Joe Biden: Christians who oppose the homosexual agenda are the "dregs of society"

 

As noted here:

BIDEN THREATENS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, SUGGESTS CHRISTIANS WITH CERTAIN TRADITIONS ARE ‘DREGS OF SOCIETY.’

"Liberals often mock conservative Christians for supporting a notorious sinner and philanderer in Donald Trump, but the left has grown increasingly hostile to biblical small-o orthodox Christianity. Even the ostensibly moderate Democratic nominee Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. represents an insidious threat to the religious freedom of conservative Christians. He also represents a threat to Roman Catholics, even though he is himself a practicing Catholic.

“This is our soul, da*mit, this is who we have to be… This is our real moral obligation,” the Democrat [Joe Biden] added. “Using religion or culture to discriminate against or demonize LGBTQ individuals is never justified. Not anywhere in the world.”

How could this be? Biden’s rhetoric and policies single out those who adhere to traditional religious beliefs and moral convictions, aiming to limit their ability to live by their consciences and ostracizing them from polite society. The Democrat may outwardly campaign on a platform of unity and diversity, but his candidacy truly represents a threat to traditional religious believers.

Disqualified from the Supreme Court?

The most recent evidence of this insidious threat came last week, when a Biden staffer suggested that traditional religious beliefs that homosexual acts are sinful and that marriage is between one man and one woman should be so “taboo” as to disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court.

Politico contributing editor Adam Wren noted that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “was a trustee at a South Bend private school that described ‘homosexual acts’ as ‘at odds with Scripture’ & said marriage was between ‘one man and one woman’ years after Obergefell v. Hodges.”

Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, responded, “Wait, why is this news? Isn’t this the standard position for any orthodox Catholic?”

NIKITHA RAI, deputy data director for Pennsylvania at Biden’s campaign, responded to Hamid, saying, “Unfortunately, yes.”

Hamid responded, “to be fair, it’s the standard position for any orthodox Muslim or Jew as well…”

“True,” Rai acknowledged. Yet the staffer insisted that this perspective must be marginalized. “I’d heavily prefer views like that not be elevated to SCOTUS [the Supreme Court of the U.S.], but unfortunately our current culture is still relatively intolerant. It will be a while before those types of beliefs are so taboo that they’re disqualifiers.”

Rai suggested that presidents and the U.S. Senate should apply a religious test for Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. The Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for service in government. Article VI Clause 3 reads in part, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Nikitha Rai is just one Biden staffer. She doesn’t represent the entire Biden campaign, right? On the contrary, Rai’s insistence that traditional religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality should be taboo fits perfectly with the candidate at the top of the Democratic ticket.

“The dregs of society”

In 2018, Biden described conservatives who oppose LGBT activism as “the dregs of society.”

Speaking to the HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN (HRC), Biden attacked people who have “tried to define family” in the U.S. “Despite losing in the courts and in the court of public opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made. This time they, not you, have an ally in the White House,” he said of President Donald Trump.

“They’re a small percentage of the American people, virulent people, some of them the dregs of society,” Biden added. “And instead of using the full might of the executive branch to secure justice, dignity, safety for all, the president uses the White House as a literal bully pulpit, callously exerting his power over those who have little or none.”

As my colleague PAULA BOLYARD REPORTED, Biden again spoke to HRC in June 2019. On that occasion, he called the Orwellian Equality Act his first priority. The so-called Equality Act would force biblical orthodox Christians to violate their consciences on LGBT activism. It would also open women’s sports and women’s private spaces to biological males, undercutting fair play and privacy. A BROAD COALITION of diverse groups allied to oppose the Equality Act, including pro-lifers, religious freedom advocates, and radical feminists.

Yet of the Equality Act, Biden said, “I promise you if I’m elected president it will be the first thing I ask to be done. It will send a message around the world, not just at home.”

“This is our soul, da*mit, this is who we have to be… This is our real moral obligation,” the Democrat added. “Using religion or culture to discriminate against or demonize LGBTQ individuals is never justified. Not anywhere in the world.”

Interestingly, while Biden vocally condemns traditional believers in such harsh terms, he has remained curiously silent on the horrific attacks against Catholic statues and churches amid the George Floyd riots this summer — despite his Catholic identity.

“Discrimination”

Americans do not support discrimination, but Democrats have twisted the notion of discrimination in order to force Christians to violate their beliefs.

