This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
While historical revisionists like Deborah Dwork of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies like to slander Pope Pius XII, whose heroic efforts saved somewhere between 850,000 and 1.5 million Jewish lives, they often have little if anything to say about others who were in a position to save Jewish lives but decided not to. One example is President Roosevelt's response to the plight of the St. Louis, a German transatlantic liner which sailed from Hamburg, Germany on May 13, 1939 carrying 938 passengers, most of whom were Jews fleeing from the Third Reich.
As this article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum relates, "..sailing so close to Florida that they could see the lights of Miami, some passengers on the St. Louis cabled President Franklin D. Roosevelt asking for refuge. Roosevelt never responded. The State Department and the White House had decided not to take extraordinary measures to permit the refugees to enter the United States. A State Department telegram sent to a passenger stated that the passengers must "await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible into the United States...
Quotas established in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924 strictly limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted to the United States each year. In 1939, the annual combined German-Austrian immigration quota was 27,370 and was quickly filled. In fact, there was a waiting list of at least several years. U.S. officials could only have granted visas to the St. Louis passengers by denying them to the thousands of German Jews placed further up on the waiting list. Public opinion in the United States, although ostensibly sympathetic to the plight of refugees and critical of Hitler's policies, continued to favor immigration restrictions. The Great Depression had left millions of people in the United States unemployed and fearful of competition for the scarce few jobs available. It also fueled antisemitism, xenophobia, nativism, and isolationism. A Fortune Magazine poll at the time indicated that 83 percent of Americans opposed relaxing restrictions on immigration. President Roosevelt could have issued an executive order to admit the St. Louis refugees, but this general hostility to immigrants, the gains of isolationist Republicans in the Congressional elections of 1938, and Roosevelt's consideration of running for an unprecedented third term as president were among the political considerations that militated against taking this extraordinary step in an unpopular cause.
Roosevelt was not alone in his reluctance to challenge the mood of the nation on the immigration issue. Three months before the St. Louis sailed, Congressional leaders in both U.S. houses allowed to die in committee a bill sponsored by Senator Robert Wagner (D-N.Y.) and Representative Edith Rogers (R-Mass.). This bill would have admitted 20,000 Jewish children from Germany above the existing quota. ...
Following the U.S. government's refusal to permit the passengers to disembark, the St. Louis sailed back to Europe on June 6, 1939. The passengers did not return to Germany, however. Jewish organizations (particularly the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee) negotiated with four European governments to secure entry visas for the passengers: Great Britain took 288 passengers; the Netherlands admitted 181 passengers, Belgium took in 214 passengers; and 224 passengers found at least temporary refuge in France. Of the 288 passengers admitted by Great Britain, all survived World War II save one, who was killed during an air raid in 1940. Of the 620 passengers who returned to continent, 87 (14%) managed to emigrate before the German invasion of Western Europe in May 1940. 532 St. Louis passengers were trapped when Germany conquered Western Europe. Just over half, 278 survived the Holocaust. 254 died: 84 who had been in Belgium; 84 who had found refuge in Holland, and 86 who had been admitted to France."
But while President Roosevelt and Congressional leaders in both U.S. houses were refusing to allow Jewish refugees into the United States (think of the 20,000 Jewish children denied entry to the United States because a Bill was allowed to die), and while other countries such as Great Britain were doing the same, the Vatican was issuing tens of thousands of false documents to allow Jews to pass secretly as Christians so they could escape the Nazis. In addition, the financial aid Pope Pius XII helped provide the Jews was very real. Lichten, Lapide, and other Jewish chroniclers record those funds as being in the millions of dollars -dollars even more valuable then than they are now.
As this article makes clear, "The papacy rescued Jews by channeling money to those in need, issuing countless baptismal certificates for their protection, negotiating with Latin American countries to grant them visas, and keeping in touch with their relatives through the Vatican Information Office. News of Pius XII's acts of charity spread. Nuncios, apostolic delegates, bishops, pastors, and priests offered their assistance and comfort to prisoners, to internees, to families.."
