A cleric who engages in sexual misconduct with a minor is not "venerable" Pope Leo XIV

 As explained here:

"A 'missionary' bishop made 'Venerable'* and green-lighted for the beatification process by Pope Leo XIV allowed indigenous youth to touch his genitals and shared a bed naked with a youth who had previously made “provocative homosexual attempts,” recently published reports show.

In May 2025, Leo declared Msgr. Alejandro Labaka 'Venerable' along with Sr. Inés Arango Velásquez, with whom he worked. InfoCatolica recently highlighted concerning passages in Labaka’s autobiographical writings in which the bishop recounted his observations of disordered sexual practices of the Huaorani people in the Amazon. Of particular concern is one time when he admittedly allowed the indigenous youth to arouse him.

He recounted in the Huaorani Chronicle, according to InfoCatólica:

The young people were more playful than ever, abound in words and signs that figured the union of sexes, allowing touches on the genitals. This time they especially bothered me, until confirming with uproar that male reactions are identical between us and the Huaorani. In any case, they did not insist either with me or among themselves in a way that pollution occurred. I tried not to make any drama and made an effort to act with naturalness, laugh with them and dissuade them from the game (CH, 146).

This incident was facilitated by the fact Labaka habitually lived nude with the Huaorani, in order to 'adapt' to their culture. As he explained in the Huaorani Chronicle, “They lived naked and I too was often naked like them.” Instead of approaching their nudism from the point of view of Catholic teaching, which understands clothing to be a necessary safeguard following original sin, Labaka claimed that the Huaorani did not need clothes in their “natural morality.”

“Blessed nudism of the Huaorani, who do not need cloths to safeguard their norms of natural morality!” Labaka wrote. “God has wanted to preserve in this people the way of life, the natural morality as in Paradise before sin,” he claimed, even going so far as to call the Huaorani’s culture as one of “extraordinary sexual maturity.”

This claim that the Huaorani did “not need” clothing and lived a “morality as in Paradise before sin” is at odds with Labaka’s description of the youth’s regular, disordered sexual experimentation. He recalled in the Huaorani Chronicle:

I observed the ease, or rather the almost generalized practice as something ritual, of getting excited among males frequently … in addition to other homosexual-looking games in their long family gatherings … Starting from their reality required me to bathe with them or like them, or in the sight of young people and children, with complete naturalness; intentionally performing the full grooming of an adult male; allowing to satisfy the natural curiosity to touch and see in what they see us different.

Labaka also admitted to “lying down naked” in bed with a youth who he said had previously made homosexual advances.

“Peigo (a young Huaorani) stayed, apparently, without a hammock and approached my bed. On previous days I had rejected him, for I feared him because of his gestures and provocative homosexual attempts. This time I had another understanding of ‘accept everything, except sin’ and I shared the bed lying down naked under the same mosquito net,” wrote the bishop.

Father Dave Nix ripped Labaka for allowing the youth to touch his genitals in a repost of Chris Jackson’s commentary on Pope Leo’s elevation of Labaka via the canonization process.

“Anytime there is genital contact between an adult and a child, the adult is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the predator, even if he acts coy like this pervert,” Nix wrote.

Jackson observed, “The duty to avoid scandal does not dissolve because a culture has different customs. A missionary can learn a language, eat what is set before him, sleep in a hut, accept poverty, accept danger, accept martyrdom. He does not get to sanctify conditions that predictably invite sexual sin, especially in the presence of the young.”

Under the current Code of Canon Law (specifically revised in 2021, Canon 1398), a cleric who engages in sexual misconduct with a minor (under 18) commits a severe crime against the sacrament and human dignity. Such actions are punishable by dismissal from the clerical state (laicization) and other penalties, with consent being irrelevant. 

Key aspects of Canon Law regarding clerical sexual abuse of minors:

Definition of a Minor: A minor is defined as any person under 18 years of age.

The Offense: Canon 1398 §1 dictates that a cleric is to be punished with removal from office and other penalties, including dismissal, if they commit a sexual act with a minor, groom them, or produce pornography.

Irrelevance of Consent/Age: The minor’s consent, or their initiation of the act, does not mitigate the offense. Recent updates in 2021 removed loopholes where clerics claimed they did not know the victim was a minor.

Punishment: The "just penalties" often include permanent removal from ministry and dismissal from the clerical state.

Reporting: Dioceses are required to have procedures for reporting to civil authorities, cooperating with investigations, and providing pastoral care to victims. 

This is the Church in crisis under Leo XIV. A church where heresy has a home and clerics who allow boys to fondle their genitals and sexually arouse them may be declared "Venerable" and potentially raised to the

altars as canonized Saints.

The counterfeit Church within the Church has been erected. Enter the Antichrist. 

* See here

The Francis legacy in Argentina

From The American Spectator:

"My principal purpose in visiting Buenos Aires is to learn about its not-so-favorite son, Jorge Bergoglio, who still hasn’t visited Argentina since becoming Pope Francis. During my first few days here, I asked every Catholic I met to explain that anomaly. I got some blunt and brutal answers.

'We all know he is a son of a bitch,' said a former prosecutor to me. 'We are ashamed of him. He represents our worst qualities.'

His friend chipped in that Catholics consider Francis 'to be a fake, a make-believe pope,' not to mention, he added, an uncultured, ill-mannered flake.

The former prosecutor oozed contempt for Francis: 'He knows nothing — not morals, not theology, not history. Nothing. Only power interests him.'

The description of Pope Francis as a power-mad ideologue is very widespread, I am finding. I spoke at length with Antonio Caponnetto, who is the Argentine author of several books on Pope Francis. 'At seminary, his classmates called him ‘Machiavelli,’ ' he noted."

The Francis effect here.

Sociopathic?  See here.

The Sons of Belial have their own priorities: Ignore the Culture of Sodomy and Dissent while condemning devout Catholics

The culture of lies, deceit and corruption throughout the Church continues to anger authentic Catholics. Christopher Mannion notes that, "In recent days, as California was rocked by a magnitude 7 earthquake, the Vatican and America’s Catholic hierarchy were inundated by an avalanche of their own.

For a year after the McCarrick scandal broke, prelates here and in Rome had managed to preserve a semblance of credibility, adorned with trappings of a synod and new laws and earnest promises. But within the past fortnight, the rickety stonewall of coverup and omertà crumbled with increasing speed.

On July 3, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, shared new charges with LifeSiteNews. They are troubling indeed.

'Not only is Pope Francis doing close to nothing to punish those who have committed abuse,' Viganò writes, 'he is doing absolutely nothing to expose and bring to justice those who have, for decades, facilitated and covered up the abusers.'"

No, Francis has his own priorities which include condemning materialism while overlooking filth, perversion and sexual abuse, see here or condemning devout Catholics who want doctrinal clarity (see here) while looking the other way when it comes to the Cult of Softness (see here) and Sodomy within the Church.

That's the thing with Modernist counterfeit Catholics; they have all the love in the world for those who engage in sodomy or who misrepresent the teaching of the Church, but have nothing but contempt for those of us who actually adhere to Catholic moral teaching while maintaining a devotion to the Immaculata.

For example, I was banned from the Facebook Page of Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts (where I attend Mass) because of my commitment to the Church's perennial teaching as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  But the same Facebook Page promoted Father Jonathan Morris, who has misrepresented Catholic teaching and who has since left the priesthood.

Now I could care less about the Facebook Page of Saint Mary's.  Nobody reads the thing anyway.  I get more visitors in five minutes than that page does in an entire month.

But it shows the enmity (see here) these sons of Belial have for authentic Catholics. Make no mistake about it.  This enmity will continue to grow until Christ returns as Saint Louis de Montfort has warned.

Arm yourself with your Rosary and continue to stand against those modern-day Judases within.

