Opposing the Luciferic Great Reset

 As Lifesite News notes:

"Pastor Artur Pawlowski has made it clear that he will not comply with the gag order imposed by a Canadian judge that was part of the final ruling against him and his brother for their outspoken stance against lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Regarding the desire of the Alberta court that Pawlowski not contradict the government narrative when speaking publicly about COVID-19 vaccines and lockdowns, the pastor stated, 'This is compelled speech the judge ordered like in China and North Korea … I won’t comply and I’m fully prepared to go to prison.'

Alberta Justice Adam Germain’s 12-page ruling contained instructions for what the court expects Pawlowski to say about COVID-related topics. According to the judge, if he speaks against any of the recommendations laid out by Alberta Health Services, he is supposed to state the following:

'I am also aware that the views I am expressing to you on this occasion may not be views held by the majority of medical experts in Alberta. While I may disagree with them, I am obliged to inform you that the majority of medical experts favour social distancing, mask wearing, and avoiding large crowds to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Most medical experts also support participation in a vaccination program unless for a valid religious or medical reason you cannot be vaccinated. Vaccinations have been shown statistically to save lives and to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.'

Pawlowski’s lawyer, Sarah Miller, intends to appeal the 'compelled speech and unconstitutional' sentencing in a separate court challenge. An appeal of Germain’s guilty verdict for the Pawlowksis’ contempt of court charges has already been filed.

Canadian lawyer and Rebel Media chief Ezra Levant wrote: 'In a bizarre, 40-minute rant, Justice Adam Germain ordered that for the next 18 months, whenever Pastor Artur talks about lockdowns, the pandemic or vaccines — in tweets, in speeches, in media interviews — he must immediately repudiate himself, and give the ‘official’ government view condemning himself.'

Levant added that 'he must argue against himself. He must condemn himself. Or go back to jail.' And 'it’s compelled speech, like a Maoist “struggle session” in Communist China. You have to say what the government tells you to say.'"

______________________________

Inflated in their rebellion against the God-Man, the Sons of Satan, those committed toward the atheistic program of attacking the Church from without and undermining it from within in preparation for the Man-God, will continue to intensify their persecution of craftiness and subversion until it reaches its culmination in an explosion of hate-filled rage which will bear much blood and death. Father Livio Fanzaga, writing about the Antichrist, says that, "Catholicism alone will resist him. How then do we destroy this superstition which alone obstructs the world's self-revelation? How do we destroy this superstition which divides mankind and which prevents man from being truly brotherly and free? The true Antichrist is revealed in the replies to these questions. Here is perceived his profound being as the man of iniquity. He will not tolerate the idea of men who adore any god other than himself. His intolerance obliges him to make an exception to his pacifism and his philosophy of non-violence. He is the greatest pacifist in the history of the human race, but because peace and justice really reign on earth he will make an exception to kill and destroy the great superstition of Catholicism, once and for all time..." (Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 124).

On September 15, 1992, Our Lady told Father Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests that, "..It is the hour of my great sorrow for the Church, my dearly beloved Daughter.  How grievously the Church is suffering in these times, as she carries her great cross and climbs the bloodstained Calvary of her passion and her bloody immolation!  Never before, as today, has the Church been made so utterly like my Son Jesus.  She is like Him in solitude and abandonment; she is like Him in denial and betrayal; she is like Him in contempt and condemnation; she is like Him in her crucifixion and in her agony.  This is the hour of my great sorrow for the Church, because the hour of her redemptive passion has come.  It is the gour of my great sorrow for humanity, so ill and so reduced to slavery by the spirits of evil.  The diabolical powers are ruling the earth and producing everywhere the wicked fruits of their dark reign.  And thus this humanity has again become pagan, after almost two thousand years of its redemption and of the first announcement of the Gospel of salvation.  Faithlessness and impiety again cover it; sins wound it; evil poisons it; pride rules it; impurity seduces it; egoism and hatred enchain it; Satan reduces it more and more to slavery and reigns over you with his diabolical power...This is the hour of my great sorrow for all of you, my poor children, because the time of your great suffering has come.  Take refuge in me.  Hasten to the sure refuge of my Immaculate Heart, because we must live together through the hour of the greatest trial, which has now come for you, for the Church and for all humanity."

Increasingly,  we are witnessing the truth being censored by governments,  social media and big tech.  The Luciferic State will not permit anyone to question its Satanic regime or its pseudo-science in the service of the demon and population control zealots.

