Please join with America Needs Fatima in protesting this blasphemy

As New Advent Encyclopedia explains: "Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.

1.It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of man is God".

2.It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God".

3.It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has conquered, O Galilaean".

Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import.

Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him as our first beginning and last end. St. Thomas says that it is to be regarded as a sin against faith inasmuch as by it we attribute to God that which does not belong to Him, or deny Him that which is His (II-II.13.1). De Lugo and others deny that this is an essential element in blasphemy (De just. et jure caeterisque virt. card., lib. II, c. xiv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Escobar (Theol. mor., lib. xxviii, c. xxxii, n. 716 sqq.) observes, the contention on this point concerns words only, since the followers of St. Thomas see in the contempt expressed in blasphemy the implication that God is contemptible--an implication in which all will allow there is attributed to God that which does not belong to Him. What is here said is of blasphemy in general; manifestly that form of the sin described above as heretical is not only opposed to the virtue of religion but that of faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole nature (ex toto genere suo) a mortal sin, the gravest that may be committed against religion. The seriousness of an affront is proportioned to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in blasphemy is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, the degree of its heinousness must be evident. Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst. It has been said that heretical blasphemy besides a content directed against religion has that which is opposed to the virtue of faith. Similarly, imprecatory blasphemy is besides a violation of charity..."

America Needs Fatima is leading a protest against yet another pro-homosexual production which blasphemes against Christ.  See here.

Let us pray:
O Jesus, my Savior and Redeemer, Son of the living God, behold, we kneel before Thee and offer Thee our reparation; we would make amends for all the blasphemies uttered against Thy holy name, for all the injuries done to Thee in the Blessed Sacrament, for all the irreverence shown toward Thine immaculate Virgin Mother, for all the calumnies and slanders spoken against Thy spouse, the holy Catholic and Roman Church. O Jesus, who has said: "If you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you," we pray and beseech Thee for all our brethren who are in danger of sin; shield them from every temptation to fall away from the true faith; save those who are even now standing on the brink of the abyss; to all of them give light and knowledge of the truth, courage and strength for the conflict with evil, perseverance in faith and active charity! For this do we pray, most merciful Jesus, in Thy name, unto God the Father, with whom Thou livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Ghost world without end.

Amen.

Read More

Blog comment: "...you are making a lot of potentially very powerful people very, very angry."

In one of his last homilies, Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."


Because I oppose that preaching which leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death, I am once again receiving death threats.  Recently I wrote about the fact that Archbishop Vincent Nichols is continuing to tolerate a radical homosexual activist while demonstrating a blatant disregard for the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).  See here.  This resulted in death threats and a comment from an individual calling himself Matt Westwood which, he said, is "a warning that you are making a lot of potentially very powerful people very, very angry."

I will not be deterred.  My patron Saint, St. Paul, exhorts us: "...to stir into flame the gift of God  that you have through the imposition of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God." (2 Timothy 1: 6-8).

We are reminded in Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council that, the Church, in its twofold ministry toward its own members and toward those outside her pale, shares in Jesus’ threefold office of Priest, Prophet and King, that is, it participates in Jesus’ ministry to sanctify, to teach and to govern. While bishops, priests and deacons exercise, within the Church, the ministries of sanctifying, teaching and governing through the power and authority bestowed upon them at their sacramental ordination, all Catholic lay men and women also share in this threefold ministry of Christ. Catholic lay men and women, by their baptismal and confirmational character, are empowered, in Christ through the Holy Spirit, to be priests, prophets and kings and so come to share in the Church’s ministry of sanctification, teaching and governing. Lumen Gentium tells us that, in collaboration with their bishops and clergy, "the faithful who by Baptism are incorporated into Christ, are placed in the People of God, and in their own way share the priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ, and to the best of their ability carry on the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world." (No. 31).


The homosexual movement has become totalitarian.  It seeks to impose its agenda with brute force of necessary.  I have been warning of this for years.  Only recently Dr. Jeff Mirus warned that, "No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. The insistence on ignoring vice is the hallmark of a debased culture, but the insistence that a lie be publicly affirmed as true is the hallmark of ideological totalitarianism." (See here).

Read More

Rainbow Sash Movement: Is it dialogue they want or merely surrender to their agenda?

In my last post, I noted how retired Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom has called on the Roman Catholic Bishops of Minnesota to jettison Catholic teaching in the name of "charity" and "dialogue" and to surrender to the radical homosexual agenda and its demands for same-sex "marriage." 