Christian baker Jack Phillips, for example, refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding, although he gladly sells all sorts of pre-made cakes to LGBT people in his shop. Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he had discriminated against people on the basis of sexual orientation. He appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court and won — because members of the commission displayed animus against his religious faith, comparing his views to those of the Nazis.

Even after this Supreme Court victory, Phillips AGAIN FACED THE COMMISSION. A transgender lawyer asked him to bake an obscene custom cake celebrating the lawyer’s gender transition. Phillips refused, citing his free speech right not to be forced to endorse a view with which he disagrees. THE COMMISSION AGAIN FOUND HIM GUILTY of discrimination, but it DROPPED THE COMPLAINT in March 2019. The LAWYER PROMPTLY SUED Phillips. CHRISTIAN FLORISTS, FARMERS, and other bakers have faced government sanctions for “discrimination” when they refused to celebrate same-sex weddings, exercising their rights to religious freedom, freedom of association, and free speech.

This year, Gov. Ralph Northam (D-Va.) signed legislation that will force Christian schools and ministries to hire people who oppose their religious convictions on sexuality and gender. The laws will also force these ministries — which hold that God created humans male and female — to open women’s sports and women’s restrooms to biological males, to refer to biological males by female pronouns if they “identify” as female, and to pay for transgender surgery in their health care plans.

A lawsuit challenging the new laws as unconstitutional charged that Virginia’s LGBT statues force “people of faith to adopt a particular government ideology under threat of punishment.”

The Democratic Party’s increasing anti-religious animus

Joe Biden’s opposition to the “discrimination” from the “dregs of society” represents a tragically mainstream view in the Democratic Party. Last year, the Democratic National Committee adopted a resolution condemning religious freedom defenses.

“[T]hose most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of ‘religious liberty,’ to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities,” the DNC RESOLUTION states.

Senate Democrats have LAUNCHED ATTACKS on the religious faith of Trump nominees, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) infamously saying, “the dogma lives loudly within you.” Former Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) compared a conservative Christian law firm to the Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, citing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “hate group” accusation against mainstream conservative and Christian groups.

The SPLC faced a devastating sexual harassment and racial discrimination scandal last year, and former employees outed the “hate” accusations as a cynical fundraising scheme. An attempted terrorist TRIED TO KILL EVERYONE AT A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN NONPROFIT due to the SPLC’s “hate group” accusation, but Democrats continue to cite the SPLC as a reliable arbiter of hate.

Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), has proven one of the worst offenders. In May 2018, Harris LAUNCHED AN INQUISITION into the Roman Catholic faith of two of Trump’s judicial nominees — because they were members of the Roman Catholic fraternal order the Knights of Columbus (KOC). Harris also cited the SPLC in branding Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative Christian law firm that defended Jack Phillips, a “hate group.”

While serving as California’s attorney general, Harris refused to defend the state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman — even though Californians had voted for it in 2008. Adding insult to injury, Harris rushed to officiate the first same-sex marriage after a court struck down the will of the people..."

Some years ago, Cardinal Raymond Burke told the Catholic News Agency that he can envision a time when the Catholic Church in the United States "even by announcing her own teaching" will be accused of "engaging in illegal activity, for instance, in its teaching on human sexuality."  When asked if he could even see American Catholics being arrested for their faith he replied, "I can see it happening, yes." 

But long before the Cardinal said this (some ten years earlier at this Blog), I wrote:

"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.' (June, 2005).

We're in the final stage now.  A period of discrediting and banning of orthodox Christianity.  And Joe Biden and Kamala Harris approve, all too willingly.

The choice this election is clear for all devout Christians, Jews, Muslims and all people of good will who respect both religious convictions and the Natural Law.  

Our nation's future hangs in the balance.

"...everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost..."

The homosexual agenda, aided by ecclesiastical masonry, continues to spread throughout the Church like a cancer. These are times of diabolical disorientation during which satanic forces seek to change Catholic moral teaching relative to homosexuality.  See here.

The Church is being tempted by a new paganism.  See here.  Many are those within the Church who have abandoned prayer, especially the Holy Rosary, and who are therefore more susceptible to falsehood.  Those who follow this path will almost inevitably desert the Barque of Peter and the Tradition of the Church.

It was Romano Guardini who warned that:

"One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence without Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supported by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."

- The Lord, p. 513

Our Lady's promises to those who pray the Rosary here.

