Yes Joe Biden, let's talk about racism!

See here.

College students: I hate President Trump's State of the Union Address and I think it was racist...even though it hasn't been delivered yet

Cabot Phillips writes:

"This Tuesday, President Donald Trump will give his first State Of The Union address to the nation.

Critics of Trump have already begun to express displeasure with his actions in the days leading up to the speech, leading some to wonder whether this opposition is substantive, or rooted in a distaste of Trump as a person.

Wanting to find out, Campus Reform headed to New York University to ask students their opinions of President Trump’s State of the Union. The only problem for them was that the speech would not take place for another seven days…

Would that stop them from giving strong, condemnatory opinions on the speech?

See for yourself."

Watch the video and witness the herd mentality which is representative of many of today's college students.

Philip Johnson, in his book "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, tells a story which is both amusing and frightening at the same time. He writes: "I am convinced that conscious dishonesty is much less important in intellectual matters than self-deception...The German biologist Bruno Muller-Hill tells a memorable story to illustrate his thesis that 'self-deception plays an astonishing role in science in spite of all the scientists' worship of truth':

When I was a student in a German gymnasium and thirteen years old, I learned a lesson that I have not forgotten...One early morning our physics teacher placed a telescope in the school yard to show us a certain planet and its moons. So we stood in a long line, about forty of us. I was standing at the end of the line, since I was one of the smallest students. The teacher asked the first student whether he could see the planet. No, he had difficulties, because he was nearsighted. The teacher showed him how to adjust the focus, and that student could finally see the planet and the moons. Others had no difficulty; they saw them right away. The students saw, after a while, what they were supposed to see. Then the student standing just before me - his name was Harter - announced that he could not see anything. 'You idiot,' shouted the teacher, 'you have to adjust the lenses.' The student did that and said after a while, 'I do not see anything, it is all black.' The teacher then looked through the telescope himself. After some seconds he looked up with a strange expression on his face. And then my comrades and I also saw that the telescope was nonfunctioning; it was closed by a cover over the lens. Indeed, no one could see anything through it.'

Muller-Hill reports that one of the docile students became a professor of philosophy and director of a German TV station. 'This might be expected,' he wickedly comments. But another became a professor of physics, and a third a professor of botany. The honest Harter had to leave school and go to work in a factory. If in later life he was ever tempted to question any of the pronouncements of his more illustrious classmates, I am sure he was firmly told not to meddle in matters beyond his understanding.'" (pp. 156-157).

Do we honestly believe that this herd mentality is not to be found throughout our society and even in the Church? If so, we deceive ourselves. Pope Benedict XVI has warned of a liberal notion of conscience which is nothing less than a retreat from truth. In a keynote address of the Tenth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Catholic Conscience: Foundation and Formation," he says that liberalism's idea of conscience is that: "Conscience does not open the way to the redemptive road to truth - which either does not exist or, if it does, is too demanding. It is the faculty that dispenses with truth. It thereby becomes the justification for subjectivity, which would not like to have itself called into question. Similarly, it becomes the justification for social conformity. As mediating value between the different subjectivities, social conformity is intended to make living together possible. The obligation to seek the truth terminates, as do any doubts about the general inclination of society and what it has become accustomed to. Being convinced of oneself, as well as conforming to others, is sufficient. Man is reduced to his superficial conviction, and the less depth he has, the better for him."

Is there really any difference between Harter's classmates, who insisted that they could see a planet and its moons when such was impossible, and those who succumb to social conformity and insist that an unborn baby is not really a human being when all the scientific evidence suggests otherwise?

Are today's college students being prepared to think critically or simply to mindlessly regurgitate what their far-left liberal professors tell them to believe and/or what the far-left mainstream media reports?

What do you think?

Related reading: here.

The FBI: "biased" students are a potential threat

The surveillance society is here.  In an FBI report entitled Preventing Violent Extremism in Schools, we are told that:

"Youth embracing domestic extremist movements (across any extremist ideology) are sometimes raised in an environment where racial, religious, or cultural bias is viewed as acceptable. This results in behaviors influenced by family involvement. Youth growing up in these environments are exposed to extremism at a very young age, which permeates their values, and aids the formulation of radical beliefs. Youth view these forms of extremism as
family norms, although they are not acceptable in mainstream society. This dynamic perpetuates the cycle of hatred and intolerance."

And who defined the terms "bias" or "extremism"?  Recall my warning about the Obama administration back in 2009, see here.

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

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

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

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

The FBI is calling upon educators and students to report on anyone who is perceived to have a "bias" and who, as a result, is deemed to be in danger of "extremism."