Highest civil court orders death sentence for Vincent Lambert; His "crime"?...Being disabled

Catholic News Agency reports:

"The highest civil court in France has ordered that food and water may be removed from a severely disabled man, who has been artificially fed and hydrated in a hospital in the country for over 10 years.

The Court of Cassation ruled Friday that Vincent Lambert, 42, can be taken off life support. This is the final ruling, and there can be no appeal, the BBC reported.

This means Lambert’s parents have exhausted their legal options in their years-long fight to keep their son alive. However, the parents said Friday that they will press murder charges if Lambert is removed from food and hydration, according to AFP.

A French court had ruled in favor of euthanizing Lambert last month. He had been briefly removed from feeding and hydration tubes May 20, when a challenge passed the Paris appeals court and the hospital was ordered to return the support.

'In any other context, killing by starvation and dehydration is considered a crime against humanity,' said Alexandra Snyder, executive director of Life Legal, a group that advocates for the vulnerable, in a June 28 statement.


'Yet in France-as in the United States-we routinely impose this type of torturous death on individuals who are disabled. This has to stop. Disability should not be a death sentence.'"

For the Nazis, "euthanasia" (which is translated as "good death") represented a euphemistic term for a clandestine murder program created for the systematic killing of mentally and physically disabled patients living in institutional settings throughout Germany. The National Socialist's "Euthanasia" program would set the stage for the Holocaust: the mass murder of Jews and others who were deemed either racially inferior or ideologically unsuitable.

In the words of Dr. Leo Alexander, Chief U.S. Medical Consultant at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials: 'Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings."

Dr. Alexander referred to "a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of physicians." These physicians came to accept the notion that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reminded us that:

"Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

We ignore this warning at our own peril.

Francis has expressed profound sadness over the deaths of
Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Martinez and his 23-month-old daughter Valeria. See here.

Is he also saddened by the death sentence being imposed on Mr. Lambert?

How about baby India?  Left in a plastic bag to suffocate, has this horrible crime, even though it cannot be manipulated to advance a partisan political agenda, caused Francis to feel profound sadness?

The deaths of Alberto Martinez and his daughter are a real tragedy.  But this tragedy occurred as Mr. Martinez attempted to enter this country illegally with his daughter, thereby placing her at risk.

Baby India wasn't committing a crime. Nor has Mr. Lambert.  Where is the profound sadness and outrage from Francis?

The demon Moloch demands blood sacrifice.  Everywhere we see respect for the sanctity of human life being eroded.  We need Shepherds who can offer us something more than selective outrage in the service of partisan politics.  We need Shepherds who advance the teaching of the Didache

.

"The writing is on the wall. Gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag.."

Dr. Jeff Mirus gets it.  He writes, "The writing is on the wall. Gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. Indeed, gay marriage is the perfect totalitarian wedge, not least in a country like the United States, which has been capable of believing itself uniquely dedicated to liberty even in the midst of slavery and abortion. We Americans, it seems, will be quite willing to sing the praises of our liberty no matter how many of us lose it. It is our national myth, something we worship. But the cause of gay marriage fits the myth better than most issues because it really does seem that those who oppose it are denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to others. This denial can be accepted for the unborn, in the name of the liberty of their mothers, as it once was accepted for African Americans, who shared judicial non-personhood with the unborn. But gays are well-educated, wealthy and—above all—a logically favored projection of our moral culture. To inhibit their happiness, for any reason, seems just plain wrong.

Why should this be? First, it is necessary to note that the word “gay” refers not to those with homosexual inclinations but to those who champion behavior based on these inclinations as good. In fact, homosexuals who are not gay are a sign of contradiction to the gay world. They are scorned accordingly, in ways that even straights are not. The key to understanding the whole matter is that to be gay or to support the gay lifestyle is to approve and promote sterile sex.

The Western world in general has been hard at work promoting sterile sex for nearly a century now. We began by sanctioning the break-up of families through ever-easier divorce. Divorce is a kind of pretense that the marital covenant is ultimately sterile, in the sense that children do not matter. Next we embraced contraception so that our sexual pleasures could not be diminished through responsibility. Promiscuity inevitably followed, and with it abortion, which is simply fruitfulness in denial. We’ve covered our eyes and stopped our ears. “Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can’t SEE you! I can’t HEAR you!”