Another childish temper tantrum from Boston's Mayor Marty Walsh over the Saint Patrick's Day Parade

In his classic work entitled "Trojan Horse in the City of God," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote that, "Incessantly we hear today the self-satisfied slogan, 'Man has finally come of age.' Yet there are so many features of the present epoch - the dethronement of truth by historical relativism, the fetishization of science, the devastation of our lives as a result of the laboratory view, and many others - that make it more than doubtful that modern man has really and truly come of age. There is, moreover, something inherently self-deceptive in the very idea. It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance. One need only recall Dostoyevsky's masterly description of the puberty crisis - Kolya Krassotkin in The Brothers Karamazov, Hypolit in The Idiot, the hero of The Adolescent - to grasp the special immaturity of the man who is convinced of his superior maturity, who thinks that in him humanity has in a unique way come of age, who is dominated by one preoccupation - to show his independence. His ludicrous smallness is manifest as he looks down on everything passed on through tradition, even the most timeless values. The illusion of an historic coming of age is not the exclusive possession of our epoch. In the period of the so-called Enlightenment, man also felt themselves to have come of age and looked down on former times as periods of darkness and immaturity. This illusion is a recurring phenomenon in social history and it bears a striking resemblance to the puberty crisis in the life of the individual person. But the contemporary assertion that whereas this perennial boast was never before justified, it is now really true makes its self-serving character all the more clear.One of the many indications of the intellectual and moral immaturity of the present age is the fact that the percentage of worthless books and articles that captivate the minds of intellectuals seems greater today than in any other time in history." (pp.143-144).


This illusion of man having "come of age" is a characteristic of psychological, spiritual and intellectual immaturity. It is also at the core of atheistic humanism. For atheistic humanism advances the notion, rooted in adolescent pride and rebellion, that the human race has reached a leap of advancement, a new stage of development and enlightenment in which man must abandon any notion of divine authority and rely only upon himself to build a utopia here on earth. A utopia where there are no dogmas, no permanent truths, no objective principles or fixed concepts. In the words of Harvey Cox, "Religion is in a sense the neurosis of culture; secularization corresponds to maturation, for it signifies the emancipation of man first from religion and then from metaphysical control." (The Secular City).


This is America's brand of atheism. It is represented in mythology by Prometheus challenging the old gods and stealing fiery power from them to bring man on earth a freedom from divine authority, liberation from childish beliefs and sexual taboos so that man come of age may create for himself a temporal utopia of plenty and a society of peace. This atheism was advanced in 1933 in The New Humanist magazine in a document entitled the "Humanist Manifesto I," by a group of 34 "liberal humanists." However, forty years later The Humanist magazine published "Humanist Manifesto II." This was necessary because the foolish optimism of the "liberal humanists" regarding the natural goodness of man was utterly demolished by the sheer brutality and horror of the Second World War. Not to mention the savage and evil systems of Nazism, Fascism and Communism.


The adolescent rebellion from God which is atheistic humanism continues. It has not learned anything from the harsh realities of history. It refuses to. And this refusal will only lead to more such disasters in the future for mankind. For as George Santayana reminded us, "Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Already we are witnessing the brutality of an atheistic humanism which declares its "love for humankind" even as it approves of the worst form of child abuse - abortion - as well as euthanasia and all varieties of sexual experimentation and immoral "lifestyles" such as fornication and homosexuality. And when those who believe in objective truth and morality object, as did those who opposed same-sex "marriage" in California, Churches were attacked and Christians and Mormons were subjected to violence and intimidation - all in the name of "love" and "freedom."

Boston's Mayor Marty Walsh exhibits this smallness, this characteristic immaturity of the intellectual adolescent.  Like the child who takes his ball home because the other kids don't care to play his game, little Marty refused to March in Boston's Saint Patrick's Day Parade when organizers wouldn't cave into his demands to allow homosexuals to hijack the parade to advance their ideology and political agenda.

Now that perversity is included in the parade, Marty will march.  But the sniveling adolescent is still not happy.  This because some veterans and others object to rainbow-colored umbrellas being used during the parade to politicize it in support of the homsexualist agenda.  Marty says that such people are "childish" and "foolish."

Look who's calling the kettle black.

Governor Jan Brewer serves the Dictatorship of Relativism

Writing for the Associated Press, Bob Christie reports that,  "Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer slapped down the right wing of her own party, vetoing a bill pushed by social conservatives that would have allowed people with sincerely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve gays. The conservative governor said she could not sign a bill that was not only unneeded but would damage the state's improving business environment and divide its citizens.