In his book "Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense and Explanation of the Catholic Religion," Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D, S.T.D., writes, "Let Catholic apologists..not surrender the cause of Christ...by a milk-and-water philosophy of tolerance. Tolerance is for external conduct; it is not for the mind; the mind cannot tolerate error for an instant." (p. 278). And this because error and truth are not "equally good." In other words, we must always strive to tolerate people [including those who disagree with us; and our worst enemies], but we cannot tolerate error. Differing opinions are not equally valid.

And in his important work "The New Tower of Babel," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "Although the dethronement of truth manifests itself in the most drastic and radical way in Nazism and Bolshevism, unfortunately many symptoms of this spiritual disease are also to be found in democratic countries. For example, in discussions we sometimes hear the following argument: 'Why should your opinion be more valid than mine? We are equal and have the same rights. It is undemocratic to pretend that your opinion is preferable.' This attitude is extremely significant because it reveals the complete absence of the notion of truth, the tacit elimination of truth as the determining norm for the value of an opinion....The immanent theme of every opinion is truth; the only thing that matters here is whether or not it is in conformity with reality..This brings us to another slogan disclosing the dethronement of truth. It is the often repeated statement 'It is true for me, but it may not be true for you.' The truth of a proposition is essentially objective; a truth which as such would be valid for one person only is a contradiction in terms. A proposition is true or false, but it can never be true for one person and false for another. The statement that a certain action is morally good may be true or false; but if it is true, it can never be false for any other person.." (pp. 56-58).

Some might be tempted to believe that the rejection of error and falsehood [ and here, again, we are speaking of ideas not persons] is something "negative" and even cult-like. But such is simply not the case. Again, Dr. Hildebrand explains: "Perhaps never before has there been as much intellectual fraud as there is today. In the mass media - and even in discussions on university campuses - this intellectual fraud appears chiefly as the manipulation of slogans designed to bluff the hearer or reader, and prevent him from thinking clearly. For a typical example, let us consider how the terms positive and negative are now most often used to discredit the refutation of pernicious errors and to give credit to the most shallow speculations. The intellectual swindlers who play such an important role in public discussions will often denominate as 'positive' propositions and attitudes they favor. They thereby seek to forestall questions of truth and value by enveloping their prejudices in a vague suggestion of 'creativity,' 'originality,' 'openness,' 'unaggressiveness.' This is the device of the cuttlefish. The moment one tries to grasp it, it emits a murky substance to confuse and deceive.

In reality, the popular slogan usages of positive and negative is a distortion of the genuine meanings of the terms. In proper usage they can refer to existence and nonexistence or to value and disvalue. They can refer to desirability and undesirability, or to answers to questions and demands, or to results of tests and inquiries. But when these terms are applied to attitudes of mind or to theses - by way of suggesting an evaluation - an intellectual fraud is committed; for they are then being used to evoke vague associations that distract from the question that alone matters - namely: Is this attitude objectively called for? Or: Is this thesis true?...It is the nature of truth to exclude every contradiction of itself. Thus, the rejection of errors and falsehoods can never be separated from the affirmation of truth. The one implies the other...

To give the impression that affirmations are 'positive' and denials 'negative' is to misrepresent completely the nature of judgments and propositions. This abuse of the language transforms the terms positive and negative into deceptive slogans and thus amounts to an intellectual swindle..." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 45-47).

Anyone who believes that Christ founded one Church for the salvation of man or that there is no other name by which we are saved may be defined as entertaining a "bias."

Does this mean that the FBI will treat such students as "extremists," as a potential threat?

What do you think?

Let's all commend the courageous students at Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Still River Massachusetts!

As reported here, students at the Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Still River have taken a courageous stand to withdraw from the Saint Patrick's Day Parade in Boston this year because of its capitulation to the Culture of Sodomy.

It's not enough that parade organizers will allow homosexuals to march provided they don't carry signs or wear clothing agitating for the homosexual "lifestyle."  No, the sodomite community demands the right to march as sodomites.

Students at the Immaculate Heart of Mary School should be commended for their courageous stance against the Culture of Sodomy.


Too many Catholics today, poorly instructed in their faith, believe that all judging is wrong. These Catholics apparently believe that love of enemies means condoning vice and sin. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...
Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

It is obvious that the students at Immaculate Heart of Mary School possess the Cardinal Gift of Fortitude.

I only wish we could say the same about our Bishop.

For some Clark University students, I am "delusional" for seeing the connection between destructive pornography and violence against women

The Most Rev. John D'Arcy, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, in a statement which may be found here, asks, "What is wrong with the text of this play [The Vagina Monologues]? It distorts the beautiful gift of human sexuality, clouding its richness so it becomes merely the seeking of pleasure. Sexuality in the Catholic tradition is always related to the gift of self to another. 'Sexuality is an enrichment of the whole person — body, emotions and soul — and it manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of self in love.' (Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II).

