdiction and are, therefore, false popes.

7. Power To Designate VS. Power To Rule

 Designation to power is different from the power to rule. The Electoral College elects the president, but the electors do not rule. The purpose of designation is to select someone to hold authority. However, someone merely designated holds no power to rule. The president-elect has been designated, but cannot make any presidential acts, like using the veto, until he takes the oath of office and assumes the mantle of authority to which he was lawfully designated. The president-elect is recognized as having the potential to rule, but he is not the president and not to be obeyed.

8. De Facto VS. De Jure

Someone can have a legal status (de jure) different from their actual status (de facto). A person can murder someone and be in fact a murderer, but if and until convicted, he does not have legal recognition as such. The converse is also true. Someone my be wrongly convicted of murder and have the legal status of a convicted killer, even though he remains innocent de facto.

 9. Application To The Vatican II Sect.

The power to rule the Church comes directly from God. The power to designate the ruler is ecclesiastical; it comes from the Church. There was a time when Cardinals were not the method of choosing the next pope. The Church changed the manner of designation several times in history.

 Since the profession of heresy by the hierarchy during Vatican II, the clerics lost all power to rule, but they retain the right to designate the ruler, since the Church never took that right away from the cardinals before the Great Apostasy. By Divine Law, heresy removes all power to rule, but not the power to designate the ruler.

 The chosen heretic is pope-elect, but not the pope, because his profession of heresy prevents the authority from vesting. He has material succession, not formal, and holds the office of pope de jure, not de facto. In like manner, the president-elect can not receive the power to rule unless and until he takes the oath of office.

 The false pope retains the ability to designate men who will, in turn, designate a material pope. In this way the succession of St. Peter continues materially. How does this thesis impact the Church?

 There is a simple, but far from easy, solution to get back a True Pope. If Bergoglio were to publicly abjure his heresy and embrace the Catholic Faith by swearing to the Profession of Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath, he would remove the obstacle to the reception of his designation to rule. He would become a formal pope de facto. Bergoglio must then receive a valid ordination and consecration from a Traditionalist Bishop, and the interregnum of decades is finally over.

This, in a nutshell, is sedeprivationism. Only time will tell if it's the real solution to the apostate times in which we live.

Monday, November 3, 2014

A False And Lying Devotion

 "Well, there you go again." This memorable phrase was used by the late former President Ronald Reagan when he was the Republican presidential candidate against then-President Jimmy Carter during their famous debate in 1980. The upshot was that Carter had purposely and repeatedly distorted Reagan's record for his own political gain. Reagan's catchphrase turned it back on Carter by calling everyone's attention to the deceit. Reagan, as those of us old enough to remember will recall, trounced Carter in a landslide.

 Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and currently of the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance (SSPX-SO), consistently and repeatedly distorts Church teaching to uphold a false papacy and a false sect in the name of Catholicism. The two latest issues of his e-mail letter entitled "Eleison Comments" show the extreme to which he is willing to go in ignoring the theological facts.

 Bp. Williamson is now telling a multi-part "inside story" wherein the Blessed Virgin Mary is allegedly sending Heavenly messages to SSPX General Superior Bernard Fellay, that the SSPX then  proceeds to ignore. Don't believe anyone who never cites Church teaching and substitutes private revelations, none of which any Traditionalist Catholic is bound to believe.

 For the record, I believe that Our Lady of Fatima is a true apparition, but I refuse to jeopardize my soul by getting caught up in all the various interpretations of what She said or didn't say, and the ever present wild-eyed conspiracy theories advanced to "prove" the "correct message." One need only look at the Vatican II sect "priest," Nicholas Gruner who makes his living by telling us the sky will fall unless the "pope" consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as directed by Our Lady of Fatima. He has been derided as the "CEO of the Fatima Industry" and in June of this year, came to NYC to promote the entirely discredited "apparitions" of "Our Lady of the Roses" in Bayside, Queens.

 For those of you not acquainted with the alleged Bayside messages, one Veronica Leuken, now deceased, claimed to have visions of the Blessed Virgin beginning  in 1970. Leuken was "told by Mary" many wacky things, such as Paul VI was a saint, but he had been drugged and tied up in a closet at the Vatican by agents of Satan and then was replaced with an evil double who had undergone plastic surgery to look like him. Did Leuken offer any proof for this fantastical story? Why, YES! If you look closely at pictures of Paul VI right after his election in 1963, and then compare it to pictures a couple of years later, you'll notice that his evil double had crooked ears as the result of an imperfect plastic surgery! That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

 So now we have Bp. Williamson informing us that in 2006, the idea for a "Rosary Crusade" for the Consecration of Russia was given to Bp. Fellay by a messenger from the Blessed Virgin Mary, but whoever this mysterious seer was, he was "too shy" to tell him it was a directive from the Blessed Mother! As Bp. Williamson never cites to any sources, it's hard to figure out exactly what it is he's trying to say, and equally hard to tell if this is some strange metaphor, or if he's really lost his mind.