A culture like this, a culture which embraces these values, has no argument against homosexual sex, no case against homosexual marriage. A huge percentage of our marriages are deliberately and totally sterile; most of the rest are deliberately sterile much of the time. Huge numbers of marriages, by deliberate design, result neither in children to preserve the race nor in future citizens to enhance and develop the social order. There is no conceivable public interest in such unions, and no significant personal interest in them either, apart from the fuel they temporarily provide for the couple’s doomed egoism à deux.

Far from having a natural revulsion against homosexual intimacy, modern Western culture can hardly help seeing it as the jewel which crowns and protects its own warped vision of sex. We recognize and defend a right of men and women to engage in sexual intimacy without fruit. It follows that rank prejudice must be the only reason anyone could possibly oppose the same freedom between men and men or women and women.

No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag.

The insistence on ignoring vice is the hallmark of a debased culture, but the insistence that a lie be publicly affirmed as true is the hallmark of ideological totalitarianism." (See here).

Archbishop Dolan gets it now.  Shocked over recent editorials demanding the restriction of religious freedom and calls to coerce religious believers to accept same-sex "marriage," the Archbishop wrote, "We do worry indeed about this freedom of religion. Editorials already call for the removal of guarantees of religious liberty, with crusaders calling for people of faith to be coerced to acceptance of this redefinition. If the experience of those few other states and countries where this is already law is any indication, the churches, and believers, will soon be harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their conviction that marriage is between one man, one woman, forever, bringing children into the world …"


I have been warning that this was coming since the 1990s.  I have been laughed at and ridiculed for revealing the totalitarian nature of the radical homosexual movement.  Back in June of 2005 I posted the following here at La Salette Journey:


Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, "First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior." (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).

Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox." (See here).

Truthfully, isn't that what we're witnessing in Canada and even in the United States (albeit to a still lesser degree)? Already there has been much talk in Canada about passing legislation which would make it a "hate crime" for churches - or individual priests and ministers - to refer to homosexuality as being sinful. The Gospel itself would constitute "hate literature" under legislation which is proposed by homosexual militants who have many friends in the government it would appear.

The United States isn't far behind. Soon, Christians who hold firm to what Sacred Scripture has to say about sodomy will be labelled 'dangerous' and in need of 're-education' or forced internment in a special 'camp.' Perhaps those of us who remain "obstinate" in accepting God's Word will be dealt with in another 'final solution' offered by a society which has succumbed to the 'Dictatorship of Relativism.'

Let's hope and pray that the rest of the Church's hierarchy will awaken to the reality of our present situation and speak out as Archbishop Dolan now has.

Signs of the Times...

Persecution Watch.

As Monsignor Schooyans details in his book entitled "La face cache de L'ONU" (which exposes the agenda of the United Nations for a world government and dictatorship): "In 1948, the United Nations worked out and ratified the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights,' which recognized the dignity and primacy of the human person. Today, the UN and some of its agencies behave more and more openly as if the had received a mandate to develop a conception of human rights that is radically different from that expressed in 1948. According to the UN, man is a fragment of the cosmos, and has no eternal destiny. Man is the product of evolution and his final destiny is death. He is but an individual in search of pleasures, unable to recognize truth. This is the source of the new 'human rights' of the UN. These new rights are no longer recognized and declared; they are rather imposed, and are the expression of the will of the mightiest. Man must revere Mother-Earth, Gaia (the goddess of the earth in Greek mythology), in place of God, his Creator and the Creator of the earth. Under the pressure of some radical feminist and homosexual movements, the competence of the International Criminal Court...could be extended to 'crimes' against the so-called new human rights. For example, to the extent that abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia are recognized as 'new rights,' the opponents to these rights could be judged and sentenced by the International Criminal Court."


Read what LifeSiteNews had to say:

The Vatican has recognized the disparity in the vision of a world order from the perspective of the United Nations and from a Christian perspective. Writing in the Italian newspaper Avvenire in 2000, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, denounced the UN vision of a "new world order." Ratzinger noted that "at the base of this New World Order" is the ideology of "women's empowerment," which erroneously sees "the principal obstacles to [a woman's] fulfillment [as] the family and maternity." The cardinal advised that "at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians - and not just them, but in any case they even more than others - have the duty to protest." ( See here).