So here we are. Pope Pius XII saved, even by the most conservative accounts, 860,000 Jews. Some argue that the figure is closer to 1.5 million. And this at a time when President Roosevelt and Congressional leaders in the United States were refusing refuge to Jews from Europe thereby ensuring the death of many - including children.
But for professor Dwork, it is Pius XII who "failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably."
The voyage of the St. Louis has been, in my opinion, inappropriately described as the "voyage of the damned." Many of those poor people may have gone to their deaths. But if anything about that tragic voyage was damnable, it was the refusal of the Roosevelt administration to do the right thing by allowing those refugees entry into the United States.
While the U.S. turned its back on innocent men, women and children, Pope Pius XII did not. The Catholic Church did not. And anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is not a real student of history. Such a person is not interested in historical facts. Only in anti-Catholic propaganda.
As this article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum relates, "..sailing so close to Florida that they could see the lights of Miami, some passengers on the St. Louis cabled President Franklin D. Roosevelt asking for refuge. Roosevelt never responded. The State Department and the White House had decided not to take extraordinary measures to permit the refugees to enter the United States. A State Department telegram sent to a passenger stated that the passengers must "await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible into the United States...
Quotas established in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924 strictly limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted to the United States each year. In 1939, the annual combined German-Austrian immigration quota was 27,370 and was quickly filled. In fact, there was a waiting list of at least several years. U.S. officials could only have granted visas to the St. Louis passengers by denying them to the thousands of German Jews placed further up on the waiting list. Public opinion in the United States, although ostensibly sympathetic to the plight of refugees and critical of Hitler's policies, continued to favor immigration restrictions. The Great Depression had left millions of people in the United States unemployed and fearful of competition for the scarce few jobs available. It also fueled antisemitism, xenophobia, nativism, and isolationism. A Fortune Magazine poll at the time indicated that 83 percent of Americans opposed relaxing restrictions on immigration. President Roosevelt could have issued an executive order to admit the St. Louis refugees, but this general hostility to immigrants, the gains of isolationist Republicans in the Congressional elections of 1938, and Roosevelt's consideration of running for an unprecedented third term as president were among the political considerations that militated against taking this extraordinary step in an unpopular cause.
Roosevelt was not alone in his reluctance to challenge the mood of the nation on the immigration issue. Three months before the St. Louis sailed, Congressional leaders in both U.S. houses allowed to die in committee a bill sponsored by Senator Robert Wagner (D-N.Y.) and Representative Edith Rogers (R-Mass.). This bill would have admitted 20,000 Jewish children from Germany above the existing quota. ...
Following the U.S. government's refusal to permit the passengers to disembark, the St. Louis sailed back to Europe on June 6, 1939. The passengers did not return to Germany, however. Jewish organizations (particularly the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee) negotiated with four European governments to secure entry visas for the passengers: Great Britain took 288 passengers; the Netherlands admitted 181 passengers, Belgium took in 214 passengers; and 224 passengers found at least temporary refuge in France. Of the 288 passengers admitted by Great Britain, all survived World War II save one, who was killed during an air raid in 1940. Of the 620 passengers who returned to continent, 87 (14%) managed to emigrate before the German invasion of Western Europe in May 1940. 532 St. Louis passengers were trapped when Germany conquered Western Europe. Just over half, 278 survived the Holocaust. 254 died: 84 who had been in Belgium; 84 who had found refuge in Holland, and 86 who had been admitted to France."
But while President Roosevelt and Congressional leaders in both U.S. houses were refusing to allow Jewish refugees into the United States (think of the 20,000 Jewish children denied entry to the United States because a Bill was allowed to die), and while other countries such as Great Britain were doing the same, the Vatican was issuing tens of thousands of false documents to allow Jews to pass secretly as Christians so they could escape the Nazis. In addition, the financial aid Pope Pius XII helped provide the Jews was very real. Lichten, Lapide, and other Jewish chroniclers record those funds as being in the millions of dollars -dollars even more valuable then than they are now.
So here we are. Pope Pius XII saved, even by the most conservative accounts, 860,000 Jews. Some argue that the figure is closer to 1.5 million. And this at a time when President Roosevelt and Congressional leaders in the United States were refusing refuge to Jews from Europe thereby ensuring the death of many - including children.