 Nevertheless, Bp. Fellay then used the Crusade for the "liberation of the Tridentine Mass" which was "accomplished" by Ratzinger's Motu Proprio in 2007. Then, finding out that Our Lady was behind the request, instead of using a second Crusade for the Consecration, Fellay used it to try and reconcile with "Concilliar Rome." Our Lady used Bp. Fellay because the SSPX was the "last bastion" of Catholicism. Got all that?

 So Bp. Williamson, who recognizes Francis as pope, nevertheless talks about Rome as apostate. The city and religion are apostate, but their leader is "Catholic" and his "bishops" have Ordinary Jurisdiction? The SSPX is on the outs with the Vatican II sect, having (by their own admission) no Ordinary Jurisdiction, yet they are the "last bastion" of Catholicism? Over the man they consider the "pope"? The answer to all the world's woes is not the return of Faith, Morals and Sacraments which have been replaced by the Modernists with heresy, evil, and empty rituals---it's the Consecration of Russia which will miraculously procure everything we need for the Church to be great again.

 The Rosary Crusade of the SSPX was meant to be used for obtaining this panacea, and we know this because an unknown man had apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary who gave him the information, so we better believe it!

 Pope St. Pius X once warned that there would come a time near the end when there would be "a false and lying devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary" that would lead many astray. The Rosary has a crucifix on it to remind us that it (like all devotions) derives its efficacy from the Sacrifice of the Cross. That Sacrifice is renewed in an unbloody manner each time a True Priest offers the True Mass. Anyone who uses the Rosary to uphold the Modernist destruction of the Faith and the Holy Sacrifice, is perpetrating a false and lying devotion to Mary, who abhors such insults and attacks on Her Divine Son and His One True Church.

 Please don't waste your time, effort, or money in trying to understand or support apparitions, whether real or imagined. Learn the True Faith by good spiritual books, and by reading the Catechism of The Council of Trent as well as the writings of the pre-Vatican II theologians. If you want to have a true Rosary Crusade, offer it for the vanquishing of heresy and the return, in all it's glory, of the True Faith. And if you're feeling extra charitable, maybe offer a second one for the extirpation of stupidity, and the return of Bp. Williamson to sanity.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Politically Incorrect And Intellectually Void

There's no polite way to say this---Bill Maher is a bigoted idiot. The stand-up "comic" and host of the left wing show "Politically Incorrect" has turned his vitriolic criticism, (usually reserved for conservative politicians), to those who believe in God. Maher made a 2008 documentary ("mock-u-mentary" might be a more appropriate appellation) entitled "Religulous" the premise of which is that unless the "enlightened" agnostics and atheists unite against raving religious fanatics, civilization will be brought to ultimate ruin. The very name of the movie is coined from combining "religious" and "ridiculous." The film panders to secularists like Maher, and portrays everyone who believes  in God, especially Christians, as either uneducated buffoons or dangerous lunatics.

 Now, Maher has been seen parading around with Dr. Sam Harris (b. 1967), one of the so-called "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism" (the other three being the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins). During one of his tirades with Harris as his guest, Maher had this to say:

 "I don't know what happens when you die. I'm honest. These religious people not only can tell us what happens, they know with great certainty and detail. You get 72 virgins, not 71, not 70, exactly 72."(This is a reference to Islam--Introibo) 

 Maher then goes on to excoriate the evils of Islam (along with Harris) to the consternation of actor Ben Affleck, who said they were being intolerant. Harris said he had studied Islam and it was evil, per se, and Maher ended the conversation by telling Affleck, "We'll have to disagree on this one Ben." Well, I'll have to agree and disagree with Harris and Maher.

 I have two bones of contention to pick, one is epistemological (the study of how we know), and the other is ethical.