Senate Bill 1062 had set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination and subjected Arizona to blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties. Loud cheers erupted outside the Capitol building immediately after Brewer made her announcement Wednesday night.
 

Brewer pushed back hard against the GOP conservatives who forced the bill forward by citing examples of religious rights infringements in other states. 'I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated,' Brewer said. 'The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.'
 

And she chastised the GOP-controlled state Legislature for sending her a divisive bill instead of working on a state budget that continues her economic expansion policies or an overhaul of Arizona's broken child welfare system, her top priorities.
 

In a reference to the gay marriage debate that has expanded across the nation, she reached out to the religious right with sympathy but said 1062 was not the solution. 'Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes,' she said. 'However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and nobody could ever want.'
 

The bill was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays or others who offend their beliefs. But opponents called it an open attack on gays that invited discrimination." (See here for full article).

In his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), Pope John Paul II said that, "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39). Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."

But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, Pope Benedict XVI warned that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.
We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An 'adult' faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, Pope Benedict XVI  explained that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship.

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."

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.." (See full article here). 

A question for Pope Francis....

The Roman Catholic apostolate Courage, which assists those with a homosexual inclination to live authentically Catholic lives, embracing chastity, explains why it will not use the terms "gay" and "lesbian":

Q. Why doesn’t Courage use the terms “gay” and “lesbian”?



A. Courage discourages persons with same-sex attractions from labeling themselves “gay” and “lesbian” for the following reasons:


1) The secular world usually uses those terms to refer to someone who is either actively homosexual or intends to be. When a person decides to “come out” and say “I am gay” or “I am lesbian”, the person usually means “this is who I am – I was born this way and I intend to live this way. I have a right to find a same-sex partner with whom to have a romantic sexual relationship.” To “come out” as being “gay” or “lesbian” doesn’t usually mean “I have homosexual attractions and I have a deep commitment to living a chaste life”.


2) By labeling someone, we discourage those who may wish to try and move beyond homosexual attractions. Some people, especially young people, are able to further their psychosexual development with spiritual and psychological aid. If we labeled them “gay” and “lesbian”, they might think there’s no possibility of moving beyond these attractions.


3) There is more to a person than one’s sexual attractions. Even if one experienced same-sex attractions for most of one’s life, he or she is first and foremost a child of God created in His image. To refer to that person as “gay” or “lesbian” is a reductionist way of speaking about someone. We are even trying now to avoid using the term homosexual as a noun, or as an adjective directly describing the person (i.e. homosexual person). Although it takes more words, we prefer to speak of “persons with same-sex attractions”. Fr. Harvey has said that, if he could, he would rename his first book “The Homosexual Person” to something else like “The Person With Homosexual Attractions”.


There are people within the Catholic Church who might argue that those who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” aren’t necessarily living unchastely. That’s true, but the implications of the terms in today’s society don’t commonly connote chaste living. Furthermore, they are limiting their own possibilities of growth by such self-labeling, and reducing their whole identity by defining themselves according to their sexual attractions. At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered.


See here: http://couragerc.net/FAQs.html

Courage refuses to use the words "gay" and "lesbian."  Why then does Pope Francis use the word "gay"?

Victoria Kennedy supporters are angry and demand that Bishop Robert McManus explain himself to her

The Worcester Telegram & Gazette is reporting that:

"Two national religious organizations today will formally ask Bishop Robert J. McManus to reinstate Victoria Reggie Kennedy as the commencement speaker at Anna Maria College.


The small Catholic liberal arts school in Paxton withdrew its invitation last month after the bishop raised concerns with college officials about positions taken by the widow of former U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on abortion, gay marriage, contraception and other social issues of interest to the church.

The school has yet to announce a new speaker.

Representatives of Catholic Democrats are expected to deliver a petition to the chancery on Elm Street requesting the bishop to reverse his decision. The petition has about 20,000 online signatures.

The petition drive was organized by Faithful America, an online interfaith organization concerned with moral and social justice issues.

'We’re glad to receive the petition, but I can’t comment on it since I haven’t seen it,' said Raymond L. Delisle, the diocesan spokesman.

Those scheduled to deliver the petition include Steven D. Krueger, the national director of Catholic Democrats; Maureen McCullough, an Anna Maria alumnus, and George Shea of Uxbridge, who worked for Mr. Kennedy in his 1994 re-election bid.