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65). The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost.  For example, Joe Murray, Executive Director of the Rainbow Sash Movement in the United States, after hurling a litany of angry and calumnious accusations against Archbishop Timothy Dolan in particular and the Catholic Church in general, challenges the Archbishop to an open debate.  See here.

The Rainbow Sash Movement declares, "We recognize that our Executive Director’s call for such a public debate will most certainly be met with arrogance, and even dismissal. However, such a refusal will only focus the spotlight on a Catholic Archbishop who lacks the courage to stand up for what he claims to believe in and meet in a public setting for a debate on Gay Marriage. It is time to replace the feeding frenzy of homophobia with a mature exchange of ideas in the Church."


As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

But herein lies the problem.  The radical homosexual activists of the "Rainbow Sash Movement" are not interested in objective truth or authentic dialogue.  They will not - they cannot - come to the table with good will.  And this because they care not for truth.  Only for "power" as they incorrectly perceive power.

The Rainbow Sash Movement is part of the broader Homosexual Hate Movement and has engaged in calumny against Pope Benedict XVI, accusing the Holy Father of having "a Nazi past."  At one point last year, this hate group announced its plans to violate federal law and to show contempt for the celebration of the Holy Mass across the United States on Pentecost Sunday by disrupting the Mass.  See here.

Read More

Persecution? What persecution?

In a recent post dealing with the coming persecution [which has actually already begun but which will become increasingly violent], I noted the gradual process by which secular humanists and other anti-Christian types weed out Christian thought and eventually ban it altogether, often criminalizing the Gospel.  I am now under attack [along with such prominent Catholics as Cardinal Raymond Burke and Dr. Jeff Mirus] for having the audacity to warn of the coming persecution against the Church by the Homosexual Hate Movement.

In a post which may be found here, I am accused of engaging in "Catholic persecution fantasies."  This after the writer asserts that my Blog post and additional articles are "deranged" and "loony."  Referring to my post, the writer asserts:

"The blogpost gets more and more deranged after this, so I will spare most of the details. Amongst other things, he urges us to read another loony article of his called The Homosexual Hate Movement: Another form of totalitarianism, which offers further insight into his demented religious mindset. What is most worrying, though, is how Melanson finds so much encouragement for his political and religious obsessions from the leaders of the Catholic Church. His post was prompted in the first place by news of Cardinal Burke's ludicrous claim that American Catholics are on the brink of a great persecution. He is also able to cite Pope John Paul II writing that 'Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person'. Or in other words, democracy is only 'authentic' and legitimate if the government conforms to Catholic teaching."

The writer concludes his confused piece by asserting that, "There is no totalitarian Homosexual Hate Movement...sorry to disappoint you Mr. Melanson, but nobody wants to persecute you.  Get over it."  The homosexual movement has nothing to do with hate?  Tell that to the Catholics, Protestants and Mormons who came under both verbal and physical attack in California after the Prop 8 controversy.  See here.  Nobody wants to persecute me?  That must be why I have received numerous threats and hate mail, not to mention hateful comments at this Blog directed against my person.  Nobody wants to persecute me [and other Christians and people of good will who are morally opposed to the radical homosexual agenda]?  Is that why a homosexual activist called The Mothertown News in Massachusetts to tell them he objected to an article I wrote for that publication - explaining the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality which includes respect for the homosexual person - and that he was going to kill me with his high-powered rifle?

Persecution?  What persecution?  It was the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, a man whose thought so greatly influenced my own, who said that, "Fanaticism is essentially opinion; opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature...whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, his is led...to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make very effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation...fanaticism is, of its very nature, incompatible with any regard for truth; and as truth itself is not really seperable from our regard for it, we need not hesitate to say that the fanatic is the enemy of truth..." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 149-150).


Which is why Catholics faithful to the Church, faithful to the Lord Jesus, must be painted as "loony" and "deranged."  We must be made to be seen as being somehow "dangerous."  We must be demonized and eventually criminalized.  And then we can be disposed of in the gulag or in front of a firing squad.

Persecution?  What persecution?

Related reading here and most importantly here.

Read More

Homosexual propaganda blog "MassResistance Watch" gets it wrong

LifeSiteNews.com is reporting that, "A leading authority on the clerical sex abuse crisis has criticized those who conclude that new data has ruled out homosexuality as a significant cause in the scandal - even though the vast majority of priest abuse was perpetrated against adolescent males.


Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and expert in handling sexually abusive priests, says criminologists 'crossed a line' by pronouncing on the psychological causes behind the data released May 18.

'Analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males,' said Fitzgibbons in an interview with the Catholic News Agency.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/critics-say-new-study-misses-real-reasons-for-priest-abuse-crisis/

The new study, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and commissioned by the U.S. Bishops, shows that nearly 80 percent of victims were post-pubescent and adolescent males. However, the study concludes that available data 'do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity ... are significantly more likely to sexually abuse.'

The report marks the third such effort by U.S. Bishops to address the causes and manifestations of the clerical sex abuse scandal since it first erupted publicly in 2002.

The data also shows that less than 5 percent of abuse involved prepubescent children, contravening rumor that the scandal largely manifested as acts of pedophilia. But homosexuality, according to Fitzgibbons, was clearly the primary sexual aberration driving the bulk of abuse.

'One can conclude that these priests have strong same-sex attraction,' said Fitzgibbons. 'When an adult is involved with homosexual behavior with an adolescent male, he clearly has a major problem in the area of homosexuality.'

The psychologist said that, while the college has done good work collecting data, criminologists 'lack the professional expertise to comment on causes of sexual abuse.'

'If the (U.S. bishops) conference wanted an analysis of the causes of complex sexual behavior with adolescents, don’t turn to criminologists,' said Fitzgibbons. 'They are not trained to understand those causes - that training is given to mental health professionals.'" (Article here).

It didn't take long for a homosexual propaganda blog called "MassResistance Watch" to jump on the faulty conclusions of criminologists who lack the expertise to comment upon the root causes of complex sexual behavior.  In a post authored by a troubled soul who refers to himself as "Boston Bud," we read, "Researchers at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, who spent five years conducting the most expensive and extensive study of sexual abuse in the Catholic church to date, concluded that homosexual priests were no more likely to abuse than heterosexual priests...If you recall Santorum and the anti-gay loonies were blaming gay priests for all the molestation."  See here.

Who better to write about "loonies" than an individual referring to himself as "Boston Bud" who believes that homosexuality is somehow healthy.  Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. See here. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).


No, most of the abuse within the Church was committed by sick men suffering from the psychopathology of homosexuality.  Crippled in personality, these homosexual men acted out sexually against adolescent males.  There is no way around this.  Nor should this really come as a surprise.  The Father of so-called "Gay Rights," Harry Hay, was a pervert who was fully supportive of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a group which advocates for the legalization of sex between men and boys.  See here.  Talk about "loonies."

Sex between men and boys has long been a part of homosexual culture and history as documented by openly homosexual history professor William Armstrong Percy III in his book entitled "Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece." See here.  Of course, propagandists for the Homosexual Hate Movement - like "Boston Bud" - will never admit to this.

But the facts of history tell the real story.

Read More

Lesbian Judge Barbara Lenk is confirmed as Republican Jennie Caissie refers to pro-family individuals and groups as "irrelevant and ignorant."

Mass Resistance is reporting that lesbian judge Barbara Lenk has been confirmed, in a 5-3 vote, for the Massachusetts SJC:


"On Wednesday the elected Governor’s Council met to vote on the nomination of Barbara Lenk to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. As MassResistance has reported and documented, Lenk is an 'out' lesbian activist with troubling record of activism. She brings a stated philosophy that judges can 'evolve' the law, and an apparent intent to promote social change from the bench. Governor Patrick, who owes the homosexual lobby for its tireless support in his election, touted his nomination of Lenk as an important 'first'....Lenk's nomination was an immediate red flag for conservatives. Knowing that, the liberal establishment even more fiercely pushed her confirmation. Their fear tactics came out in force. If you mentioned anything about Lenk's 'sexual orientation' then you were an ignorant bigot. That's been the public party line and it was largely effective.

Thus, just about all the Massachusetts pro-family groups stayed on the sidelines. Only MassResistance, the Catholic Action League, and Joe Ureneck’s fatherhood groups came to the hearing to testify, or participated in any meaningful way. And in the media, only Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr was unafraid to tell the truth. Talk show host Jeff Katz was also vocal in opposition to Lenk, but he was careful to state that her 'sexual orientation' didn’t bother him at all.