Dr. Richard Sipe and the systemic homosexual problem within the Catholic Church

A letter written by Dr. Richard Sipe to San Diego Bishop McElroy highlights just how depraved clerical culture has become throughout the Catholic Church in the United States (and beyond).

This letter, unlike the Francis style approach with its false compassion, is imbued with authentic compassion.

Pope Saint Pius X, in his 1910 Catechism, teaches us that sodomy ranks second in gravity to voluntary homicide, among the sins that "cry out to God for vengeance." According to this Catechism, these sins "are said to cry out to God because the Holy Spirit says so and because their iniquity is so grave and manifest that it provokes God to punish with more severe chastisements."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church published by the Vatican in 1994 teaches clearly that homosexuality is contrary to nature and that homosexual acts are among the "sins gravely contrary to chastity." (CCC, 2396). This Catechism teaches that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," "contrary to the natural law," and that "under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC, 2357).

There are those within the Church, both priests and laity, who would have us believe that Christian "compassion" for homosexual persons should leave such individuals comfortable in their sin.


Now while it is true that everything must be done to help sinners, this cannot include helping them to sin or to remain in sin. Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).

It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such "compassion" provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains:

"We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).

An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains:

"'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49, which may be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1401.htm).

Homosexual behavior is now a systemic problem within the Church.  I've been writing about this since 1991.  And I have been dismissed, mocked and ridiculed during those nearly 30 years.

Few are mocking any longer.

Building Sodomy Church under Francis...

From The American Catholic:


"It should always be recalled that a large part of the impetus behind Pope Francis and his attempt to transform the Catholic Church into an Episcopal Church with worse music is the Lavender Mafia.  One of the poster children for the Lavender Mafia is Father James Martin, SJ.  Liturgy Guy connects the dots:

With each passing week the pace quickens. The revolutionaries continue to grow more emboldened. There is no time to lose. For those who wish to remake the Church in the image of fallen Man, instead of defending the immutable Truth of Our Risen Lord,  the time is now.

With every new tweet to his 125,000 followers on Twitter, or every pro-LGBT article shared to his half a million Facebook followers, Fr. James Martin, S.J. ups the ante. The rogue Jesuit (which might be redundant), described by some as a wolf in sheeps clothing (or Roman collar), has apparently made it his personal mission to change the faith of our fathers.

As I’ve written about  before, Fr. Martin’s latest effort is Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity (Harper Collins, 2017). The book is interesting enough for the simple fact that it largely comes from an address Fr. Martin gave to New Ways Ministry in October of last year.

**********************************************

What is different now from the past, however, is Rome itself. Leading the defense of orthodoxy and doctrinal clarity back then was Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. While Fr. Robert Nugent and Sr. Jeannine Gramick could spread their errors and ambiguities, they did so with the condemnation of the Holy See. That is not the case with Pope Francis."

In fact, Francis the Freemason has said that "The Catholic Church should not dismiss out of hand civil unions, but should study them" and that, "the issue of gay marriage should be studied and not dismissed out-of-hand.."

Francis should be dismissed.  His words come not from the Holy Spirit, but from the Father of Lies (John 8:44).

The sin of homosexuality, [and here we are speaking of homosexual acts] is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.  Saint Peter, our first Pope, in his Second Epistle, says:

"And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, God condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should afterwards act wickedly.  And he delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked." (2 Peter 2: 6-7).

The sin of homosexuality has been condemned by Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and by the Popes, for 2,000 years.  And with good reason, Saint Peter Damian [himself a Doctor of the Church] explains that the sin "should not be considered an ordinary vice, for it surpasses all of them in enormity." (The Book of Gomorrah).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'" (2357).  Which is why, in his 1994 Angelus Address, protesting against a special resolution crafted by the European Parliament encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II said that, "What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts.  To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)...

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder.  Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family."

But Francis has implied that respect for homosexual persons, which should consist of an authentic charity which shows them the unnatural lie they have embraced and that they should view with horror the sin in which they find themselves, might mean changing the Church's teaching.

The Church teaches otherwise.  The CDF has taught authoritatively that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.  Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4).

Pray for the Church.  That she may be delivered from the devils within who desire to build a false Church consecrated to Lucifer which fully embraces the plague of filthy sodomite sexual acts.

Satanism and sodomy in the Vatican..

Ann Barnhardt writes:


Satanism is real, folks. It isn’t a joke or a “scary story”. It is a very real thing, and it has grown and become more sophisticated over the past century, as one would expect.  Here are just a few things to keep in mind about it.

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF SATANISTS: ATHEISTS AND BELIEVING

Right now in the (former) U.S., there are satanist groups popping up performing rituals, and even doing charitable drives in order to attract attention.  Many of these groups are ATHEISTS who do not believe in the supernatural (God) OR the preternatural (satan, demons, etc.).  They seem to profess the superiority of the individual human will and reject any notion of objective morality.  They tend to talk a lot about “reason”.  Given their error, they tend to descend into sexual perversion and extreme hedonism as a way of manifesting their rebellion and rejection of God.  But they oftentimes openly profess that they themselves do not believe in satan, demons or hell – only in themselves.

But satan and the demons sure enough do believe in them, and these people are very, very firmly in satan’s grasp.  These people are like the daredevils that free-climb skyscrapers, cranes, etc.  They are playing with death and damnation, whether they believe it or not.

The other kind of satanism is people who actually believe in God, and in satan and hell, and freely choose to worship satan, generally in exchange for power, money and sex.  This is the type of satanism that exists in the Vatican, and was written about by Malachi Martin.  Martin’s writings are true, with only the names changed, but in obvious ways.  In fact, there is a key to all of the names in Martin’s books easily available with a simple web search.  For example, the man who ran the Church in the U.S. from the 1960s through the 1990s, Joseph Bernardin, who was a flaming sodomite, child rapist, and a practicing satanist, was codenamed Cardinal Leonardine.  Like I said, thinly veiled.

These “believing satanists” perform “black masses”, which are ceremonies that ape and completely invert the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  These “black masses” are said in Latin, and invert, step by step, the Old Rite.  They begin at the end, and go backward.  They involve murder, rape, or consensual sodomy.  Believing satanists, led by Aleister Crowley and later Anton LeVey, entered the 20th century admitting that their “liturgies” were lacking in precision, and that the Latin used was riddled with errors.  Judging by the parabolic increase in the power and influence of satanists both in the Church and throughout the world over the past few decades, apparently they have recruited Latinists and liturgists to “improve” their evil rites.

These believing satanists are Diabolical Narcissists who are literally at war with God Himself, obviously. Many DNs are attracted to the Church thinking that it will provide them with power, adulation and oftentimes sex.  When their lives don’t turn out as they wanted, when the Church and the world fail to fall at their feet, they actually turn against God Himself.  After all, for a DN, the only  truly worthy adversary is God Himself.  Already devoid of love, already devoid of empathy, already devoid of shame, and almost always highly intelligent, some of these people are identified and recruited by satanists.

Guess where satanists have mainly recruited?  Gay bars.  Joseph Bernardin was recruited out of the Columbia, SC gay bar scene when he was a pre-med undergrad at USC in the late 1940s.

And what gay bar scene has the highest concentration of priests, monks and seminarians?  The ROME gay bar scene. Just sayin’.

The credo of satanism is, “The only sin is not to sin. The only shameful act is to NOT be shameless.”  This is very close to Luther’s cry of “Sin boldly!” Thus, satanists have a scathing contempt for genuine piety, principled stands, and morality.  I have learned over the past four years that evil people within the Church will always accuse people with morality of being heretics.  So, for example, a sacreligious sodomite in the Church would accuse a person with a firm belief and understanding of the 6th Commandment of being a “Jansenist”, a “Calvinist” or a “Rigorist”.  Does this correlate 100% with satanism? No, of course not, but the roots of this mindset are satanic in origin.