1. Absolute certainty
 When Maher claims that no one can know what happens when we die, I have to ask, "What do any of us know with apodictic (absolute) certainty? Not much. We can be certain that we exist, because if we think or say "I don't exist" we must first exist in order to make the claim. To say otherwise violates the logical law of non-contradiction, and it is self-refuting. We also can know our immediate sense impressions must be true. I know what I'm sensing even if I'm hallucinating or dreaming. Everything else is simply a matter of probability. I'm morally certain that other people exist and the world is not an invention of my mind. I have good reasons for holding this as true. Mr. Maher can do no better. Therefore, when he tells us exactly how many people are in his studio (e.g. 235, not 234 or some other number), he's acting on moral, not apodictic, certainty.

 His second error is to confuse natural theology (things which can be known about God from reason) with supernatural revelation (things which we believe based on God revealing it). The Moslem who claims he gets 72 virgins from Allah, does so based on his acceptance of the Koran as divinely revealed. The error of the Moslem is his error in accepting the Koran against the manifest weight of the credible evidence. On the other hand, if it can be shown that the Bible is morally certain to be true, and the Traditionalist Catholic Faith is the custodian of the Bible, then we are rational in accepting what it reveals about the afterlife.

2. Islam is evil.
 As any reader of my posts knows, I'm in full agreement with Maher and Harris on this point. Ironically, neither has any reason for saying so, but I'm fully justified. How so you may ask?

Atheists can be good without BELIEF in God, but no one can be good without God's existence. If God exists then so do objective moral values.  By objective morals, I mean something is right or wrong whether or not anyone else believes it to be the case. Murdering an infant for fun is evil even if everyone disagrees. The genocide of Hitler was wrong even if he won the war and made everyone think what he did was just.

Our moral duties flow forth from the moral nature of God. He made the Ten Commandments because they are good; they flow from His divine nature. Furthermore, God holds us accountable for our actions. The moral choices we make are infused with eternal significance. Compare this to atheism.

On the atheistic viewpoint, what is the foundation for moral values? If God does not exist, then there is no reason to think humans are special in any way. As a result of social-biological pressures, there evolved among homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality" that may be advantageous for perpetuating our species, but nothing that makes it objectively right or wrong. That's not to say atheists can't work out a system of ethics with which a theist would mostly agree, nor does it mean that they don't believe in objective moral values. However, they are without any foundation in reality; no ontological anchor.

So when Maher and Harris denounce Islam's jihad bombing of innocent people, they merely don't like it because it's not biologically or socially advantageous, but it can't be deemed wrong in an absolute sense. Furthermore, Harris is a materialist who believes that there is no mind distinct from the brain. Everything we think and do is determined by our environment and genes, i.e., there is no free will, and Harris admits as much. How then can we be held accountable for our actions? They have no moral significance. The Islamic men who attacked the Twin Towers had no choice, so why do Harris and Maher condemn them?

Harris and Maher are fools. What has the Vatican II sect done? Antipope Francis tells us, "Atheists can go to Heaven." So not only has Frankie given up on converting them, he has thrown away the metaphysical underpinning of objective moral values. He leads millions to Hell under the very Theistic guise he seeks to eliminate.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Dead Wrong

   On November 1, 2014, Brittany Maynard will commit suicide. You read that last sentence correctly. Twenty-nine year old Ms. Maynard will (future tense) commit suicide (this post being written 10/20/14). How do I know this gruesome event will take place? Ms. Maynard is making her suicide public and in the state of Oregon, it's legal. Ms. Maynard's story is a very tragic and sad one; she was diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer and given less than a year to live. She is spending the last days of her life with her physician husband trying to persuade others to enact "Death with Dignity" Laws in their own state. Her video can be found here

  The video, just over six minutes in length, is heartbreaking. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how I'd react to a diagnosis like that. I hate the thought of pain, suffering and death. However, I'd like to think I would face my death as a True Catholic. Both my parents died from cancer, and both (my dad especially) met their end bravely with a Christian resolve. I remember 20 years ago when my father told me, "I don't blame God for my cancer." He was wearing his ubiquitous scapular and, like my mother 14 years later, died with it on and fortified with the Last Rites of the One True Church. Conspicuously absent on Ms. Maynard's video is any mention of God, religion, or the afterlife. It's as if it were directed by Richard Dawkins and peppered throughout with the purposely chosen words and phrases to tug at your heart strings and make you feel bad if you don't have the "option" to kill yourself.

 Euthanasia is the ugly twin of abortion at the opposite end of life. In law school we were taught that "Hard cases make for bad law." Norma McCorvey (the Jane Roe in the infamous abortion case Roe v. Wade ) lied and claimed she had been gang raped. The truth was she was made pregnant by a man she thought she had loved, and didn't want to carry the baby. The result is that abortion is legal on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy. My home state of New York has no restrictions whatsoever.