But for professor Dwork, it is Pius XII who "failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably."
The voyage of the St. Louis has been, in my opinion, inappropriately described as the "voyage of the damned." Many of those poor people may have gone to their deaths. But if anything about that tragic voyage was damnable, it was the refusal of the Roosevelt administration to do the right thing by allowing those refugees entry into the United States.
While the U.S. turned its back on innocent men, women and children, Pope Pius XII did not. The Catholic Church did not. And anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is not a real student of history. Such a person is not interested in historical facts. Only in anti-Catholic propaganda.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Just recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that, "It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres." One of those grave threats is discussed here.
Cardinal George Pell of Australia has correctly noted that, "Some secularists seem to like one way streets..Their intolerance of Christianity seeks to drive it out not only from the public square, but even from the provision of education, health care and welfare services to the wider community. Tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups." See here.
Indeed. And this intolerance of tolerance is in evidence at Clark University in Worcester. At its website, we read that:
"Clark students
•Are passionate about ideas, causes and events beyond themselves.
•Embrace issues and take action.
•Approach life with open minds and a global perspective." See here.
And yet, because I questioned the research findings of one of Clark University's professors, Dr. Abbie Goldberg (see here), one of the university's approved student groups - the Clark "Freethought" Society, posted my photo with the following commentary from Clark Student Brian Seitzman: "He's a delusional nutter who spends a lot of time posting photos of aborted fetuses on FB [Facebook]*...He also appears to have some major persecution fantasies...In short, the guy's pretty much of an ass.... but you'd likely figured that much out already." Apparently Mr. Seitzman would consider Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Pell - not to mention a growing number of the Church's hierarchy - to be "delusonal nutters" who suffer from "persecution fantasies."
Pope John Paul II reminded us in Centesimus Annus that, "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."
Authentic Christians have always and everywhere accepted a "healthy pluralism." At the same time, such Christians have also understood that they have an obligation to acknowledge their beliefs and to preach the moral message given to them by the Lord Jesus. The follower of the Lord Jesus possesses a qualified certainty regarding the tenets of Natural Law and other truths which are revealed by God and help guide the conduct of man. Consequently, the authentic Christian understands that Christian ethical principles inform human society. Secular Humanists and those committed toward advancing the radical homosexual agenda have their own agenda and will do everything in their power to censor the Christian view.
The authentic Christian [or any person of good will] will reject the sophism of those who declare that anyone who does not buy into the Dictatorship of Relativism (a pluralism of opinions which rejects any and all absolute truth or even its possibility) is a "fanatic" or a "fundamentalist." On the contrary, such people will defend the truth in a positive manner. And while respecting persons and living out charity, they will proclaim the truth without fear.
This is the mind of Christ. As Pope John Paul II taught us in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 95:
"The Church's teaching, and in particular her firmness in defending the universal and permanent validity of the precepts prohibiting intrinsically evil acts, is not infrequently seen as the sign of an intolerable intransigence, particularly with regard to the enormously complex and conflict-filled situations present in the moral life of individuals and of society today; this intransigence is said to be in contrast with the Church's motherhood. The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm... The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection...
In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness."
Clark University's "Freethought" Society has one post after another on Facebook ridiculing religious belief (especially Christianity) and has numerous links to radical secularist groups which seek to drive Christianity out of the political and cultural spheres and to relegate it to the margins of society. In short, far from encouraging authentic dialogue and a healthy pluralism, the university-approved student group apparently has the sole purpose of demonizing any and all religious expression.
Free thought? Or slavery to what Pope Benedict XVI has referred to as the "Dictatorship of Relativism"? And why is the institution slandering Pope Pius XII? See here.
* For the record, in some three years on Facebook, I have posted two photographs of aborted babies. Therefore I do not, as Mr. Seitzman has falsely asserted, spend "a lot of time posting photos of aborted fetuses on FB." But why should photographs of aborted babies upset Mr. Seitzman so much?