Satanists, because they are DNs, tend to be very intelligent, high-functioning, charming people.  Satanists would never recruit anyone that couldn’t maintain and project an attractive facade of goodness, much less normalcy.  You would never pick a satanist out just walking down the street.  No drooling, no forked tail, no horns, etc. In fact, it tends to be the opposite – satanists are more likely to be desperately charming, resplendent even, at least superficially.

Satanists will always be connected to extreme sexual perversion and sacrilege.  Remember, any sex act with or by a priest, monk, seminarian, or nun is an act of sacrilege, above and beyond the sin of fornication and/or sodomy. So, for example, a faggot layman that cruises for priests and seminarians is committing a graver sin than the secular faggots screwing each other.  Likewise, a woman that fornicates with a priest commits a graver sin than secular faggots that commit sodomy, or secular heterosexuals that fornicate. The sins of sacrilege are sins of irreligion, which are a subset of the FIRST commandment.  The Ten Commandments are ordered and numbered as they are by God for a reason.  Sins against the First Commandment are the most grave.  Remember, the sin of adultery is the SIXTH Commandment.  So satanists, by definition, are gunning to commit the gravest sins possible, of which sacrilegious fornication/sodomy are the most common.  The fact that satanists engage in sacriligious sodomy/fornication as part of their satanic “liturgies” just puts more icing on the satanic cake.

An interesting characteristic of satanists is extreme, rapid worldly and particularly financial success.  I will not be at all surprised if at the General Judgment, when all is revealed, that the spectacularly evil founder of the Legionaries of Christ, a stone-cold racketeering organization, Marcial Maciel, is revealed to have been a satanist.  Why do I say this?  Aside from the fact that the guy was a bisexual incestuous pedophile rapist who flatly rejected Christ on his deathbed, a huge red flag is the staggering financial “success” of the Legion of Christ racketeering organization itself.  In less than 50 years, the Legion of Christ amassed a fortune of more than $30 BILLION.  That’s approaching something the size of General Motors.  The last figures I saw put the Legion of Christ’s annual operating budget at $650 million, with 650 priests.  That a million per priest per year.  Again, that is a simply staggering figure.  Given the fact that the founder and the upper echelon of the Legion of Christ racketeering cult was almost totally populated by DN psychopath sacriligious fornicators and sodomites, many of whom were child molesters, and ruined so many lives of young people drawn into its cult, it certainly gives one pause.

Another key characteristic of satanists is an overall comportment of untouchability.  They tend to commit crimes and scandals somewhat openly, operating as if they KNOW that they are protected and no one can or will touch them.  We see this in the Church, politics, finance and the entertainment industry.  Now, this can certainly be a characteristic of Diabolical Narcissism, but it also, in context, can point to possible satanism.  People involved in satanism are the epitome of an elitist clique.  Satanists protect and advance each other.  They are the ultimate mafia.  They are all about power, of which money and sex are both subsets. And, it is true that preternatural forces sometimes come into play and facilitate or enable these people’s crimes.  Satan wants these people to “succeed” in dragging more souls into hell.  Again, we need to keep reminding ourselves that satan and the demons are real, and there are preternatural forces in the world.

Now, don’t go accusing every malefactor of being a satanist, just as one shouldn’t accuse every malefactor of being a Diabolical Narcissist.  BUT, be aware of these things, especially in the context of what is going on in Rome and the Vatican.  There absolutely are satanists in the Vatican – how many I know not, but I do know that there are a hell of a lot of sacriligious sodomites and people who give every indication of hating God and being at war with Him and His Holy Church.  So, we should be aware of these things and not be caught by surprise.

I hope this helps.  And I hope I never have to write about it again.

Well said Ann.

As Wikipedia explains, "Albert Pike, (December 29, 1809–April 2, 1891) was an attorney, Confederate officer, writer, and Freemason. Pike is the only Confederate military officer or figure to be honored with an outdoor statue in Washington, D.C. (in Judiciary Square) mostly due to his masonic connection with President Andrew Johnson, who pardoned Pike for treason after the American Civil War."

Pike would become one of Freemasonry's leading voices.  It was Albert Pike, quoted in A.C. de la Rive: La Femme et L'Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, p. 588, who said that: "To the crowd me must say: we worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition.  To you, Soverign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees [lower degrees are kept in the dark within Masonry, my note]: all of us initiates of the high degrees should maintain the Masonic religion in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine.  If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay, the God of the Christians, whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, his barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him?  Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God...religious philosophy in its purity and truth consists in the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay."

In his book Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, published in 1871, Pike alluded to the Luciferic initiations within Freemasonry, suggesting that Masons engage in homosexual oral sex and homosexual orgies.  He wrote, "To the Initiates in the Mysteries of Eleusis was exhibited the spectacle of these two principles, in the successive scenes of Darkness and Light which passed before their eyes. To the profoundest darkness, accompanied with illusions and horrid phantoms, succeeded the most brilliant light, whose splendor blazed round the statue of the Goddess. The candidate, says Dion Chrysostomus, passed into a mysterious temple, of astonishing magnitude and beauty, where were exhibited to him many mystic scenes; where his ears were stunned with many voices; and where Darkness and Light successively passed before him. And Themistius in like manner describes the Initiate, when about to enter into that part of the sanctuary tenanted by the Goddess, as filled with fear and religious awe, wavering, uncertain in what direction to advance through the profound darkness that envelopes him. But when the Hierophant has opened the entrance to the inmost sanctuary, and removed the robe that hides the Goddess, he exhibits her to the Initiate, resplendent with divine light. The thick shadow and gloomy atmosphere which had environed the candidate vanish; he is filled with a vivid and glowing enthusiasm, that lifts his soul out of the profound dejection in which it was plunged; and the purest light succeeds to the thickest darkness.

In a fragment of the same writer, preserved by Stobæus, we learn that the Initiate, up to the moment when his initiation is to be consummated, is alarmed by every kind of sight: that astonishment and terror take his soul captive; he trembles; cold sweat flows from his body; until the moment when the Light is shown him,--a most astounding Light,--the brilliant scene of Elysium, where he sees charming meadows overarched by a clear sky, and festivals celebrated by dances; where he hears harmonious voices, and the majestic chants of the Hierophants; and views the sacred spectacles. Then, absolutely free, and enfranchised from the dominion of all ills, he mingles with the crowd of Initiates, and, crowned with flowers, celebrates with them the holy orgies, in the brilliant realms of ether, and the dwelling-place of Ormuzd." (p. 403, see also p. 427).


On page 393 of his Luciferic treatise, Pike writes, "The human soul is itself δαιμονιος a God within the mind, capable through its own power of rivalling the canonization of the Hero, of making itself immortal by the practice of the good, and the contemplation of the beautiful and true. The removal to the Happy Islands could only be understood mythically; everything earthly must die; Man, like Œdipus, is wounded from his birth, his real elysium can exist only beyond the grave. Dionusos died and descended to the shades. His passion was the great Secret of the Mysteries; as Death is the Grand Mystery of existence. His death, typical of Nature's Death, or of her periodical decay and restoration, was one of the many symbols of the palingenesia or second birth of man.


Man descended from the elemental Forces or Titans [Elohim], who fed on the body of the Pantheistic Deity creating the Universe by self-sacrifice, commemorates in sacramental observance this mysterious passion; and while partaking of the raw flesh of the victim, seems to be invigorated by a fresh draught from the fountain of universal life, to receive a new pledge of regenerated existence. Death is the inseparable antecedent of life; the seed dies in order to produce the plant, and earth itself is rent asunder and dies at the birth of Dionusos. Hence the significancy of the phallus, or of its inoffensive substitute, the obelisk, rising as an emblem of resurrection by the tomb of buried Deity at Lerna or at Sais."*  Elsewhere in his book, he explains that the initiate "commemorates in sacramental observance this mysterious passion."  In other words, the initiate engages in homosexual oral sex to commemorate "this mysterious passion."