 Now the Hemlock Society (renamed "Compassion & Choices) is trying to do the same with euthanasia. Although Ms. Maynard insists that she "is not committing suicide," she wants to live and give the same "choice to others" as in Oregon, the facts show differently.

1. Theological errors

 Ms. Maynard is obviously not Christian. She sees no redemptive value in any suffering. On the atheistic view, life is painful and ends in death. The correct attitude is to shun the former and delay the latter. On the Christian worldview, Christ showed that suffering has meaning, can be redemptive, and there is a better place awaiting us if we follow Him. No one likes pain, and to be against euthanasia is NOT forcing someone to suffer. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
“I considered passing away in hospice care at my San Francisco Bay Area home,” Maynard wrote for CNN. “But even with palliative medication, I could develop potentially morphine-resistant pain and suffer personality changes and verbal, cognitive and motor loss of virtually any kind.” Note she writes things “could” go wrong, which means they could work, too.

Palliative care specialist Dr. B.J. Miller of the Zen Hospice Project told me that he didn’t know the particulars of Maynard’s case. “Globally speaking, people do develop intolerance to morphine, and delirium is very common at the end of life” for patients with brain cancer, he noted, but “it’s also true that much of that is treatable.” Palliative sedation cannot reverse cancer, but it can provide relief.

Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund in Berkeley is concerned that Maynard’s story obscures the larger picture. “For every individual with a happy family who’s not at risk for abuse, there are many other individuals who may be subtly steered toward assisted suicide by their insurance company or pressured by their family.” For every Brittany Maynard, there are others who face serious illnesses — aging, maybe — without Maynard’s extraordinary support system. Golden worries lest “profit-driven managed health care” subtly steer the sick in the direction of — what’s the word? — dignity."

2. The Truth about Oregon

When Barbara Wagner’s doctor prescribed a drug that would likely extend her life and would make her more comfortable, her state insurance program refused to authorize payment for it.  Instead, it sent her a letter saying it would pay for doctor-prescribed suicide.

Randy Stroup, who had prostate cancer, was also offered doctor-prescribed suicide by the Oregon health plan.Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a “chilling” corruption of medical ethics.

According to the Patients Rights Council:

Lethal prescriptions under the Oregon law are supposed to be limited to patients who have a life expectancy of six months or less. However, during the first two years of the law’s implementation, at least one lethal dose was prescribed more than eight months before the patient took it.

The sixth annual report noted that two patients who received prescriptions in 2002 and another who received the prescription in 2001 died from the lethal drugs in 2003.

The DHS (Division of Health Services) is not authorized to investigate how physicians determine their patients’ diagnoses or life expectancies. If physicians are prescribing for patients whose life expectancy exceeds six months or who do not have a terminal condition, there is no way to find out since the same doctors who are violating the guidelines would have to report their own violation. “[N]oncompliance is difficult to assess because of the possible repercussions for noncompliant physicians reporting data to the division.”

The DHS has to rely on the word of doctors who prescribe the drugs. Referring to physicians’ reports, the reporting division admitted: “For that matter the entire account [received from doctors] could have been a cock-and-bull story. We assume, however, that physicians were their usual careful and accurate selves.”

While assisted-suicide advocates claim that patients are given new rights under Oregon’s law, nothing could be farther from the truth. Prior to the law’s passage, patients could request, but doctors could not provide, assisted suicide. It was illegal and unethical for a physician to knowingly participate in a patient’s suicide. The law actually empowers doctors by promising them legal immunity if they provide a patient with an intentionally fatal prescription. Yet, advocates still say that the law grants patients a new legal right –the right to ask their doctors for suicide assistance, even though such a request was never illegal. Suicide requests from patients may have been cries for better pain control, support or psychiatric help – but they were never a crime.

In addition, doctors who prescribe assisted suicide under Oregon’s law are exempt from the standard of care that they are required to meet when providing other medical services. Under the assisted-suicide law, a health care provider is not subject to criminal or civil liability or any other professional disciplinary action as long as the provider is acting in “good faith.” This subjective “good faith” standard is far less stringent than the objective “reasonable standard of care” which physicians are required to meet for compassionate medical care such as hospice, palliation or curative treatment.

As a result, a doctor who negligently “participates” in assisted suicide cannot be held accountable so long as he or she claims to have acted in “good faith.” On the other hand, a doctor who negligently provides other medical interventions can be held legally accountable in civil court regardless of his or her “good faith.”