Landolt warned that the ICC is "a very dangerous thing" and suggested that "the Pope could be called before the ICC." Landolt's comments echo those of Dr. Richard G. Wilkins, Professor of Law at Brigham Young University. Wilkins, a leading authority on the ICC who regularly acts as legal counsel for pro-family NGOs (non-governmental organizations) at the United Nations, told LifeSite that the ICC could eventually be used to try "the Pope or other religious leaders" since issues such as abortion and homosexuality would inevitably fall within the ICC's jurisdiction. He explained that the ICC "currently is without sufficient checks and balances. It has the most powerful prosecutor ever with the vaguest criminal statute passed anywhere. The ICC leaves open to total discretion of the prosecutor and the court the determining of what the 'crimes' mean." (See here).

Calling all Catholics of the Worcester Diocese....let's rally behind Bishop McManus

I have just submitted the following piece to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. I'm hoping that it sees the light of day there:


At the 51st annual Red Mass held recently at St. Paul Cathedral, His Excellency The Most Reverend Robert J. McManus reminded those present that the greatest act of compassion which those in the legal and judicial fields can show is trying to ensure that the laws and statutes of the United States always protect the dignity of the human person. Sadly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has not shown such compassion in recent years.

On November 18, 2003, the SJC ruled, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, that two members of the same sex have a right to marriage under the constitution of the Bay State. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state’s constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens" and that the state had no constitutionally adequate reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples.

While this decision of the SJC is long on emotional appeal, it is short on substance. Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) states clearly that, "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people.." According to this same article, government is not instituted for the "private interest" of individuals and certain classes of men. And what do we mean by the "common good"? The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing the Letter of Barnabas, a Christian document which dates to the first or early second century, provides an answer: "In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person: ‘Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together’ CCC, 1905). The Catechism then provides us with a precise definition in paragraphs 1906 to 1909: "By common good is to be understood ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’ The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements: First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such...Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself...Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order."

In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the SJC failed to uphold the common good and to acknowledge that government is instituted for the very purpose of promoting and defending the common good. With all due respect to Chief Justice Marshall, there is "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples. Same-sex "marriage" violates the common good. It does this on both the individual and social plane. On the individual plane, as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "...although it is true that partners in sodomy also could conceivably share in a committed relationship with sincere mutual affection and express their feelings in ways that would be appropriate in any friendship, the coupling of two bodies of the same sex cannot form one complete organism and so cannot contribute to a bodily communion of persons. Hence, the experience of intimacy of the partners in sodomy cannot be the experience of any real unity between them. Rather, each one’s experience of intimacy is private and incommunicable, and is no more a common good than is the mere experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. Therefore, the choice to engage in sodomy for the sake of that experience of intimacy in no way contributes to the partners’ real common good as committed friends."

On the social plane, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained in a document entitled Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, "The inevitable consequences of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to homosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8).

Our forefathers, the very men who made this Commonwealth and who crafted its Constitution, understood that government exists to serve the common good and that all society, both religious and civil, and every legal tradition of both authority and liberty, exist for the protection and perfection of the human person. Moreover, our forefathers (and this includes former Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court) recognized the ends and the purposes of marriage. They understood that matrimony is the creative cause of the social unit, the family.

For example, Justice Charles Ambrose DeCourcy (1857-1924) interpreted the special dignity of marriage with these rational words, "By the law of the Commonwealth marriage is regarded as more than a civil contract. After cohabitation, at least, it ripens into a status which affects the parties thereto, their posterity and the whole community...it is a change which, for important reasons, the law recognizes, and it inaugurates conditions and relations which the law takes under its protection." (Richardson v. Richardson, 246 Mass. 353, 354, 104. N.E. 73 (1923), quoting from Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 407, 50 N.E. 933, 934 (1898).

Justice George Tyler Bigelow (1810-1878) said that, "The great object of marriage in a civilized and Christian community, is to secure the existence and permanence of the family relation, and to ensure the legitimacy of offspring..." (Reynolds v. Reynolds, 85 Mass.(3 Allen) 605-607 (1862).

For these Justices, marriage was something "more than a civil contract." They would have understood the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical On Christian Marriage that, "Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the Author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to men’s pleasure." They would have understood this great Pontiff’s teaching that marriage has its origin "in God." They would have respected the Author of marriage, the common good and the dignity of the human person.

What a shame that we cannot say the same about the Justices who decided it was their prerogative to redefine marriage.