Cardinal George Pell of Australia has correctly noted that, "Some secularists seem to like one way streets..Their intolerance of Christianity seeks to drive it out not only from the public square, but even from the provision of education, health care and welfare services to the wider community. Tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups." See here.
Indeed. And this intolerance of tolerance is in evidence at Clark University in Worcester. At its website, we read that:
"Clark students
•Are passionate about ideas, causes and events beyond themselves.
•Embrace issues and take action.
•Approach life with open minds and a global perspective." See here.
And yet, because I questioned the research findings of one of Clark University's professors, Dr. Abbie Goldberg (see here), one of the university's approved student groups - the Clark "Freethought" Society, posted my photo with the following commentary from Clark Student Brian Seitzman: "He's a delusional nutter who spends a lot of time posting photos of aborted fetuses on FB [Facebook]*...He also appears to have some major persecution fantasies...In short, the guy's pretty much of an ass.... but you'd likely figured that much out already." Apparently Mr. Seitzman would consider Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Pell - not to mention a growing number of the Church's hierarchy - to be "delusonal nutters" who suffer from "persecution fantasies."
Pope John Paul II reminded us in Centesimus Annus that, "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."
Authentic Christians have always and everywhere accepted a "healthy pluralism." At the same time, such Christians have also understood that they have an obligation to acknowledge their beliefs and to preach the moral message given to them by the Lord Jesus. The follower of the Lord Jesus possesses a qualified certainty regarding the tenets of Natural Law and other truths which are revealed by God and help guide the conduct of man. Consequently, the authentic Christian understands that Christian ethical principles inform human society. Secular Humanists and those committed toward advancing the radical homosexual agenda have their own agenda and will do everything in their power to censor the Christian view.
The authentic Christian [or any person of good will] will reject the sophism of those who declare that anyone who does not buy into the Dictatorship of Relativism (a pluralism of opinions which rejects any and all absolute truth or even its possibility) is a "fanatic" or a "fundamentalist." On the contrary, such people will defend the truth in a positive manner. And while respecting persons and living out charity, they will proclaim the truth without fear.
This is the mind of Christ. As Pope John Paul II taught us in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 95:
"The Church's teaching, and in particular her firmness in defending the universal and permanent validity of the precepts prohibiting intrinsically evil acts, is not infrequently seen as the sign of an intolerable intransigence, particularly with regard to the enormously complex and conflict-filled situations present in the moral life of individuals and of society today; this intransigence is said to be in contrast with the Church's motherhood. The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm... The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection...
In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness."
Clark University's "Freethought" Society has one post after another on Facebook ridiculing religious belief (especially Christianity) and has numerous links to radical secularist groups which seek to drive Christianity out of the political and cultural spheres and to relegate it to the margins of society. In short, far from encouraging authentic dialogue and a healthy pluralism, the university-approved student group apparently has the sole purpose of demonizing any and all religious expression.
Free thought? Or slavery to what Pope Benedict XVI has referred to as the "Dictatorship of Relativism"? And why is the institution slandering Pope Pius XII? See here.
* For the record, in some three years on Facebook, I have posted two photographs of aborted babies. Therefore I do not, as Mr. Seitzman has falsely asserted, spend "a lot of time posting photos of aborted fetuses on FB." But why should photographs of aborted babies upset Mr. Seitzman so much?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
"The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses, who slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind.........the slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. The one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a personal policy secures."
Adolf Hitler from "Mein Kampf"
As this website explains:
"Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.
During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.
The Nazi censors also burned the books of Helen Keller, who had overcome her deafness and blindness to become a respected writer; told of the book burnings, she responded: "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas." Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States protested the book burnings, a clear violation of freedom of speech, in public rallies in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.
Schools also played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas. While some books were removed from classrooms by censors, other textbooks, newly written, were brought in to teach students blind obedience to the party, love for Hitler, and antisemitism. After-school meetings of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls trained children to be faithful to the Nazi party. In school and out, young people celebrated such occasions as Adolf Hitler's birthday and the anniversary of his taking power."