The ultimate goal of Masonry is to convert the world to Lucifer.  But the Catholic Church stands in its way.  Which is why Masonry has infiltrated the Church.  To attempt to destroy her from within.  On June 3, 1989, Our Lady told Father Stefano Gobbi:

“Beloved sons, today you are gathered in cenacles of prayer to celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of your heavenly Mother. From every part of the world I have called you to consecrate yourselves to my Immaculate Heart, and you have responded with filial love and generosity. I have now formed for myself my army, with those children who have accepted my request and have listened to my voice.


The time has come when my Immaculate Heart must be glorified by the Church and by all humanity because, in these times of the apostasy, of the purification and of the great tribulation, my Immaculate Heart is the only refuge and the way which leads you to the God of salvation and of peace. Above all, my Immaculate Heart becomes today the sign of my sure victory, in the great struggle which is being fought out between the followers of the huge Red Dragon and the followers of the Woman Clothed with the Sun.

In this terrible struggle, there comes up from the sea, to the aid of the Dragon, a beast like a leopard. If the Red Dragon is Marxist atheism, the black beast is Freemasonry. The Dragon manifests himself in the force of his power; the black beast on the other hand acts in the shadow, keeps out of sight and hides himself in such a way as to enter in everywhere. He has the claws of a bear and the mouth of a lion, because he works everywhere with cunning and with the means of social communication, that is to say, through propaganda. The seven heads indicate the various Masonic lodges, which act everywhere in a subtle and dangerous way.

This black beast has ten horns and, on the horns, ten crowns, which are signs of dominion and royalty. Masonry rules and governs throughout the whole world by means of the ten horns. The horn, in the biblical world, has always been an instrument of amplification, a way of making one's voice better heard, a strong means of communication.

For this reason, God communicated his will to his people by means of ten horns which made his law known: the ten commandments. The one who accepts them and observes them walks in life along the road of the divine will, of joy and of peace. The one who does the will of the Father accepts the word of his Son and shares in the redemption accomplished by Him. Jesus gives to souls the very divine life, through grace, that He won for us through his sacrifice carried out on Calvary.

The grace of the redemption is communicated by means of the seven sacraments. With grace there becomes implanted in the soul the seeds of supernatural life which are the virtues. Among these, the most important are the three theological and the four cardinal virtues: faith, hope, charity, prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance. In the divine sun of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, these virtues germinate, grow, becomes more and more developed and thus lead the soul along the luminous way of love and of sanctity.

The aim of Masonry: blaspheming God

The task of the black beast, namely of Masonry, is that of fighting, in a subtle way, but tenaciously, to obstruct souls from traveling along this way, pointed out by the Father and the Son and lighted up by the gifts of the Spirit. In fact if the Red Dragon works to bring all humanity to do without God, to the denial of God, and therefore spreads the error of atheism, the aim of Masonry is not to deny God, but to blaspheme Him. The beast opens his mouth to utter blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name and his dwelling place, and against all those who dwell in heaven. The greatest blasphemy is that of denying the worship due to God alone by giving it to creatures and to Satan himself. This is why in these times, behind the perverse action of Freemasonry, there are being spread everywhere black masses and the satanic cult. Moreover Masonic acts, by every means, to prevent souls from being saved and thus it endeavors to bring to nothing the redemption accomplished by Christ.

If the Lord has communicated his law with the ten commandments, Freemasonry spreads everywhere, through the power of its ten horns, a law which is completely opposed to that of God.

To the commandment of the Lord: “You shall not have any other God but me,” it builds other false idols, before which many today prostrate themselves in adoration.

To the commandment : “You shall not take the name of God in vain,” it sets itself up in opposition by blaspheming God and his Christ, in many subtle and diabolical ways, even to reducing his Name indecorously to the level of a brand-name of an object of sale and of producing sacrilegious films concerning his life and his divine Person.

To the commandment: “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day,” it transforms the Sunday into a weekend, into a day of sports, of competitions and of entertainments.

To the commandment: “Honor your father and your mother,” it proposes a new model of family based on cohabitation, even between homosexuals.**

To the commandment: “You shall not commit impure acts,” it justifies, exalts and propagates every form of impurity, even to the justification of acts against nature.

To the commandment: “You shall not kill,” it has succeeded in making abortion legal everywhere, in making euthanasia acceptable, and in causing respect due to the value of human life to all but disappear.

To the commandment: “You shall not steal,” it works to the end that theft, violence, kidnapping and robbery spread more and more.

To the commandment: “You shall not bear false witness,” it acts in such a way that the law of deceit, lying and duplicity becomes more and more propagated.

To the commandment: “You shall not covet the goods and the wife of another,” it works to corrupt in the depths of the conscience, betraying the mind and the heart of man.

In this way souls become driven along the perverse and wicked road of disobedience to the laws of the Lord, become submerged in sin and are thus prevented from receiving the gift of grace and of the life of God.

To the seven theological and cardinal virtues, which are the fruit of living in the grace of God, Freemasonry counters with the diffusion of the seven capital vices, which are the fruit of living habitually in the state of sin. To faith it opposes pride; to hope, lust; to charity, avarice; to prudence, anger; to fortitude, sloth; to justice, envy; to temperance, gluttony.

Whoever becomes a victim of the seven capital vices is gradually led to take away the worship that is due to God alone, in order to give it to false divinities, who are the very personification of all these vices. And in this consists the greatest and most horrible blasphemy. This is why on every head of the beats there is written a blasphemous name. Each Masonic lodge has the task of making a different divinity adored.

The first head bears the blasphemous name of pride, which opposes itself to the virtue of faith, and leads one to offer worship to the god of human reason and haughtiness, of technology and progress.

The second head bears the blasphemous name of lust, which opposes itself to the virtue of hope, and brings one to offer worship to the god of sexuality and of impurity.

The third head bears the blasphemous name of avarice, which opposes itself to the virtue of charity, and spreads everywhere the worship of the god of money.

The fourth head bears the blasphemous name of anger, which opposes itself to the virtue of prudence, and leads one to offer worship to the god of discord and division.

The fifth head bears the blasphemous name of sloth, which opposes itself to the virtue of fortitude, and disseminates the worship of the idol of fear of public opinion and of exploitation.

The sixth head bears the blasphemous name of envy, which opposes itself to the virtue of justice, and leads one to offer worship to the idol of violence and of war.

The seventh head beats the blasphemous name of gluttony, which opposes itself to the virtue of temperance, and leads one to offer worship to the so highly extolled idol of hedonism, of materialism and of pleasure.

The task of the Masonic lodges is that of working today, with great astuteness, to bring humanity everywhere to disdain the holy law of God, to work in open opposition to the ten commandments, and to take away the worship due to God alone in order to offer it to certain false idols which become extolled and adored by an ever increasing number of people: reason ,flesh, money, discord, domination, violence, pleasure. Thus souls are precipitated into the dark slavery of evil, of vice and of sin and, at the moment of death and of the judgment of God, into the pool of eternal fire which is hell.

Now you understand how, in these times, against the terrible and insidious attack of the black beast, namely of Masonry, my Immaculate Heart becomes your refuge and the sure road which brings you to God. In my Immaculate Heart there is delineated the tactic made use of by your heavenly Mother, to fight back against and to defeat the subtle plot made use of by the black beast.

For this reason I am training all my children to observe the ten commandments of God; to live the Gospel to the letter; to make frequent use of the sacraments, especially those of penance and eucharistic communion, as necessary helps in order to remain in the grace of God; to practice the virtues vigorously; to walk away along the path of goodness, of love, of purity and of holiness.