In contrast, the play in question reduces sexuality to a particular organ of a woman’s body separate from the person of the woman, from her soul and her spirit. It alienates woman from man whom God has entrusted to her as friend and companion. It separates sexuality and the human body from love. How opposite from our tradition which says, 'A woman’s dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives by the very reason of her femininity. It is likewise connected with the love she gives in return.' (On the Dignity of Women,  Pope John Paul II).

While some will find it hard to believe, it is true that this play depicts in an approving way a sexual relationship between an adult woman and an adolescent girl, a minor. Such an action, which is a crime in both civil and church law, is also considered a serious sin in Christian moral teaching. The play also contains explicit depictions of masturbation and lesbian sex, portrayed in a positive light.

In this first encyclical letter, Pope Benedict XVI, theologian and pastor, speaks to this cultural phenomenon with striking clarity. 'Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure 'sex,' has become a commodity, a mere ‘thing’ to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man’s great 'yes’ to the body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility.' (Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI, Dec. 25, 2005).

Bishop D'Arcy then cites Pope John Paul II in his classic work "Love and Responsibility": 'Art has a right and a duty, for the sake of realism, to reproduce the human body, and the love of man and woman, as they are in reality, to speak the whole truth about them. The human body is an authentic part of the truth about man, just as its sensual and sexual aspects are an authentic part of the truth about human love. But it would be wrong to let this part obscure the whole — and this is what often happens in art … Pornography is a marked tendency to accentuate the sexual element when reproducing the human body or human love in a work of art, with the object of inducing the reader or viewer to believe that sexual values are the only real values of the person, and that love is nothing more than the experience, individual or shared, of those values alone.' And then His Excellency adds, "Such an analysis brings clarity. The play [The Vagina Monologues],...does not portray the whole truth about human sexuality; and by this separation, it violates the truth about the body, the truth about the gift of sexuality, the truth about love, and the truth about man and woman."

As I mentioned in my last Blog post, Women for Faith and Family, a highly respected association of Catholic women led by serious scholars, has said that: "Vagina Monologues is destructive, pornographic, deforming agit-prop deliberately and cynically aimed at young women - in particular at young Catholic women - a form of victimization that it is perilous to ignore. It contradicts at the deepest level the truth of creation; it is profoundly anti-Catholic, anti-God; and a contemptible assault on the very nature of the human person."  The play, as WFF correctly notes, "..actually contributes to violence against women, while claiming to be fighting it."

But many of the students at Clark University don't see it that way.  I received an email from an individual calling himself Carson Stevens.  In this email, Carson asserted that, "The implication that Clark University creates an atmosphere that is partially responsible for the sexual assault is incorrect."  On what does he base his argument?  Well it's simple according to Carson: "Clark's production of Vagina Monologues does not include that scene which you described."  But there is far more than just one offensive scene.  As Bishop D'Arcy noted, "The play also contains explicit depictions of masturbation and lesbian sex, portrayed in a positive light."  The whole play, as Bishop D'Arcy said, "reduces sexuality to a particular organ of a woman's body."

So much for the "they deleted the one lesbian rape scene" argument.

Then Carson writes, "As for the guilt of Clark, no Clark community member has been linked to the crime (with the exception of the survivor, herself)."  Translation: You cannot put Clark Students or faculty at the scene of the crime as actual participants, therefore we bear no responsibility for this crime even though we have been  fostering an atmosphere where women are demeaned and others are encouraged to view women as objects to be used and exploited at will.

If productions do not influence human behavior, what is the point of the television commercial?

Another Clark Student (I traced his IP address to Clark University), calling himself "Sigma," berated me for my post on The Vagina Monologues and wrote, "Dude, your views aren't even accepted by 99.9 percent of Christians."  In other words, because I believe women are created in the Imago Dei (in the Image and Likeness of God) and should not be reduced to being mere sexual objects to be exploited and used, I am out of touch with reality.  Sigma added, "You need to get off your delusional Christian agenda and leave Clark alone."

According to the City of Worcester, in 2011, detectives investigated approximately 280 sexual assault cases in which 41 fell within the definition of forcible rape as defined in the UCR. "The remainder of the cases did not meet the strict definition....It is anticipated that the reported number of forcible rapes as defined by the UCR will increase when the FBI changes the UCR definition of rape."


280 sexual assault cases.  In one year.  In one city. That number is an obscenity. But it would appear that some Clark Students do not have a problem with sexual assault and violence against women in general.  Hence the cavalier attitude toward a pornographic play which contributes to violence against women.

You can be sure that if these same individuals had a wife, a daughter or a sister who was raped or in some way sexually assaulted, they wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the legitimate concerns expressed here. They would be too busy trying to comfort their loved one.  They would be in tears.

This is part of the problem. Until this sort of violence hits close to home, it is easy for some to just wave the hand and dismiss the concerns of those who see the connection between destructive pornography and sexual assault  Such people forget that every woman who is sexually assaulted is a person with hopes and dreams. A person who wants to feel safe.