This lowering of the standard of care for assisted suicide could serve as an inducement for doctors to recommend assisted suicide over palliative care at the end of life.

In the coming months, several states will be considering Oregon-type laws. It remains to be seen whether decision-makers will rely on the deceptively rosy picture painted by assisted-suicide supporters – or on its reality."

3. Where's Francis?

The Antipope who claims to be Catholic has done NOTHING about this situation. He has not denounced it, asked for her to reconsider, or requested prayers for her conversion. He and his episcopal lackeys are too busy trying to justify adulterous unions and sodomy all in the name of---oh, yeah---"dignity." Please pray for Ms. Maynard's recovery and conversion.


Monday, October 13, 2014

Adulterating Marriage

 As Antipope Francis attempts to allow the divorced and "remarried" (i.e. adulterers) to receive their "communion," I believe there are machinations brewing for far more than the denial of the indissolubility of marriage. As any of my regular readers know, I'm not one given to wild-eyed conspiracy theories, or sensationalism. However, I will attempt to demonstrate that the logic of the Vatican II sect is leading to places unthinkable even a few short years ago.

The Second Vatican Council imposes a variation of the doctrine on marriage contrary to the Catholic Church's constant teaching.In the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes (hereinafter GS), the married state is referred to as "the intimate partnership of life and love which...has been established by the Creator..." (GS# 48), whose proper end is procreation:

"By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory" (GS #48).

Note that it does not find its raison d'etre, or "reason for being" in the procreation and education of children, but its "crown." This leads one to believe that the end of the state of matrimony is mutual perfection of the spouses, that is, the secondary end becomes the first, since the true end (the procreative one), becomes secondary because it is proposed as a consequence (or "crowning glory") on the Modernist view of marriage.

  Furthermore, GS states:
 "Many of our contemporaries, too, have a high regard for true love between husband and wife as manifested in the worthy customs of various times and peoples. Married love is an eminently human love because it is an affection between two persons rooted in the will...; it can enrich the sentiments of the spirit and their physical expression with a unique dignity and ennoble them as the special elements and signs of the friendship proper to marriage." (GS # 49)

Here, the robber council places the secondary end of marriage (mutual love and support) on par with the primary end (procreation).  "Married love" (the conjugal act) is justified solely through corporeal manifestation and not by virtue of procreative value first and foremost. Pope Pius XI taught in Casti Conubii that married love is properly viewed as a natural act committed to procreation and, therefore, allowed in relation to the first end of marriage, (which is the begetting of children). It is not used for satisfaction and pleasure itself, understood  as the secondary end of marriage, and limited by its primary end.

 In an article for the National Catholic (sic) Reporter, writer and sodomite supporter Robert McClory offers this bit of logic from his piece entitled, "Why Church Disdain for Gay Marriage is Dead Wrong":

"When the subject of Christian marriage was taken up by the bishops at the Second Vatican Council in its document on 'The Church in the Modern World,' (that's the English title for GS--Introibo) they made a point of not repeating the old formula. In fact, they first discussed mutual self-giving and sharing as essential to marriage and only after spoke of its role in increasing and multiplying the human family. The bishops decided not to use any primary or secondary terminology in the document, and just to make the matter clear, insisted that 'procreation does not make the other ends of marriage of less account' and that marriage was 'not instituted solely for procreation' "

 The online edition of People Magazine  reporting on  Antipope Francis' synod on the family had this to write:
"On Monday, Catholic bishops showed unprecedented openness to accepting the real lives of many Catholics today, saying gays had gifts to offer the church and should be accepted and that there were "positive" aspects to a couple living together without being married."

Do you see the writing on the wall?

Mr. McClory does when he writes, " Gay Catholic (sic) couples are daily fulfilling that central requirement of Christian marriage; love and fidelity."  While it's true that not every normal couple is fecund due to age (e.g. widows who remarry, etc) or due to medical concerns, they are reproductive in principle and reflect the male-female model established by God for the human race. Apples are edible in principle, even if this particular apple in my hand is rotten and can't be eaten. Rocks are never edible by nature.

 Francis admits of a "gay mafia" in the Vatican. The sodomites they admitted to the seminaries in the late 1960s going forward are the "bishops" and "cardinals" of the second decade in the 21st century. Adulterers receiving the invalid communion of the Vatican II sect will seem unremarkable the day we witness an Antipope Adam "marrying"  "Cardinal" Steve.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Question Authority

  This is the kick-off of the big Synod in Rome (rightly spelled "Sin-od" by my friends at Novus Ordo Watch) where Antipope Francis is putting Catholic Faith and Morals up for grabs. Francis (Mr. Jorge Bergoglio) is meeting to have an "open discussion" about issues where many "Catholics" (i.e. members of the Vatican II sect) disagree with True Magisterial teaching on many issues; especially the use of artificial contraception and giving their "communion" to the divorced and remarried (i.e. adulterers).