Thus I am making use of you, my little children who have consecrated yourselves to me, to unmask all these subtle snares which the black beast sets for you and to make futile in the end the great attack which Masonry has launched today against Christ and his Church. And in the end, especially in his greatest defeat, there will appear in all its splendor, the triumph of my Immaculate Heart in the world.”

The Cult of Softness and the "Francis effect"

We need priests and Bishops who fear God more than they do men.  Cowards will not lead us out of the valley of death.  Neither will homosexual or effeminate clerics who cannot relate to men.

Only shepherds who have the spiritual strength, the Cardinal Gift of Fortitude, to brave the risk of worldly criticism, will be able to lead the Catholic Church out of the valley of the Culture of Death and back on the road to the Civilization of Love which Pope John Paul II spoke of so often.

Why have so many priests succumbed to fear?  Why is it that their preaching no longer points out sin?  Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange provides us with an answer:

"The reason for this is not difficult to find.  A sermon is the result of the combined effort of all the priest's powers; it reveals his entire person; it is his struggle against the vices of the surrounding world."  In other words, if the preaching is unsound, it is because the priest's spiritual life is unsound.  Fr. Lagrange continues, "Everything in the priest cooperates in his preaching - study, reflection, his powers to compose and revise, the activity of his intellect, his imagination, his memory, his feelings, his voice.  Therefore, when he preaches, the priest stands exposed for all to study; some will be attracted, others will not.  Some will accept what he says, others will simply criticize.  So if the priest approaches his task from the human angle, he will say to himself: 'I cannot afford to lose my reputation; people of weight in the parish who take offense easily must be spared their feelings and not provoked; I must proceed warily so as not to incur criticism.'  In that way Christian eloquence is invaded by a profane eloquence in which the preacher looks after his own interests, not the glory of God or the saving of souls." (The Priest In Union With Christ, p. 156).

The Cult of Softness (see here) continues to produce only rot within the Church.

The New York Times has confirmed what devout Catholics already know, that the "Francis effect" is a myth:

"...are Catholics actually coming back? In the United States, at least, it hasn’t happened. New survey findings from Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate suggest that there has been no Francis effect — at least, no positive one.

In 2008, 23 percent of American Catholics attended Mass each week. Eight years later, weekly Mass attendance has held steady or marginally declined, at 22 percent.

Of course, the United States is only one part of a global church. But the researchers at Georgetown found that certain types of religious observance are weaker now among young Catholics than they were under Benedict. 

In 2008, 50 percent of millennials reported receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday, and 46 percent said they made some sacrifice beyond abstaining from meat on Fridays. This year, only 41 percent reported receiving ashes and only 36 percent said they made an extra sacrifice, according to CARA. 

In spite of Francis’ personal popularity, young people seem to be drifting away from the faith."

Young people are naturally idealistic. They want to be challenged.  They need to be challenged with the hard demands of the Gospel, with the truth.

But Francis offers only a non-dogmatic, Cotton-Candy Catholicism.  A sacharrin "gospel" which appeals to worldly types but which is short on substance.  And while more and more youth are abandoning the Church, rather than placing an emphasis on doctrinal truths, Francis offers unsound teaching and meets with people like Simon Cazal, a homosexual activist who claims to be married to another man while demanding that the Church founded by Christ Jesus change its teaching on homosexuality to accommodate the New Sodom.  See here.

The Cult of Softness has failed.  But Francis cannot steel himself to admit this.  He has succumbed to an alien ideology.  He has decided to genuflect before the spirit of Sodom while this demonic spirit continues to wreak havoc within an already devastated vineyard.  See here.

Father Peter Naranjo, Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts on Twitter:

Did Hillary Clinton have another seizure or is something else going on? Is she devil possessed?

World Net Daily reports: "Hillary Clinton, who’s been plagued by health issues in recent months, apparently has another to deal with now.

A July 21 video posted on YouTube shows Clinton’s head suddenly turning and shaking vigorously for several seconds.

Blogger Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit headline it: 'Wow! Did Hillary Clinton Just Suffer a Seizure on Camera?'

'The poor woman is in worse shape than we thought,' he wrote.

In the video, Clinton’s eyes close then open and stare, but she never loses her huge smile.

She says, 'You guys have got to try this cold [drink].'

It’s not the first time health issues have arisen."

But can we be sure that Hillary Clinton is merely suffering from "health issues"?  It is my firm belief that Hillary Clinton is either demon infested or possessed by devils and that her angry speeches (screaming into a microphone as Hitler did in his speeches), her persistent cough, and her seizure-like activity, is evidence of demonic activity. See here.

Hillary Clinton has been living apart from God for her entire adult life.  Her support for abortion and sodomy, Same-Sex "Marriage," and contraception and her personal lifestyle have opened her up to demonic activity. And we are witnessing physical manifestations of this evil.

Clerical abuse in the United States alone has cost more than three billion dollars

CatholicCulture.org reports:

"The clerical abuse scandal cost American dioceses and religious orders $141,283,794 between mid-2014 and mid-2015, according to a report released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).


67% those funds were allotted to settlements ($87.1 million) and therapy for abuse victims ($8.8 million). The remaining funds were spent on attorneys’ fees ($30.1 million), support for offenders ($11.5 million), and other costs ($3.8 million), according to the 2015 “Report on the Implementation of the Charter for Protection of Children and Young People.”

These expenses brought the total cost of the clerical abuse scandal to American dioceses and religious institutes between 2004 and mid-2015 to $3,036,913,024, according to the data in the current report and previous reports. That figure does not include expenses incurred in lawsuits that were settled prior to 2004..."

More than three billion dollars spent on sexual abuse lawsuits and settlements in the United States alone.  Tragic. Imagine the good that could have been done with all that money.  Instead of closing Churches and Catholic schools, we could have been building them. Money that could have been spent on evangelization and building up God's Kingdom here on earth spent instead on the damage inflicted by [for the Most part] homosexual clerics who never should have been ordained in the first place.

This culture of sodomy has made extensive inroads into the Church. For nearly 25 years I've been calling on the Church to address the homosexual problem amongst the clergy.

When Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz proposed "Amendment 27" to his brothers in the Episcopate - stipulating that the "current homosexual culture" was the root cause of the sex abuse crisis - his proposal was rejected on a voice vote.

Father Charles Fiore, a Catholic priest who has fought the homosexual subculture in the Church for years, once said, "the grand taboo in U.S. culture is to focus on homosexuality."

Can we afford not to address this taboo any longer?  Especially since the greater cost comes in the form of shattered lives and damaged souls created in the Imago Dei?

Year of mercy?  Give me a break!

Three billion dollars!  Dear Jesus, mercy.


Graph depicting the homosexual nature of most abuse cases courtesy of Renew America.

Cardinal Dolan celebrates homosexuals

Cardinal Dolan is celebrating homosexuals marching in the Saint Patrick's Day Parade.  This comes as no surprise.  Church Militant notes how, "Sources from within the New York archdiocese are revealing that a corrupt homosexual network reaches into the top ranks of the New York archdiocese, involving the priest personnel office, the communications director, the vicar general, and even the former archbishop of Baltimore, Cdl. Edwin O'Brien — and that Cdl. Timothy Dolan is aware of much of this and does little to stop it."

Saint Peter Damian, in his Book of Gomorrah, decries the audacity of men who are "habituated to the filth of this festering disease," and who still dare to present themselves for holy orders, or if already ordained, remain in office.

Was it not for such crimes that Almighty God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and slew Onan for deliberately spilling his seed on the ground? he asks.  And then he cites St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 5:5): "... if an unclean man has no inheritance at all in Heaven, how can he be so arrogant as to presume a position of honor in the Church, which is surely the kingdom of God?"  See here.