For some Clark University students, I am "delusional" for seeing the connection between destructive pornography and violence against women.

Yes, clearly I am the delusional one.  Which is why we read here that:  "All pornography soft, hard, and even 'neutral' sex-education materials, desensitize the viewer and allow him to become conditioned to sexual acts, violent and nonviolent, as an integral part of human behavior. This conclusion has been reached in 26 separate studies."

Plano Independent School District wants to ban First Amendment rights of elementary students who want to reference Jesus or God

An article from World Net Daily is reporting that, "A hearing is scheduled Monday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that could determine if students in elementary schools have the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The case arose in the Plano Independent School District in Texas where Thomas Elementary School Principal Lynn Swanson and Rasor Elementary School Principal Jackie Bomchill were sued for restricting student speech when it referenced 'God' or 'Jesus.'

According to the Liberty Institute, in the first incident, officials banned 8-year-old Jonathan Morgan from handing out candy canes with Jesus' name on them to classmates at a school party.

'Then they confiscated a little girl's pencils after school because they mentioned 'God,'' the Institute reported.

But that's not all, the group said.

'They even banned an entire classroom from writing 'Merry Christmas' on cards to our troops serving in Iraq.'

The dispute went to district court then to a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit where school officials' efforts to have the complaint rejected because of their 'immunity' failed.

Now the appeals court has agreed to an en banc hearing in which 17 judges will listen to arguments and decide the dispute.

The school officials are arguing 'that the First Amendment does not apply to elementary school students,' explains the appeal brief submitted by Liberty Institute."

Well then, Plano Independent School District officials are wrong.  The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, that, "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact...The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech.  This provision means what it says.  We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances.  But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom."

What the Supreme Court said in Tinker is that free speech rights of students can only be "carefully restricted" or "reasonably regulated" by school administrators.  And only if these school administrators can show that such free speech rights would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission. Is there anyone out there - who is sane - who can argue that a pencil which mentions God or a candy cane with Jesus' name on it constitutes a substantial disruption of a school's educational mission?

It is my firm belief that the Plano Independent School District officials in question could benefit greatly from a mental-health checkup.  Not to mention a brief primer in constitutional law.

The Boston Archdiocese and compromise with the demon

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the homosexual Catholic-in-name-only "DignityUSA," praised the new policy of the Boston Archdiocese which prohibits "discrimination" against students who come from a homosexual household while stating clearly that it is her belief that, "As long as the doctrine stands [Catholic doctrine which defines marriage as a heterosexual union and which says that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity], it makes it really hard for the pastoral and the doctrinal aspects of our faith not to come into a clash...The people of the church are changing, and by and large very affirming of gay people, and the hierarchy and the doctrine are lagging behind."  (See here).

Translation: The Cardinal and his pastoral staff have done much to undermine Church teaching.  But they didn't go far enough.  Church teaching is archaic.  It is necessary for the Church to change its perennial teaching to suit "modern man" and his tastes.  It is necessary for the Church to declare that homosexual relationships and homosexual acts are no longer sinful.

The Church in Boston is now compromising with the demon.  This is merely the first step on the road to perdition.  Having betrayed the supernatural vision of Catholic education, the new policy is now defended as "reasonable" and "tolerant."  Those responsible for the spiritual health of the Boston Archdiocese have forgotten that natural religion, harmless religion, is the religion of Antichrist. This is the seduction of our time: we are overwhelmed by a culture which exhorts us to be "reasonable." To be "tolerant." But, as Pope Benedict XVI writes (in his book Jesus of Nazareth): "If we had to choose today, would Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary, the son of the Father, have a chance? Do we really know Jesus at all? Do we understand him? Do we not perhaps have to make an effort, today as always, to get to know him all over again? The tempter is not so crude as to suggest to us directly that we should worship the devil. He merely suggests that we opt for the reasonable decision, that we choose to give priority to a planned and thoroughly organized world, where God may have his place as a private concern but must not interfere in our essential purposes..." (p. 41).


"Be reasonable," our culture says: "Don't rock the boat, what do you care if a woman wants to have an abortion? After all, that's her affair. You should stop being so fanatical and intolerant. You believe life is sacred? Good, but keep your beliefs in your Church." And: "Why shouldn't people of the same sex be married? Stop denying them their civil rights. You are being judgmental. After all, God is love."

The Pope has said it. The Devil merely suggests that we opt for the reasonable decision. But we do so at the price of apostasy.  This was the message of Akita (a Church-approved apparition).  Our Lady told Sister Agnes Sasagawa, "The work of the Devil will infiltrate even the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other Bishops.  The priests [and I might add the laity, as Montfort warned] who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked, the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord..."