The push to legalize pedophilia and child pornography in Germany

As noted here,

"Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government’s Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled “Love, Body and Playing Doctor” by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung – BZgA) are aimed at parents – the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age.

'Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex,' reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, 'The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same.'

Why do some people still vote for these scumbags? Next time we must all vote our local NATIONALIST (extreme right) Political Party to restore normality.

Canadian author and public speaker Michael O’Brien who has written and spoken extensively about the crisis of culture in the West spoke to LifeSiteNews.com about the shocking and extremely disturbing phenomenon. It is, he said, 'State-encouraged incest, which in most civilized societies is a crime.' The development is, he suggests, a natural outcome of the rejection of the Judeo-Christian moral order.

'The imposed social revolution that has swept the western world is moving to a new stage as it works out the logical consequences of its view of man’s value,' said O’Brien. 'It is merely obeying its strictly materialist philosophy of man. If man is no more than a creature created for pleasure or power. If he is no more than a cell in the social organism, then no moral standards, no psychological truths, no spiritual truths can refute the ‘will to power’ and the ‘will to pleasure’.'"

The sexual morality popular in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah brought them to complete and utter destruction.  Today we are building a New Sodom, a Moloch State which offers not law and justice but an oppressive demonic order which claims total jurisdiction over man and defies God and His plan for humanity.  So it is no surprise that many within the priesthood (as throughout society in general) have succumbed to homosexual ideology as they deny the true God and His Commandments.  Rousas Rushdoony exposes the nature of the demonic Moloch State which so many of the clergy now willingly serve: "The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God.  Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God.  All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God.  They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that men can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."

The Devil seduces men through the deceitful tactics of pseudo-saviors.  And ours is a perverse age in which many pseudo-saviors pretend to offer liberation through sex without love, violence and drug abuse as well as the occult.  As Fr. Miceli, S.J., warned: "In the name of its new secular gods, Progress and Liberty, titles that are false fronts for Rebellion and Licentiousness, many formerly Christian nations are driving their sons and daughters through the demonic fires of sacrificial murder.  Thus..so-called Christian nations, having legalized abortion and while preparing to legalize euthanasia, have become Moloch states."

This is the essence of the new anti-Christian sex education in preparation for the Moloch State. As George Kendall explains in Witness for the Truth, this sex education "radically separates sex from the very idea of the covenanted love of man and woman. Sex becomes merely a self-centered appetite to be satisfied and not a gift of self to another. As a result, what this kind of education produces is the lonely, autonomous individual. This is the ultimate in alienation. The autonomous individual is alienated even from his own body, which becomes to him only a thing, too - a thing to be used as a means to his autonomous pleasure. The end result is depersonalization which, if it lasts into eternity without being healed, means eternal loss. Few have put it as eloquently as Randy Engel did: 'Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force.' So clearly, centemporary sex education, 'Catholic' or otherwise, is a profound attack on human dignity and on the human person.." (Witness for the Truth, pp. 399-400. citing Randy Engel "The Family Under Siege," Wanderer, March 6, 1980).

And now I would add, satanic. The United States, like the other Termite Nations of the West, is fast-becoming a Moloch State which claims total jurisdiction over man. It is becoming (and some of us would argue has already become) a demon-state which rejects God's Commandments and His plan for the human family. This demon-state (and make no mistake about it, our leaders increasingly have recourse to demons) denies that there is any transcendent, higher-than-human voice or authority that cares for man.

Enter the Man of Sin.  Preparation for his rise here?

President Obama, the fetus is not an inert blob but an "active and dynamic" child capable of learning and feeling. Why then do you support killing such children?

In an article for LifeSiteNews, Cathy Ruse writes, "In a recent column on CNN online, science writer Annie Murphy Paul discusses her astonishment at finding myriad studies about what babies can learn in the womb.


Once considered a mundane field for the researcher, “[n]ow the nine months of gestation are the focus of intense interest and excitement,” she writes, “pregnancy is not a nine-month wait for the big event of birth, but a crucial period unto itself.”