 Saint Catherine of Siena, a great mystic and Doctor of the Church, fought for reform at a time when many clergy had succumbed to the vice of homosexuality.  In her Dialogues, St. Catherine said that, "...these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility [of a weak nature], but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind as fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are."

Saint Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, a Cardinal and great reformer of the clergy, wrote an entire treatise entitled the Book of Gomorrah against the inroads made by homosexuality among the clergy.  In his important work, St. Damian describes the iniquity of homosexuality as well as its psychological and, more importantly, its moral consequences:

"Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices...It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything.  And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth....The miserable flesh burns with the heat of lust; the cold mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion; and in the heart of the miserable man chaos boils like Tartarus [Hell]....In fact, after this most poisonous serpent once sinks its fangs into the unhappy soul, sense is snatched away, memory is borne off, the sharpness of the mind is obscured.  It becomes unmindful of God and even forgetful of itself.  This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence.  And what more should I say since it expels the whole host of the virtues from the chamber of the human heart and introduces every barbarous vice as if the bolts of the doors were pulled out."

Because the soul en route to Hell has lost faith and is utterly miserable, it seeks company on its journey to final impenitence and, ultimately, eternal damnation.

Such a soul welcomes a parade of filth.

Creighton University underscores a much larger problem within the Catholic Church in the United States...

Matt Lamb notes how, "An analysis by The College Fix of political party registrations among Creighton University’s theology professors found zero registered Republican scholars in the group.

Of the 19 theology professors teaching at the private Catholic university in Omaha, Neb., there are 13 registered Democrats, one is registered as nonpartisan, and the remaining five scholars’ party affiliations could not be determined using the state’s online database of voter registration data.

What’s more, the finding underscores a larger trend identified across the entire university. Of the 295 scholars looked up in the voter registration database, 41 percent of Creighton’s professors are Democrat, 15 percent are Republicans, 16 percent are nonpartisan, and almost 25 percent were not able to be determined.

The undetermined professors either were not registered or did not have easy-to-find registrations. Some professors may have been registered to vote in nearby Iowa as well.

So while the data may be partially incomplete, it illustrates that Democrats heavily dominate teaching positions at the Catholic university."

Does this really surprise anyone? Across the entire country many have witnessed the ugly spectacle of local churches which hold themselves up as Catholic even while prostituting the faith, or at the very least watering down Catholic moral teaching while genuflecting before the world and its Prince.  See here for example.

The Catholic Church in the United States has become way too comfortable with the party of abortion, contraception and sodomy.

Small wonder that so many faithful Catholics are disillusioned.  Those who hold themselves up as Catholic while voting among democratic party lines, are liars.  Catholics in name only.

No one who is sane can claim to be Catholic while advancing the killing of children within the womb or a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

Year of Mercy or Year of Presumption?

Recommended reflection: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2092.

Judge David Bunning: We will not bow down before your false gods

In his Encyclical Letter Annum Sacrum, No. 10, Pope Leo XIII warned that, "In these latter times especially, a policy has been followed which has resulted in a sort of wall being raised between the Church and civil society. In the constitution and administration of States the authority of sacred and divine law is utterly disregarded, with a view to the exclusion of religion from having any constant part in public life. This policy almost tends to the removal of the Christian faith from our midst, and, if that were possible, of the banishment of God Himself from the earth. When men's minds are raised to such a height of insolent pride, what wonder is it that the greater part of the human race should have fallen into such disquiet of mind and be buffeted by waves so rough that no one is suffered to be free from anxiety and peril? When religion is once discarded it follows of necessity that the surest foundations of the public welfare must give way, whilst God, to inflict on His enemies the punishment they so richly deserve, has left them the prey of their own evil desires, so that they give themselves up to their passions and finally wear themselves out by excess of liberty."

This punishment, this chastisement, is in evidence everywhere in the latter times. A judge in Kentucky, drunk with what he perceives as "power," and enamored with himself, holds a Christian woman in "contempt" for not being obedient to an unjust law and for refusing to bow before his ego.

This is, of course, an exercise in complete nonsense and madness. As human beings, we possess only contingent rights, those which have been given to us by God. There can never be a "right" to choose that which is evil. And homosexual acts are evil.

When moral liberty is detached from Natural and Divine Law, it degenerates into license. Pope Leo XIII reminds us in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana that, "Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty semblance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...

Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."

Although a great physical chastisement is coming because of man's rebellion and his rejection of God's Law of Love (John 14: 15), we are already experiencing a moral chastisement. Witness how quickly sodomy, which was a crime in many states, has been legitimized by judicial fabrication into a constitutionally protected form of "liberty."

Such moral blindness is a punishment from God as Saint Paul explains, "The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness...they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While proclaiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man...Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1: 18, 21-25).

Human laws are incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law. This is crystal clear Catholic teaching. There is no room for doubt. All other "laws" are unjust and are, therefore, not laws at all. And Catholics are not bound to obey them. In fact, Catholics have a duty to resist them. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Any law supportive of same-sex 'marriage' is no law at all. This because any law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law. No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good. Laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5)."

In Kentucky a theater of madness is playing out.  And this sick production is, or will be soon, being reenacted all across this nation.  This because there is no shortage of fools who are willing to expose their stupidity for all the world to see.

These fools of darkness are enraged because a Christian remnant, accompanied by other people of good will, simply refuses to worship at the altar of what Pope Benedict XVI rightly referred to as the Dictatorship of Relativism.

We will not adore their false gods.  And this makes them burn with rage.

Ignore Cardinal Donald Wuerl

As noted here:

WASHINGTON — The District’s top Catholic leader has weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

“The law of the land is the law of the land,” says Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl. “We certainly follow what the law says. That doesn’t mean we change the word of God. That doesn’t mean we change the scriptures, or the church’s millennia-long tradition of what marriage is.”

Sodomy is the law of the land?  Sure it is, and I play spin the bottle with Carmen Electra every Friday evening.

And now....sanity.

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear from the teaching of Pope John XXIII, "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse".

This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

Cardinal Wuerl has obviously succumbed to the diabolical disorientation of our time.

Ignore him.

The "Supreme Court's" ruling "legalizing" same-sex "marriage" has no basis in the Constitution

Our Founding Fathers had a healthy respect for Divine Revelation and Natural Law. Homosexual acts were viewed as crimes against nature. Since the Natural Law is immutable, or unchangeable, they still are.

Which is why, as "Supreme Court" Chief Justice John Roberts stressed in his dissenting view over the court's 5-4 ruling "legalizing" same-sex "marriage," "The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent.."

Roberts added in his dissent. "Just who do we think we are?"  See here.

Precisely.

"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:

'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).

"Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.

NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.

CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime.

GEORGIA

That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years.

MAINE

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor.

PENNSYLVANIA

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods.

SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death."

Pope Francis appointee endorses sacrilege

Father Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., who was recently appointed as a Consultor to the Vatican by the Pope, referring to homosexual acts, has said that: "We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift."  See here.

The Holy Spirit, speaking to us through Saint Paul, tells us that sacrilege, which is adultery, when it comes in the form of betraying the marital union with Christ through unfaithful reception of the Eucharist, renders the faithless one, "guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27).

In Chapter 3 of his classic work entitled, "Jesus, Our Eucharistic Love," Father Stefano Manelli writes, "Holy Communion must be received only when one is in the grace of God. Therefore, when one has committed a mortal sin, even if one has repented of it and has a great desire to receive Holy Communion, it is necessary and indispensable to go to Confession first before receiving Holy Communion. Otherwise one commits a most grave sin of sacrilege, for which Jesus said to St. Bridget, 'There does not exist on earth a penalty great enough to punish it sufficiently!'

St. Ambrose said that persons who commit this sacrilege 'come into church with a few sins, and leave it burdened with many.' St. Cyril wrote even more bluntly: 'They who make a sacrilegious Communion receive Satan and Jesus Christ into their hearts—Satan, that they may let him rule, and Jesus Christ, that they may offer Him in a sacrifice as a Victim to Satan.'