  In an article published at entitled "Pope Francis wants Catholics to Doubt the Church. He's Right," writer Kyle Cupp opines:

" Would it be weird to say that the Catholic Church under Pope Francis has encouraged a sense of uncertainty about God?

After all, this is an institution that has devoted centuries to hammering out and polishing an authoritative system of doctrines concerning who God is and what God expects. It claims to have been founded by Jesus Christ and to be guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit. It has warned of eternal damnation if its authority and precepts are ignored or rejected. In other words: If Catholicism is true, you don't want to be in doubt about its teachings. But by giving the impression that longstanding teachings of the faith might significantly change, Pope Francis and other church leaders have invited just such doubt.

No surprise, Catholic writers have expressed concern. Responding to reports that the church might stop denying communion to Catholics in permanently adulterous marriages, Ross Douthat wonders what the appropriate response of Catholics should be to such changes. Michael Brendan Dougherty, mindful of the church's turbulent history, fully expects that a pope or governing council in the church will eventually issue a policy flatly contradicting church teaching — and he believes that most Catholics will be wholly unprepared for it. In such conditions, some among the faithful would doubt the church itself. Lasting heresy or disbelief might take root and grow in this soil.

According to Catholicism, the core doctrines of the church express absolute truth and therefore cannot be altered, but paradoxically this premise doesn't preclude changes to its teaching. In the parlance of the church, it only means that a previously proposed understanding wasn't really unchangeable doctrine. Still, a big deal. By merely entertaining doctrinal development, the church entices believers to question its authority and the exact content of its faith.

In fact, Pope Francis has explicitly endorsed doubt in the life of faith. In a 2013 interview published in America Magazine, the pontiff said that the space where one finds and meets God must include an area of uncertainty. For him, to say that you have met God with total certainty or that you have the answers to all questions is a sign that God is not with you. Be uncertain, he counsels. Let go of exaggerated doctrinal "security." A devout faith must be an uncertain faith:

'The risk in seeking and finding God in all things, then, is the willingness to explain too much, to say with human certainty and arrogance: 'God is here.' We will find only a god that fits our measure. The correct attitude is that of St. Augustine: seek God to find him, and find God to keep searching for God forever.'"

 Mr. Cupp, and of course, Mr. Bergoglio, have it all wrong. Kupp is correct that Bergoglio wants to eviscerate whatever remains of Catholicism in his sect. Bergoglio is wrong and takes St. Augustine out of context. Just because God is infinite does not mean that we can't know very definite Truths about Him which He reveals to us. We may not be able to fully comprehend them (e.g. the Trinity), but they are absolutely veridical. Both are wrong insofar as that whatever the Church holds out as Truth cannot change; the contrary view is that of Modernism.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane (1907), CONDEMNED proposition number 58:

  Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

Condemned proposition numbers 64 & 65:

Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism

It's scary how this has come to pass. Remember too, that Bergoglio is the one who infamously stated, "Who am I to judge?' (In reference to sodomites). My prediction for the Sin-od is that they will formally adopt the antipope's "Jiminy Cricket" view of morals, "Let your conscience be your guide." If you ever watched the Disney movie classic Pinocchio,you'll remember that before the title character goes out to face the world, his friend, Jiminy Cricket advises him to just let his conscience be his guide. Ironically, after receiving this advice, Pinocchio gets into all sorts of trouble, suggesting that his conscience wasn't such a great guide after all. It's a rightly formed conscience that matters. One formed by the Truths revealed by Christ and His One True Church. This is the only way we can have full and accurate morals.

 But now, Antipope Francis will be attempting to find creative ways to sin. He will flaunt God's unchanging moral code--at the very least by making it seem that you can "discuss it" as though it were possible to change. Not only is this blasphemous in and of itself, it gives people the scandalous idea that morality is uncertain, relative, and even unknowable. Soon we may very well have the Vatican II sect officially sanction Jiminy Cricket ethics as "Pope Pinocchio's" nose grows longer and longer with each relativistic and Modernistic lie he tells his followers. Most ironically, the man who wants us to question the authority of the Church has no authority. Question Francis.