Today, censorship is beginning to be used against Christians to silence moral opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Today's censors do not have to gather up thousands of books, march by torchlight in nighttme parades and throw books into huge bonfires. They have merely to strike a few keys from the comfort of their offices.
Inflated in their rebellion against the God-Man, the Sons of Satan, those committed toward the atheistic program of attacking the Church from without and undermining it from within in preparation for the Man-God, will continue to intensify their persecution of craftiness and subversion until it reaches its culmination in an explosion of hate-filled rage which will bear much blood and death. Father Livio Fanzaga, writing about the Antichrist, says that, "Catholicism alone will resist him. How then do we destroy this superstition which alone obstructs the world's self-revelation? How do we destroy this superstition which divides mankind and which prevents man from being truly brotherly and free? The true Antichrist is revealed in the replies to these questions. Here is perceived his profound being as the man of iniquity. He will not tolerate the idea of men who adore any god other than himself. His intolerance obliges him to make an exception to his pacifism and his philosophy of non-violence. He is the greatest pacifist in the history of the human race, but because peace and justice really reign on earth he will make an exception to kill and destroy the great superstition of Catholicism, once and for all time..." (Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 124).
On September 15, 1992, Our Lady told Father Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests that, "..It is the hour of my great sorrow for the Church, my dearly beloved Daughter. How grievously the Church is suffering in these times, as she carries her great cross and climbs the bloodstained Calvary of her passion and her bloody immolation! Never before, as today, has the Church been made so utterly like my Son Jesus. She is like Him in solitude and abandonment; she is like Him in denial and betrayal; she is like Him in contempt and condemnation; she is like Him in her crucifixion and in her agony. This is the hour of my great sorrow for the Church, because the hour of her redemptive passion has come. It is the gour of my great sorrow for humanity, so ill and so reduced to slavery by the spirits of evil. The diabolical powers are ruling the earth and producing everywhere the wicked fruits of their dark reign. And thus this humanity has again become pagan, after almost two thousand years of its redemption and of the first announcement of the Gospel of salvation. Faithlessness and impiety again cover it; sins wound it; evil poisons it; pride rules it; impurity seduces it; egoism and hatred enchain it; Satan reduces it more and more to slavery and reigns over you with his diabolical power...This is the hour of my great sorrow for all of you, my poor children, because the time of your great suffering has come. Take refuge in me. Hasten to the sure refuge of my Immaculate Heart, because we must live together through the hour of the greatest trial, which has now come for you, for the Church and for all humanity."
Some will accuse me of playing the prophet of "doom and gloom." But what happened to Fr. Donat Gionet when he spoke out against homosexuality? How about Fr. Michael Rodriguez?
Related reading here and here.
Adolf Hitler from "Mein Kampf"
As this website explains:
"Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.
During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.
The Nazi censors also burned the books of Helen Keller, who had overcome her deafness and blindness to become a respected writer; told of the book burnings, she responded: "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas." Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States protested the book burnings, a clear violation of freedom of speech, in public rallies in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.
Schools also played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas. While some books were removed from classrooms by censors, other textbooks, newly written, were brought in to teach students blind obedience to the party, love for Hitler, and antisemitism. After-school meetings of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls trained children to be faithful to the Nazi party. In school and out, young people celebrated such occasions as Adolf Hitler's birthday and the anniversary of his taking power."
Today, censorship is beginning to be used against Christians to silence moral opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Today's censors do not have to gather up thousands of books, march by torchlight in nighttme parades and throw books into huge bonfires. They have merely to strike a few keys from the comfort of their offices.
Inflated in their rebellion against the God-Man, the Sons of Satan, those committed toward the atheistic program of attacking the Church from without and undermining it from within in preparation for the Man-God, will continue to intensify their persecution of craftiness and subversion until it reaches its culmination in an explosion of hate-filled rage which will bear much blood and death. Father Livio Fanzaga, writing about the Antichrist, says that, "Catholicism alone will resist him. How then do we destroy this superstition which alone obstructs the world's self-revelation? How do we destroy this superstition which divides mankind and which prevents man from being truly brotherly and free? The true Antichrist is revealed in the replies to these questions. Here is perceived his profound being as the man of iniquity. He will not tolerate the idea of men who adore any god other than himself. His intolerance obliges him to make an exception to his pacifism and his philosophy of non-violence. He is the greatest pacifist in the history of the human race, but because peace and justice really reign on earth he will make an exception to kill and destroy the great superstition of Catholicism, once and for all time..." (Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 124).