Thus the Catechism of the Council of Trent (De Euch., v.i.) declares, 'As of all the sacred mysteries . . . none can compare with the. . . Eucharist, so likewise for no crime is there heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use by the faithful of that which. . . contains the very Author and Source of holiness.'"

Does Pope Francis believe this? If so, why the Radcliffe appointment?

So broad an interpretation of liberty that all manner of perversion will be justified

From Mass Resistance:

Primer: Ten things you need to know about the US Supreme Court “gay marriage” case being heard April 28, 2015

On April 28 the US Supreme Court case will hear oral arguments for the case that will essentially decide whether “gay marriage” is a previously unknown “fundamental right” enshrined in the US Constitution, similar to the Court’s 1973 abortion ruling.

The US Supreme Court building will be ground zero for the latest assault on the nation's culture.

What was once a fringe, unthinkable idea is now on the verge of being imposed on the entire nation.
What is happening? Here are ten things to know about this case:

1. How we got to this point
The popular sentiment against “gay marriage” in the United States has been overwhelmingly one-sided at the ballot box. Since 1998, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it. Some of these amendments were passed by huge margins (as high as 80%). This appeared to everyone to be an insurmountable obstacle to the “gay marriage” movement.
After losing in state after state, the homosexual movement realized that it could never overturn these amendments legitimately. In very blue states, using massive amounts of money, they were able to successfully lobby legislatures and sway elections. But the amendments across the country were a problem.
So they decided to focus on perfecting the strategy that worked in Massachusetts in 2003: using the courts and hand-picked activist judges, along with very shrewd manipulation of the legal process and well-funded legal teams and political strategists. They crafted a plan to get the state amendments declared unconstitutional.
This strategy took advantage of the LGBT lobby’s well-funded propaganda push over the last few decades in law schools, law firms, and judicial chambers, as well as a fresh new generation of radical federal judges appointed by Barack Obama.
Starting with California in 2009, where a homosexual judge overturned the Proposition 8 vote, they soon picked up momentum. Across the country, the various cases began sailing through the state and federal courts largely unimpeded. It was quite frightening for all of us to watch.
Other factors helped keep it going. The almost universal unwillingness of the legal teams on the pro-family side to aggressively confront the other side’s arguments gave them a free pass on what could have been difficult issues to overcome. And a number of pro-gay “marriage” Democrat (and RINO Republican) Governors and Attorneys-General simply refused to properly defend the cases and/or appeal them after losing.
Using both state and federal courts, the LGBT lobby has now gotten activist courts to “overturn” 26 of the 30 state constitutional amendments. (Some of these cases are still being appealed.)
But on November 6, 2014, their string of successes hit a snag, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Ohio constitutional amendment. However, since this disagreed with the other Federal District Court rulings, it bumped the case up to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it and make a broad decision.

2. How the 14th Amendment is used to push the radical agenda in the courts
In all these cases (as in countless other “progressive” legal challenges over the years) the radicals have used twisted interpretations of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to advance their agenda through the courts.
The Fourteenth Amendment says:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The “due process” and the “equal protection” clauses are the hammers used to smash the existing laws and constitutional amendments. Along with that, the LGBT lawyers start with the assumption (which our side could easily refute, but doesn't) that “sexual orientation” constitutes a class of citizen (based on an immutable characteristic, etc).
Regarding the “equal protection” argument: They argue that “gays” are not allowed to marry the ones they love, but heterosexuals are. They say that “gays” are thus “demeaned,” made “second class citizens,” and kept “unequal” – and this causes them terrible harm.
They further argue that not recognizing “gay marriages” from other states is a violation of due process because of the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause.

Of course, this is all legal nonsense. The answer to their “equal protection” argument is simple: Under the law, every person can only marry someone of the opposite sex. The marriage laws apply to every person equally. No legal expert we’ve consulted has disagreed with us on that reasoning. And everyone gets the same “due process” under it. Unfortunately, to our knowledge these points are rarely used to buttress our side’s argument.
Furthermore, the “full faith and credit” clause was never meant to be used to alter the meaning of the word marriage (i.e., plural marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages to young children), but only the application to a marriage case (or a divorce, etc.,) where the meaning of the word marriage was commonly agreed upon. It’s pretty simple – unless you’re an activist judge.

3. What this case is specifically meant to decide
The case is officially named Obergefell v. Hodges, which is a consolidation of four “gay marriage” cases previously brought before the Sixth Circuit.
According to the court documents, this case addresses only two specific questions:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
On April 28, a total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #1, and a total of 60 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #2. As discussed above, in any normal circumstance this would be a no-brainer.
Not surprisingly, there have been dozens of amicus briefs filed for this case. (You can read them here.) Most of those filed by our side discuss the importance of marriage in society, the historical roots of marriage, how imposing “gay marriage” would divide the country, children needing a father and a mother, etc. None that we’ve seen actually addresses the two questions regarding the Fourteenth Amendment which this case is about. We can only surmise that people are assuming that the Justices are not actually focusing on strict constitutional law but on these unrelated issues.

4. The lawyers arguing this case on April 28
The competition to represent the pro-family side was definitely not as intense as for the “gay marriage side.”
Arguing for the pro-family side:  Eric E. Murphy is the current Ohio State Solicitor, who won the appeal before the Sixth Circuit after losing in District Court. John J. Bursch was Michigan State Solicitor from 2011-2013 and has argued eight times before the US Supreme Court. According to news reports, Bursch’s current firm, Warner Norcross & Judd, supports “gay marriage” and has refused to be involved in this case to help him, so he is working independently.
Both attorneys have a good reputation for competence.
Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor
Office of the Attorney General        
30 East Broad Street, 17th Fl.          
Columbus, OH  43215-3428
(614) 466-8980
eric.murphy@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

John J. Bursch
Michigan Dept of Attorney General  
P.O. Box 30212        
Lansing, MI  48909  
(517) 373-1124
BurschJ@michigan.gov

Arguing for the homosexual “marriage” side:  Alphonse A. Gerhardstein is a prominent civil rights attorney from Cincinnati. Mary Bonauto is the celebrity lesbian attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who won the original Goodridge “gay marriage” case in Massachusetts in 2003. We at MassResistance know Bonauto well. She argued the lawsuit against us (unsuccessfully) in the infamous “Fistgate” case, and we have debated her on television.
We don’t know much about Gerhardstein. In our opinion, Bonauto is not particularly impressive.
Alphonse A. Gerhardstein
Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA
432 Walnut St., Suite 400
Cincinnati, OH  45202          
(513) 621-0779        
agerhardstein@gbfirm.com

Mary L. Bonauto
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders      
30 Winter Street, Suite 800  
Boston, MA  02108
(617) 426-1350        
mbonauto@glad.org

(Contact information is from Supreme Court filings.)