As we reported, the pro-family people who came to the public hearing were straightforward in their concerns. The testimony generally centered around (1) Lenk's pro-gay judicial record and her apparent bias toward the homosexual movement; (2) her public self-identification as an 'out' lesbian in a same-sex 'marriage' (thus supporting with the Goodridge decision) – and how that will be used in the public schools and elsewhere; (3) her pro-activist judicial philosophy; (4) concerns about her position on fathers' rights; and (5) her apparent support for the homosexual-themed (and anti-Semitic) play 'Falsettos' produced at a local school.

And of course, it's this same Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that gave us the 'same-sex marriage' Goodridge decision -- the gold standard for radical judicial activism. It shouldn't be considered a surprise that these things would be on peoples' minds. These seemed to be reasonable concerns regarding a judge who would be a final guardian of the Commonwealth’s civil rights. But members of the Governor’s Council obviously saw that differently. At the public hearing, a few of them took the unprecedented action of berating, insulting, and badgering the pro-family witnesses. As we reported, it was terrible. Then on Wednesday, just before the vote, two others stood up to speak about the upcoming vote and continued that bizarre and offensive behavior...Councilor Marilyn Devaney made the outrageous statement that people with pro-family values on homosexuality should not be allowed to speak at all. Devaney told the Council and the attendees:  'I am not responsible for the public who spoke at that hearing. I don't know them. If I was presiding I would have gaveled out of order speakers who used demeaning and inappropriate language.'

Demeaning and inappropriate language from members of the public? That, of course, is a reference to the testimony of pro-family speakers that day. Well, excuse us for having traditional values and voicing our concerns about people who will be judges over us. And obviously Councilor Devaney has some issues with the First Amendment. This is among the most offensive things we've ever heard a public official say, and we’ve heard a lot. And what about the Councilors who actually were demeaning and inappropriate to us? Apparently not a problem for Devaney. Devaney also said that because the actions of people like us other qualified homosexuals were afraid to apply for judgeships, and that bothers her greatly.

But then Jennie Caissie, the newly elected Republican, was equally as offensive. She stood up right after Devaney and said, 'I want to begin by thanking Judge Lenk for her candid testimony at the hearing, for her professionalism, and her stoic presentation in the light of some very unprofessional and irrelevant questioning. I rise because I want to set the basis for my vote and distinguish myself from those irrelevant and ignorant questions.'  'Irrelevant and ignorant?' Again, this is incredibly outrageous. What arrogance. This woman, like Devaney, has no business being an elected official. The 2012 elections can’t come fast enough."

As I said here:

The Homosexual Hate Movement is indeed totalitarian. It seeks to impose its agenda and to punish those who refuse to accept or condone illicit same-sex relationships. For example, British and Canadian homosexual activists want to punish the African State of Malawi because it will not recognize same-sex liaisons...Radical homosexual activists are engaged in a psychological attack in the form of propaganda aimed at those who are opposed to homosexuality. Their goal is to convert the mind and the will. As homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s," 'Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade pr counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice'..by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot....Both Desensitization and Jamming...are mere preludes to our highest - though necessarily very long-range - goal, which is Conversion. It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us.

Conversion aims at just this...By Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack , in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.' (p. 153).

The Homosexual Hate Movement is, by its own admission, engaged in psychological warfare through the use of propaganda to convert people to its agenda. And even that this conversion is 'profoundly threatening to the American way of life.' And when these radical activists fail to get their way, as we've witnessed in California and in other parts of the country, they can become violent. Indeed, this hate movement will use and all means - including economic sanctions - to impose its ideology. And that is totalitarianism."

Read More

Bishop Salvatore Cordileone: Battle for same-sex "marriage" destroying democracy in the United States

In a column for the Catholic Voice, Oakland California's diocesan newspaper, Bishop Cordileone wrote, "The fact of the matter is, wherever 'gay marriage' has become the law of the land, it has happened in a way that avoids the democratic process, and sometimes even goes directly against it."  See here.

Well Your Excellency, of course.  Does this really come as a surprise?  For years I have been warning that the homosexual hate movement is essentially totalitarian.  As reported here, I wrote:

Pope John Paul II, in "Memory and Identity: Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium," notes how, "If, on the one hand, the West continues to provide evidence of zealous evangelization, on the other hand anti-evangelical currents are equally strong.


They strike at the very foundation of human morality, influencing the family and promoting a morally permissive outlook: divorce, free love, abortion, contraconception, the fight against life in its initial phases and in its final phase, the manipulation of life.