Petition organizers charge that the bishop has associated Mrs. Kennedy with political and social organizations that promote points of view that are contrary to fundamental church teachings, but they said he has not substantiated those claims.

They said the bishop — through two intermediaries — has declined to speak to Mrs. Kennedy to explain his opposition.

Mr. Krueger said Bishop McManus’ action is just another example of a political tilt to the right by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

'This issue affects the public square beyond the Diocese of Worcester,' said Mr. Krueger. 'Basically, she’s not being allowed to speak because her last name is Kennedy.'"

Got that?  Supporters of Victoria Kennedy, angry that Bishop Robert McManus will not permit her to speak at a Catholic college, are demanding that he explain himself to Ms. Kennedy.  Now popes and bishops serve God's revealed word, which they are commissioned to hand on (see Lumen Gentium, No. 25 and Dei Verbum, No. 10).  Their teaching is not their own.  Rather it is a teaching which has been received from the Lord and which they must guard as inviolable and expound with fidelity.  A bishop answers to the Holy Father.  He answers to God.  He does not answer to politicians or certain individuals who happen to have a famous (or infamous) last name.

As the Telegram & Gazette article notes, the petition drive to reinstate Victoria Kennedy as the commencement speaker at Anna Maria College was organized by "Faithful America."  This organization, is anything but faithful.  It is rather, a liberal ultra-leftist organization which supports the radical homosexual agenda.  The organization has referred to the Family Research Council as a "hate group" because of its opposition to the homosexual agenda.  It has also worked with homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, a rabid anti-Catholic bigot, in an effort to get MSNBC to take Family Research Council President Tony Perkins off the air.

A domain registrant search shows that the website for "Faithful America" is maintained by Rev. Jennifer Butler, the Executive Director of Faith in Public Life who has served as the Presbyterian Church (USA) Representative to the United Nations.  Rev. Butler, referring to Catholic Rick Santorum, has said that, "few politicians exhibit greater hostility toward gay and lesbian Americans."  This because he opposes same-sex "marriage."

Should the Bishop pay any attention to a petition organized by Catholophobic individuals who are bent on promoting the radical homosexual agenda and progressive policies which are not consistent with Catholic moral teaching?

Massachusetts officials, anxious to advance the radical homosexual agenda, reject their obligation to seek the truth

Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2 of the Second Vatican Council teaches us that, "It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.."

But some are not interested in this moral obligation to seek the truth, and especially religious truth, and to adhere to it once it is known.  Such people do not want to hear.  They refuse to open their eyes.  They refuse to be converted.  To such people Our Lord issues a stern rebuke: "He who is of God hears the words of God.  The reason why you do not hear is that you are not of God." (John 8:47).

For such people, the first demand of conscience, which is that the truth be honestly sought, is not essential.  For they have a different concept of conscience.  One which Pope Benedict XVI has rejected.  Our Holy Father explains that liberalism's idea of conscience, "...does not mean man's openness to the ground of his being, the power of perception for what is highest and most essential.  Rather, it appears as subjectivity's protective shell, into which man can escape and there hide from reality."  Such a notion of conscience, ".does not open the way to the redemptive road to truth - which either does not exist or, if it does, is too demanding.  It is the faculty that dispenses with truth.  It thereby becomes the justification for subjectivity, which would not like to have itself called into question.  Similarly, it becomes the justification for social conformity...The obligation to seek the truth terminates, as do any doubts about the general inclination of society and what it has become accustomed to.  Being convinced of oneself, as well as conforming to others, is sufficient.  Man is reduced to his superficial conviction.." (Keynote Address of the Tenth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Catholic Conscience: Foundation and Formation," February 1991).

The liberal notion of conscience becomes the justification for subjectivity and becomes the faculty that dispenses with truth.  This erroneous notion of conscience was in evidence in Massachusetts as one official called for those who oppose the homosexual agenda to be banned and another dismissed their concerns as "irrelevant and ignorant."  See here.

It was Noam Chomsky who wrote, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."  Apparently Massachusetts officials such as Jennie Caissie really do not believe in freedom of expression.  Further evidence of the truth that while the Church proposes, the world imposes.