Researchers are learning that much of what a mother experiences in her daily life is communicated to developing child, from the air she breathes and the food and drink she consumes even to the emotions she feels. Paul likens it to “biological postcards from the world outside.”

“The fetus, we now know, is not an inert blob, but an active and dynamic creature, responding and adapting as it readies itself for life in the particular world it will soon enter.” Amen to that.

The findings won’t shock the pro-lifer, but the fact that they’re gaining attention in the scientific community and are being reported in places like CNN online should cheer the pro-life soul. “The recognition that learning actually begins before birth leads us to a striking new conception of the fetus, the pregnant woman and the relationship between them.”

Some of Paul’s conclusions, though, seem to be a stretch. “By attending to such messages,” she writes, “the fetus learns the answers to questions critical to its survival: Will it be born into a world of abundance, or scarcity? Will it be safe and protected, or will it face constant dangers and threats? Will it live a long, fruitful life, or a short, harried one?” A bit deterministic, if you ask me, but I welcome her acknowledgment of the growing child’s sentience." (See here).

Back in 2008, then candidate Barack Obama, speaking at a Chicago Church where he addressed the problem of absent black fathers, said that, "We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn't just end at conception."  See here.  In an ad put out by the Family Research Council, FRC President Tony Perkins responded to Obama by asking, "If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?"


An excellent point. If fatherhood begins at conception, so does human life. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot suggest that fatherhood begins at conception but human life does not. As Dr. & Mrs. J.C. Willke explain in their book "Why can't we love them both: questions and answers about abortion," "Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual's life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father's sperm and his mother's ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization," or "fecundation." This is so because this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing."



In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II said that: "Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act". Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?" (No. 60).


During his Father's Day speech, candidate Obama slipped. Even though his record on abortion speaks for itself (he supports even partial-birth abortion, which amounts to infanticide), by telling his audience that fathers need to recognize their responsibility doesn't end at conception, he was admitting that at conception "a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother" but instead "the life of a new human being with his own growth" which the father is responsible for.

And, if a father's responsibility is just beginning at conception, what of the responsibility of the State to guarantee this new human being his or her rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?" (Declaration of Independence).

Scientific research has proven what pro-lifers have known all along: that the unborn child is not an inert blob of tissue "but an active and dynamic creature" capable of learning and feeling.  And Barack Obama believes that this human life, precious in God's sight, doesn't deserve to live.

The photo above shows an unborn child at 5 months.  President Obama supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. 

There's no way around it, Catholics United is wrong...

In a previous post I noted that, "Shortly after Father James Rafferty, pastor of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, Massachusetts, denied admission to a student whose parents are lesbian, the dissent group Catholics United launched a petition accusing St. Paul's of engaging in discrimination."

In a similar case in Colorado earlier this year, Archbishop Charles Chaput was quoted as having said that, "Our schools are meant to be 'partners in faith' with parents. If parents don't respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church."

Which view is more consistent with the Magisterial teaching of the Church? The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, in a document entitled simply "The Catholic School," had this to say:


"Either implicit or explicit reference to a determined attitude to life (Weltanschauung) is unavoidable in education because it comes into every decision that is made. It is, therefore, essential, if for no other reason than for a unity in teaching, that each member of the school community, albeit with differing degrees of awareness, adopts a common vision, a common outlook on life, based on adherence to a scale of values in which he believes. This is what gives teachers and adults authority to educate. It must never be forgotten that the purpose of instruction at school is education, that is, the development of man from within, freeing him from that conditioning which would prevent him from becoming a, fully integrated human being. The school must begin from the principle that its educational programme is intentionally directed to the growth of the whole person." (The Catholic School, No. 29).

It is essential that each member of the school community (and this includes parents) adopts a common vision and a common outlook on life.

Which is precisely what Archbishop Chaput was saying.

Catholics United is wrong. There is no way around this.