5. Anticipated problems with our side’s arguments
The other side’s arguments rarely bother dealing with the strict constitutional meaning of the text in question. They are almost exclusively based on the assumption that “sexual orientation” constitutes a legitimate legal “class” of people who are “born that way,” and as such have innate rights as a “class.” The concept of a “class” of people is foreign to the text of the Constitution. But it has nevertheless been accepted by courts for decades and undoubtedly by a number of the Supreme Court Justices.
That concept must be vigorously confronted and debunked. Unfortunately, our lawyers have been afraid to do that. Instead they concede to it and attempt to make a persuasive argument within those absurd boundaries — i.e., every child needs a mother and father, marriage is an institution for procreation, etc. This strategy almost always fails.
Why does our side avoid a strong argument? The answer falls into two categories:
1. Fear of being accused of “animus.” Our lawyers have internalized the idea that any perception of “animus towards gays” in their arguments will alienate the Justices. After all, gays are a “class” of people. This forces out any discussion of anything that debunks that, such as the horrible medical consequences associated with homosexual behavior: diseases, addictions, mental health problems, domestic violence, lower life expectancy, etc. Or any suggestion that is an immoral, unnatural perversion. Or the proven damage to children raised in same-sex households.
2. Pandering to “rational basis.” There is an extra-constitutional concept that judges have the authority to overturn a law if it doesn’t appear rational to them. Whether or not it was “rational” to a legislature or to the people makes no difference. Thus, the LGBT lawyers simply state that it’s “not rational” to exclude the class of “gays” from marrying whomever they want. It’s been one the basis for overturning constitutional marriage amendments. Our lawyers fear being judged “irrational” if they bring up the uncomfortable aspects of homosexuality, so they stick to the “comfortable” arguments.
It’s about time to quit doing what doesn’t work. Our fear, unfortunately, is that the lawyers on our side have been working closely with pro-family establishment lawyers in Washington DC (and we all know who they are) who are anything but aggressive or confrontational on these issues.

6. When the Court will issue a decision
The Court will issue its ruling before its current term ends in late June – i.e., within two months.

7. Why Justices Ginsburg and Kagan must legally recuse themselves from this case
Federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
In the past year Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have performed same-sex “weddings.”  Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflects “the genius of our Constitution.”
Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” goes back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.
Ginsburg and Kagan are unquestionably biased on this issue and by law must disqualify themselves from this case. Failure to do would call into question the legitimacy of the (feared) ruling on this case, at the very least. Furthermore, a near-universal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause (above) includes the right of impartial court proceedings. Having biased judges violates that.
Motion for Recusal. We have been informed that Attorney Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly) has drafted a Motion for Recusal, under section 28 USC 144, which will be filed by one of the state Attorneys-Generals in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan or Kentucky who have standing in the case.  According to Mr. Schlafly, “This will be the first time in the history of our country that a Motion for Recusal will have been filed against U.S. Supreme Court Justices because the above codes are for Federal District Judges, yet the principle of recusal can be expanded to all federal judges including Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

8. Bill filed in Congress to remove the Court’s jurisdiction on marriage
It is possible for Congress to restrict the Federal Courts from hearing certain types of cases.
Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and federal courts:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In the case of marriage, this probably should have been done at least a decade ago.
However, this past week, some action was started. In both houses of Congress, bills were filed to block the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, from hearing or deciding cases involving the definition of marriage.
In the US House, Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa) filed bill, H.R. 1968, titled Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015. (See text of bill here.) As Rep. King describes on his website, “This bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs.” Read a news report here.
In the US Senate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) filed bill S. 1080, It is titled The Protect Marriage from the Courts Act. (See text of bill here.)
Will the RINO Republican leadership in the US House and Senate go along with it? We will see. And then Obama must sign it …

9. The latest in the Court’s long history of illegitimate usurpation of power
The problem of the federal courts acting as unelected rulers — contrary to the intent of the Constitution — is not new. In 1861, in his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln condemned the Supreme Court’s power grab then:
If the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Over the last several decades it’s only gotten further out-of-control.
In 2005, the Hoover Institution published a paper by Lino Graglia, a law professor at the University of Texas, titled “Constitutional Law without the Constitution: The Supreme Court’s Remaking of America” that described it very well. An excerpt from that article:
The central fact of contemporary constitutional law, however, is that it has very little to do with the Constitution. Nearly all the Supreme Court’s rulings of unconstitutionality have little or no basis in, and are sometimes in direct violation of, the Constitution. Their actual basis is nothing more than the policy preferences of a majority of the Court’s nine justices. The power to assert that the Constitution prohibits any policy choice of which they disapprove has enabled the justices to make themselves the final lawmakers on any public policy issue that they choose to remove from the ordinary political process and to assign for decision to themselves. Over the past half-century the justices have chosen to make themselves the final lawmakers on most basic issues of domestic social policy in American society. These include issues literally of life and death, as in the Court’s decisions on contraception, abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide; issues of public order, as in its decisions on criminal procedure, public demonstrations, and vagrancy control; and issues of public morality, as in its decisions on pornography and homosexuality. These are the issues that determine the basic values, nature, and quality of a society. In essence, the Court now performs in the American system of government a role similar to that performed by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority.
That’s what we’ve been up against: Nine justices appointed for life who have made themselves the unelected legislators over us all.

10. Immense pressure from the homosexual movement
It’s difficult to describe the enormous amounts of money and sophisticated planning, political maneuvering, and pressure tactics that the homosexual lobby has used in this nationwide march through the federal courts. Millions of dollars have flowed to them from major US corporations and wealthy donors.  Adding to that is the flood of major media support (including even FOX News!) that the LGBT movement enjoys. Needless to say, it’s unbelievably one-sided.
On the other hand, most wealthy conservative donors have made their peace with the LGBT movement and have abandoned their support at a time when it’s needed most. And virtually no corporations donate money to the pro-family side of this issue.
The LGBT movement has used its resources and power very aggressively. In just the last several weeks, hundreds of corporations and high-profile politicians, including Republicans, have publicly told the Supreme Court that they want “gay marriage” imposed on America by the judiciary. Virtually the nation’s entire legal community now refuses to even engage cases involving challenges to “gay marriage” — an unpresented turn of events.
Will this push a majority of the Supreme Court Justices over the top? In any other time in history, this case would have been laughed out of any courtroom. So anything is possible.
What do we do next?
By any objective measure, this whole case is a mockery of actual Constitutional law. Yet, the odds are that Ginsburg and Kagan will not disqualify themselves and enough of the rest of the judges will rule to force this insanity on all of America — and which among other things will surely lead to the further persecution of people of faith.
Should the worst happen, we’ll certainly have it rubbed in our faces as quickly as possible. As happened in Massachusetts in 2003, the first thing we will see will be adolescent screams of joy and jumping in the streets by the homosexual radicals, celebrated spectacularly in the mainstream media.
But what about our side? We have to fight back, that’s for sure.
What does that mean? There has been a lot of talk about pro-family “civil disobedience” and “taking to the streets.” But let’s be honest. When the Left threatens civil disobedience the local police schedule double shifts (often to protect them). But when we do it, nobody really pays attention. To most conservatives civil disobedience is not mowing your lawn for three weeks or posting strong articles on FaceBook – not exactly rioting.
And the legal system will surely come down even harder on anyone disobeying the new rulings, as well as state and local non-discrimination ordinances...

_____________________

My commentary:

When moral liberty is detached from the Natural Law and the Eternal Divine Law, it soon degenerates into license. It was Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, who reminded us that:

"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty substance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court allows so broad an interpretation of liberty, that virtually all state laws proscribing evils such as adultery, bigamy, incest, prostitution, sadomasochism, bestiality and pedophilia are now at risk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Broader_implications

An act is immoral if it violates Natural Law or Divine Law. The Supreme Court has imposed a perverse notion of "liberty" which favors unnatural vice over virtue. In Lawrence v Texas, the Court violated its responsibility to uphold a most fundamental principle of the Natural Law. Namely, to do good and avoid evil. As a consequence, homosexuality - and other sexual abnormalities which undermine the family and therefore the common good - will now be constitutionally protected expressions of "liberty."

This is a real moral tragedy and one which will soon lead to intense persecution of Christians (and other people of good will) who oppose violations of both the Natural Law and the Divine Law (see:http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-persecuting-whom.html ).

When the European Parliament passed a special resolution encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II responded in protest:

"What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)....

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...

Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_19940220_it.html ).

As the persecution of Christians intensifies, and as our society collapses in on itself under the weight of institutionalized deviance, the words of the prophet Isaiah will echo in our hearts and minds:


"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness....
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!"
Isaiah 5:2-21