Some will accuse me of playing the prophet of "doom and gloom." But what happened to Fr. Donat Gionet when he spoke out against homosexuality? How about Fr. Michael Rodriguez?
Related reading here and here.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
By now most of you have heard how Michelle Bachmann, in criticizing Texas Governor Rick Perry for mandating that sixth grade girls in his state be vaccinated against HPV - a sexually transmitted disease that has been linked to the development of cervical cancer - implied that Gardasil could lead to mental retardation. Granted that was a stupid thing to say. But equally troubling is the response of the mainstream media to this fiasco. In their zeal to denounce Bachmann, certain media types have ignored the fact that vaccination with Gardasil can have disastrous consequences.
According to Dr. Mercalo, "There have been a total of 47 deaths linked to Gardasil since it was brought to market in 2006, according to a press release issued by Judicial Watch, which says it has obtained records from the FDA. In 2008 alone 28 women and girls died after receiving Gardasil injections (up from 19 deaths in 2007). In all the FDA documented 6,723 adverse events related to Gardasil in 2008, of which 1,061 were considered "serious," and 142 considered "life threatening,” the group reported. Further, as Barbara Loe Fisher reported, by the summer of 2009 Gardasil had already caused more than 15,000 reports of vaccine reactions, including more than 3,000 injuries and 48 deaths.
However, it’s estimated that only between 1 percent and 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are ever reported, which means there could actually be anywhere from 150,000 to 1.5 million vaccine injuries related to Gardasil." (See here).
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has said that, "With cervical cancer causing about one percent of all cancer deaths in American women due to routine pap screening, it was inappropriate for the FDA to fast track Gardasil. It is way too early to direct all young girls to get three doses of a vaccine that has not been proven safe or effective in their age group."
Reliable sources have reported that Governor Rick Perry has received $21,000 from Merck's political action committee. See here.
Granted, Michelle Bachmann is not a scientist. Her suggestion that Gardasil may be linked to mental retardation was simply wrong. But far more disturbing is the attitude of the mainstream media to a vaccine which has been linked to serious injury and even death.
Disastrous consequences indeed!
According to Dr. Mercalo, "There have been a total of 47 deaths linked to Gardasil since it was brought to market in 2006, according to a press release issued by Judicial Watch, which says it has obtained records from the FDA. In 2008 alone 28 women and girls died after receiving Gardasil injections (up from 19 deaths in 2007). In all the FDA documented 6,723 adverse events related to Gardasil in 2008, of which 1,061 were considered "serious," and 142 considered "life threatening,” the group reported. Further, as Barbara Loe Fisher reported, by the summer of 2009 Gardasil had already caused more than 15,000 reports of vaccine reactions, including more than 3,000 injuries and 48 deaths.
However, it’s estimated that only between 1 percent and 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are ever reported, which means there could actually be anywhere from 150,000 to 1.5 million vaccine injuries related to Gardasil." (See here).
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has said that, "With cervical cancer causing about one percent of all cancer deaths in American women due to routine pap screening, it was inappropriate for the FDA to fast track Gardasil. It is way too early to direct all young girls to get three doses of a vaccine that has not been proven safe or effective in their age group."
Reliable sources have reported that Governor Rick Perry has received $21,000 from Merck's political action committee. See here.
Granted, Michelle Bachmann is not a scientist. Her suggestion that Gardasil may be linked to mental retardation was simply wrong. But far more disturbing is the attitude of the mainstream media to a vaccine which has been linked to serious injury and even death.
Friday, June 17, 2011
In its 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say:
"..increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy." (Nos. 8, 9).
In No. 15 the CDF says, "We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them."
These guidelines have not been followed within the Boston Archdiocese. In my last post, I noted how Father John Unni has promoted radical homosexual activists Rabbi Devon Lerner and Charles Martel and their organization called "Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry," an organization dedicated toward promoting "gay marriage."