Father Thomas Massaro, Sarav Chidambaram and Gender Neutral Bathrooms

In the comments section of a previous post, Mr. Michael Cole noted how, "Homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals are often afflicted by evil spirits. Gender confusion is often a sign of demonic possession. Fr. Malachi Martin recounts the story of a possessed transsexual in his bestselling book "Hostage to the Devil." In the chapter titled "The Virgin and the Girl-Fixer," he writes, "At one moment, Father Gerald, the exorcist, was bending over the possessed, Richard/Rita, who had sunk his teeth into his own instep. In the next instant, the glaze in Richard/Rita's eyes broke, melting into a lurid gleam of mockery. Greenish. The teeth loosened their grip on the instep. The mouth opened, baring gums and throat, the tongue protruded, quivering on a stream of gray foam bubbles. The whole face was furrowed in irregular lines, as Richard/Rita broke into peals of laughter. Great buffeting gusts of mocking, jeering, Schadenfreude laughter. Laugter pouring from a belly of amused scorn and contemptuous hate." See here.

Gender confusion has led to the push for so-called gender-neutral bathrooms across the United States. Mr. Sarav Chidambaram, a radical homosexual activist who received an award from the Cambridge Peace Commission, of which Father Thomas Massaro of the Boston Archdiocese is a member, has been one of those agitating for gender neutral bathrooms.  See here.

If the Archdiocese of Boston is not advancing a homosexual agenda, why is it tolerating dissent from the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality?  See here.

Related reading here.

Homosexual Agenda: Proposed congressional legislation called "a sexual revolutionary's dream."

In his Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus (on Freemasonry), Pope Leo XIII warned that: "Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.

What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavoured to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract-that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite.

Taking over the education of youth

With the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavours to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many places they have procured that the education of youth shall be exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced into the instructions on morals.

What, therefore, sect of the Freemasons is, and what course it pursues, appears sufficiently from the summary We have briefly given. Their chief dogmas are so greatly and manifestly at variance with reason that nothing can be more perverse. To wish to destroy the religion and the Church which God Himself has established, and whose perpetuity He insures by His protection, and to bring back after a lapse of eighteen centuries the manners and customs of the pagans, is signal folly and audacious impiety. Neither is it less horrible nor more tolerable that they should repudiate the benefits which Jesus Christ so mercifully obtained, not only for individuals, but also for the family and for civil society, benefits which, even according to the judgment and testimony of enemies of Christianity, are very great. In this insane and wicked endeavor we may almost see the implacable hatred and spirit of revenge with which Satan himself is inflamed against Jesus Christ.

So also the studious endeavour of the Freemasons to destroy the chief foundations of justice and honesty, and to co-operate with those who would wish, as if they were mere animals, to do what they please, tends only to the ignominious and disgraceful ruin of the human race. The evil, too, is increased by the dangers which threaten both domestic and civil society. As We have elsewhere shown, in marriage, according to the belief of almost every nation, there is something sacred and religious; and the law of God has determined that marriages shall not be dissolved. If they are deprived of their sacred character, and made dissoluble, trouble and confusion in the family will be the result, the wife being deprived of her dignity and the children left without protection as to their interests and well being.

To have in public matters no care for religion, and in the arrangement and administration of civil affairs to have no more regard for God than if He did not exist, is a rashness unknown to the very pagans; for in their heart and soul the notion of a divinity and the need of public religion were so firmly fixed that they would have thought it easier to have city without foundation than a city without God. Human society, indeed for which by nature we are formed, has been constituted by God the Author of nature; and from Him, as from their principle and source, flow in all their strength and permanence the countless benefits with which society abounds. As we are each of us admonished by the very voice of nature to worship God in piety and holiness, as the Giver unto us of life and of all that is good therein, so also and for the same reason, nations and States are bound to worship Him; and therefore it is clear that those who would absolve society from all religious duty act not only unjustly but also with ignorance and folly."

Most people today have become so desensitized that they are incapable of seeing just how far this masonic agenda has advanced. The movement to eradicate Christianity is accelerating. Masonry, if it is to prepare the way for the Man of Sin, must concentrate its attacks on the one institution which stands in its way: the Holy Roman Catholic Church. After more than two thousand years of Christian history, the charge levelled against Christians by the pagan historian Tacitus is being revived: The Christians are the enemies of the human race. (Annals, XV, 44).

The new humanitarian religion of Antichrist must institute its own cult, ministers and temples which will be filled with its own faithful who have replaced the hope for Heaven with the idols of humanity, fertility, maternity and virility as surely as the Greco-Romans worshiped the statues of Venus and Apollo. Already we are witnessing an increasing hatred for the Crucifix*. As Romano Guardini warned so long ago: "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence witout Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supported by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."

* See here and here.

Erit enim tempus.