This program is supported by enormous financial resources, not only in individual countries, but also on a worldwide scale. It has great centers of economic power at its disposal, through which it attempts to impose its own conditions on developing countries. Faced with this, one may legitimately ask whether this is not another form of totalitarianism, subtly concealed under the appearances of democracy." (p. 48).

The Homosexual Hate Movement is indeed totalitarian. It seeks to impose its agenda and to punish those who refuse to accept or condone illicit same-sex relationships. For example, British and Canadian homosexual activists want to punish the African State of Malawi because it will not recognize same-sex liaisons...

Radical homosexual activists are engaged in a psychological attack in the form of propaganda aimed at those who are opposed to homosexuality. Their goal is to convert the mind and the will. As homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s,": 'Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade pr counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice'..by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot....Both Desensitization and Jamming...are mere preludes to our highest - though necessarily very long-range - goal, which is Conversion. It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this...By Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack , in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.' (p. 153).

The Homosexual Hate Movement is, by its own admission, engaged in psychological warfare through the use of propaganda to convert people to its agenda. And even that this conversion is "profoundly threatening to the American way of life." And when these radical activists fail to get their way, as we've witnessed in California and in other parts of the country, they can become violent. Indeed, this hate movement will use and all means - including economic sanctions - to impose its ideology. And that is totalitarianism."

Related reading: The homosexual hate movement reveals its true colors.

Read More

File under: "See, I told you so."

Back in June of 2005 I posted the following here at La Salette Journey:


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


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

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

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

Some will accuse me of being a 'prophet of doom and gloom.' Recent events in Canada and in the United States would seem to contradict such an assessment."

My friend Deacon Nick Donnelly, who defends the Holy Father and the teaching of the Church from England, has a relevant post at his website Protect the Pope.  He writes:

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have ruled that Eunice and Owen Johns, a Pentecostal couple, cannot foster children because they uphold traditional Christian morality about homosexuality. In their judgement Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson stated: That if children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views like the Johns “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”.

To emphasize this point the Justices also stated that traditional Christian sexual ethics is harmful to the interests of children: ‘That “Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children”.

They further made it clear that not only is freedom of belief a ‘qualified’ right but that freedom of religion is also universally subordinate to the rights of homosexuals: ‘Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.’

This ruling makes it clear that if homosexuals are given the right to hold civil partnerships in places of worship that the courts will rule that the Catholic Church will not have the legal right to deny them a blessing in a Catholic parish church.

Incredibly, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that they were not discriminating against Eunice and Owen Johns’s religious beliefs because their upholding traditional Christian morality about homosexuality was not a ‘religious belief’.

‘That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs’. This judgement is setting a dangerous and totally unwarranted precedent that a UK court can judge what is a Christian belief and what is not a Christian belief. By so doing the judiciary is usurping the prerogative of the Churches. It’s also a nonsense distinction that brings the law into disrepute, because its obvious that Christian sexual ethics are a fundamental aspect of Christian belief.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have also ruled that local councils must test Christians to ensure that they have socially-acceptable views of homosexuality: ‘That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality’.

Mrs Jones gave the following dignified response after being unjustly told that she and her husband were ‘unfit’ to be foster parents by Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson: “All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics. We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.”

Protect the Pope comment: This is a shameful day for British justice and British jurisprudence when a couple are told that they are ‘unfit’ to be foster parents because they uphold traditional Christian sexual morality.
That two UK judges have the audacity to state as legal precedent that Christian teaching on homosexuality is ‘inimical’ to the interests of children turns truth and justice on its head.

As Pope Benedict makes clear homosexuality is a disorder of sexual desire that is harmful to the individual, the family and society. To present this disorder as normal or natural is truly ‘inimical’ to the interests of a child. And same sex unions that seek to adopt or have a child through surrogacy deny a child the right to the love of a mother and a father. This also is truly ‘inimical’ to the interests of a child.

The UK legal system has abandoned common law and common sense and is now enforcing a fundamentally flawed ideology. Where is our Wyszyński in the UK? Where is our Wojtyła to defend UK Catholics?

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/religious-freedom/breaking-news-high-court-judgment-suggests-christian-beliefs-harmful-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

Am I still the prophet of "doom and gloom"?
 
It's time to awake from slumber Christians.

Related reading here.

Read More