The CDF teaches us that "Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral." And yet, Father Unni has promoted an organization which is not concerned with the truth about homosexuality but which seeks instead to condone homosexual activity. His proposed "Gay Pride Mass," which had the initial go-ahead from the Archdiocese, would have presented yet another problem. For the CDF says in No. 17 of this same letter that, "All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous."
I guess the Archdiocese of Boston simply forgot these guidelines. Maybe they simply chose to ignore them?
"..increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy." (Nos. 8, 9).
In No. 15 the CDF says, "We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them."
These guidelines have not been followed within the Boston Archdiocese. In my last post, I noted how Father John Unni has promoted radical homosexual activists Rabbi Devon Lerner and Charles Martel and their organization called "Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry," an organization dedicated toward promoting "gay marriage."
The CDF teaches us that "Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral." And yet, Father Unni has promoted an organization which is not concerned with the truth about homosexuality but which seeks instead to condone homosexual activity. His proposed "Gay Pride Mass," which had the initial go-ahead from the Archdiocese, would have presented yet another problem. For the CDF says in No. 17 of this same letter that, "All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous."
I guess the Archdiocese of Boston simply forgot these guidelines. Maybe they simply chose to ignore them?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
It's Easter Sunday. Catholics and other Christians are celebrating the Resurrection of their Savior. And on this sacred day, when Christ's disciples remember the historic event of His reuniting His human body and soul which had been separated by His death on the Cross, the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise has decided to publish homosexual agitprop in the form of an article written by Bonnie J. Toomey and entitled "Why should pink have us seeing red?"
Responding to the controversy which erupted when the president of Abercrombie & Fitch, Jenna Lyons, painted her five year old son's toenails pink, Ms. Toomey writes, "...pink is a beautiful color, and I think it looks great on a guy. It doesn't mean anything. But why do we get so uncomfortable when it comes to boys and pink? Traditions, religions and a patriarchal society have put pink where they want it, not necessarily where it rightfully belongs. My sons wore their sister's costumes and dresses many times..But did it change their gender?...And what if it did? Nature is not nurture, and no matter how hard you try, you can't hold back nature..."
But this is to suggest that homosexuality is genetic, dominant and irreversible. If this were true, then no one would be responsible for deviant sexual acts. The fact remains, however, that psychological therapy has proven to be very successful in diminishing, and in many cases even eliminating, same-sex attraction. Personal testimonies from former homosexuals who were healed from the psychopathology may be found here and here.
Ms. Toomey insists though that, "homosexuality is determined by innate characteristics that contribute to sexual orientation and that cannot be changed through medical or psychiatric treatment." That would indeed come as news to those who have recovered from the psychopathology. But Ms. Toomey wouldn't be interested in their testimonies. For these would produce a crack in her wall of conviction. And Ms. Toomey is not interested in truth. The fact remains, homosexuality is not innate. In fact, Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works on the cutting edge of DNA, has said that, "Homosexuality is not hardwired..." and "..there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive." See here.
It is unfortunate that homosexual propagandists like Bonnie Toomey continue to ignore the hard science about homosexuality. Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality (unlike Ms. Toomey who has no expertise in this area), 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).
Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active homosexual and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don't know it. See here. The health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle are well documented (see here), but propagandists for the lifestyle - like Ms. Toomey - do not seem to be very concerned about these health risks. For their goal is to convert others to the homosexal ideology through a planned psychological attack in the form of homosexual propaganda.
In her zeal to promote the sodomite cause, Ms. Toomey engages in one falsehood after another. She writes, "It's time we accept the fact that as much as 10 percent of the population..is homosexual." But the ten percent myth, which has been based upon research done by the now totally discredited Alfred Kinsey, has been refuted time and again.
For Ms. Toomey, propagandist for the sodomite culture, "Homosexuality..is not wrong." And she is entitled to her beliefs. As idiotic as they are. I'm sure she actually believes the lifestyle is healthy as well. But those of us who are Christian, Jew and Muslim are entitled to our beliefs as well. Those of us who are authentically Catholic, as opposed to being Catholic in name only, accept the teaching of the Church's Magisterium, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They 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." (2357).
And we do not appreciate a second-rate columnist with absolutely no background in theology or the science of DNA telling us that we are backward simply because we do not buy into her radical homosexual agitprop which insists that homosexuality is innate or hardwired.
That the Sentinel & Enterprise would publish such nonsense on Easter Sunday is shameful. The publication has embarassed itself once again.
Responding to the controversy which erupted when the president of Abercrombie & Fitch, Jenna Lyons, painted her five year old son's toenails pink, Ms. Toomey writes, "...pink is a beautiful color, and I think it looks great on a guy. It doesn't mean anything. But why do we get so uncomfortable when it comes to boys and pink? Traditions, religions and a patriarchal society have put pink where they want it, not necessarily where it rightfully belongs. My sons wore their sister's costumes and dresses many times..But did it change their gender?...And what if it did? Nature is not nurture, and no matter how hard you try, you can't hold back nature..."
But this is to suggest that homosexuality is genetic, dominant and irreversible. If this were true, then no one would be responsible for deviant sexual acts. The fact remains, however, that psychological therapy has proven to be very successful in diminishing, and in many cases even eliminating, same-sex attraction. Personal testimonies from former homosexuals who were healed from the psychopathology may be found here and here.
Ms. Toomey insists though that, "homosexuality is determined by innate characteristics that contribute to sexual orientation and that cannot be changed through medical or psychiatric treatment." That would indeed come as news to those who have recovered from the psychopathology. But Ms. Toomey wouldn't be interested in their testimonies. For these would produce a crack in her wall of conviction. And Ms. Toomey is not interested in truth. The fact remains, homosexuality is not innate. In fact, Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works on the cutting edge of DNA, has said that, "Homosexuality is not hardwired..." and "..there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive." See here.
It is unfortunate that homosexual propagandists like Bonnie Toomey continue to ignore the hard science about homosexuality. Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality (unlike Ms. Toomey who has no expertise in this area), 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).
Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active homosexual and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don't know it. See here. The health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle are well documented (see here), but propagandists for the lifestyle - like Ms. Toomey - do not seem to be very concerned about these health risks. For their goal is to convert others to the homosexal ideology through a planned psychological attack in the form of homosexual propaganda.
In her zeal to promote the sodomite cause, Ms. Toomey engages in one falsehood after another. She writes, "It's time we accept the fact that as much as 10 percent of the population..is homosexual." But the ten percent myth, which has been based upon research done by the now totally discredited Alfred Kinsey, has been refuted time and again.
For Ms. Toomey, propagandist for the sodomite culture, "Homosexuality..is not wrong." And she is entitled to her beliefs. As idiotic as they are. I'm sure she actually believes the lifestyle is healthy as well. But those of us who are Christian, Jew and Muslim are entitled to our beliefs as well. Those of us who are authentically Catholic, as opposed to being Catholic in name only, accept the teaching of the Church's Magisterium, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They 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." (2357).
And we do not appreciate a second-rate columnist with absolutely no background in theology or the science of DNA telling us that we are backward simply because we do not buy into her radical homosexual agitprop which insists that homosexuality is innate or hardwired.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Because Humanists recognize the importance of the public schools in advancing their man-centered religion, they do everything in their power to ensure that children are indoctrinated into the tenets of Humanism even as they attack faith-based schools. It was Paul Blanshard, writing in The Humanist, who said, "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all the other myths of alleged history." (The Humanist State, March/April 1976, p. 17).
Humanist John Dumphy, also writing for The Humanist, said "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preacher, for they will be ministers of another servant, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become and area of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never realized Christian idea of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved." (The Humanist, January/February 1983, p. 26).
Humanists have a right to believe as they do. But so do people of faith. Tolerance of different beliefs is an essential ingredient of a free society. But Humanists do not embrace such tolerance. They are, in fact, the most intolerant as they seek to indoctrinate and coerce others into their belief system.
While the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us 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, our Holy Father explains 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. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.
Homosexual propaganda aimed at children in the public schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
