Human beings make choices and that's what sin is all about.

Human beings make choices and that’s what sin is all about.

Crisis Magazine notes how Rachel Maddow tried in vain to pin Rick Santorum down on the so-called ‘immutability’ of gayness – as if she doesn’t know.  People are much more than sexual organs; their loves and preferences are much more than physical, but if you’re a woman, and you don’t like the idea of sex with men, it probably has less to do with the fact that you don’t like heterosexual sex and more to do with the fact that you don’t like men so much.  And that of course is most certainly a choice.

When Rick Santorum recently appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, the host spent quite a bit of time during the interview trying to pin down Santorum on the question of whether sexual preference is an immutable characteristic.

Maddow: Can I ask you if you believe people choose to be gay?

Santorum: Ya know, I’ve sort of never answered that question. But I suspect there’s all sorts of reasons why people end up the way they are, and I’ll sort of leave it at that.

Maddow: But it matters in terms of whether or not—I mean, legally, in terms of the types of things that we’re describing here, in terms of whether or not the Congress should challenge the Supreme Court on these issues. I mean, if it’s an immutable characteristic. You don’t know if it’s an immutable?

Santorum: I don’t know. [Later in the interview] There are people who are alive today who identified themselves as gay and lesbian and who no longer are. That’s true. I do know—I’ve met people in that case. So, I guess maybe in that case, may be they did.

So is sexual preference, whether heterosexual or homosexual, theoretically immutable, or is it subject to change?

From here the writer, Kevin Clark, discusses the APA’s definition of homosexuality, which is entirely biased, unreliable, and recently changed from a mental disorder to an ‘immutable characteristic.’  Polling data in this area is also, I believe, inconclusive for many reasons.

On being interrogated, Santorum correctly cites examples of gay celebrities and others who have switched their stated orientations as evidence of ‘mutability,’ but he declines to draw the obvious conclusion because he’s a politician.  Yet, the fact is gay sex could never have been considered a sin and a moral failing for thousands of years up until now if it were not also a choice and a perversion of sexuality.    You can’t pervert something that is naturally there.  Gay people are groomed into the habit of gay sex; fall in with groups of gay friends; or respond to family situations so bleak that they reject their own nature and their roles as men or women.  People also have more gay sex in situations where there is no one of the opposite sex around, like prison.

Gay attraction is an inclination, but it’s also a cultivated habit and a choice.  Still, pretending otherwise is key to the gay agenda, which seeks to normalize and spread gay sexuality. They say you can’t make people gay, but it’s exactly what they want to do.   That wouldn’t be possible if homosexual attraction were simply an immutable reality of nature, but they can’t achieve their gay-topia if they don’t convince everyone that they’re just ‘born that way’ first.

The vast majority of people with gay attractions never act on them.  The next biggest group of those people act on them but settle into a natural male/female lifestyle.  Experts might call all these people ‘bisexual’ if they responded honestly to polls, but they’re really not, since they generally lead heterosexual lives.

The smallest group of people with SSA have sex almost exclusively with others of the same sex and reject the opposite sex.  Just like that other victim group, ‘the poor,’  this consists of a shifting group of people.  Nevertheless, we all know someone who lives a gay lifestyle for practically his or her entire life.

That rejection is a much deeper choice than sexual because men and women are much more than their bodies.  It’s a rejection of the opposite sex and the role of husband, wife, mother or father.  It’s also a rejection of one’s own nature as a man or a woman, of who one was born to be.  Like someone in prison, for various reasons this person has lost all hope in the possibility of a happy heterosexual relationship.  It’s not an ‘acceptance’ of a natural immutable orientation like they say, but a rejection, and it’s enabled and encouraged by the habitual sin of sodomy.










I AM a man, I AM a Catholic, I AM a Godparent,  and YOU kicked me!

I AM a man, I AM a Catholic, I AM a Godparent, and YOU kicked me!

Huffpo reports on the latest outrage being perpetrated against one unsuspecting Spanish bishop and faithful Catholics everywhere.

Alex Salinas is 21 years old. He was assigned female at birth, but is now living as his authentic self as a man. He is a “firm believer” and wants to be a godparent at his nephew’s baptism but the diocese of Cadiz and Ceuta is standing in his way. According to them, he is not a “suitable” person because of the life he leads, a life not “congruent with faith.”

Alex is a good name for this human.  It can go both ways.  Who designated its original female assignation, the furies?  Whoever assigned it, it was definitely not the same one who ‘authenticated’ its manhood later.

At least it wants to be a godparent. A godfather would give the bishop too many insane battles at once.

I suppose if we let this ‘it’ and its friends at the Huffington Post decide what is congruent with the faith instead of its bishop, that makes our faith really gay now.  Everything is gay, even Christ’s Church.

However, they do not find their argument to be discriminatory.

The diocese insists that “no discrimination is implied” by impeding a transgender man from being the godfather at the baptism of his nephew in the parish of San Fernando (Cadiz), indicating that it “happens frequently” with people who are not considered “suitable” because of their “lifestyle, opinions, and lack of congruence with Christian life and the Church’s regulations.”

Discrimination is good.  It’s a word stolen from us by liberals in an effort to make us their mind-slaves.  It simply means to tell one thing from another, to choose.  Rashly judging a person based on superficial or unrelated characteristics is a mistake – even a sin, but being able to see that a gay person who can’t figure out if it’s a man or a woman makes an evil choice for godparent is the good kind of ‘discriminating.’  But there’s no sense in arguing that it’s not discrimination.

When ‘discriminating’ is illegal, the only ones who are permitted to do it are judges, and even bishops have to leave their deciding to experts.

“To the church, I am still a woman, even though my documents of identification have changed,” explained Alex Salinas, who wants the diocese to reconsider their decision, which he took “as a kick in the stomach” because he is a “firm believer.”

Why do they always say you kicked them in the stomach when the only thing that happened was that they wished they could kick you in the stomach?

If you say you’re a man then you’re a man.  If you say you’re a firm believer then you’re a firm believer.  If you say you’re a bishop then provide a statement for the paper and call your lawyers.





No reason to be undignified, uncivil, or disrespectful

Feel the dignity, the civility, and the respect

On Sunday Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta released a statement on the incoherent, impeachable ruling from the depraved Supreme Court ordering us all to pretend gay people are married when the state says they are; just like we’re forced to pretend men are women, or women are men or something transitional. Being forced to sin, being forced to lie: that’s the rule in the Kingdom of Satan.

Atlanta Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory released this statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same sex marriage:

Each U.S. Supreme Court decision that has ever been rendered has resulted in deep disappointment for some people and vindication for others. If we all agreed on the outcomes of these divisive cases, there would simply be no reason for the Court to convene. This most recent decision is no different.

Nothing special about this decision, yes?  More of the same, people disagreeing with each other.  Can’t we all just get along?  Whatever happened to love?

By the same token, every court decision is limited in what it can achieve; again, this one is no exception. It does not change the biological differences between male and female human beings or the requirements for the generation of human life, which still demands the participation of both. It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and woman in a loving union that is permanent in commitment and open to God’s blessing of precious new life.

Thank God SCOTUS can’t change Catholic teaching on marriage, yet.  I suppose we should be grateful for that. But what difference does Catholic teaching matter anyway?  What if I’m not Catholic, or I’m a faux-catholic or I’m one of those many people repulsed by the Church for one reason or another? What if I hate the Church, and I’m in position to force the world to obey my commands?

This judgment, however, does not absolve either those who may approve or disapprove of this decision from the obligations of civility toward one another. Neither is it a license for more venomous language or vile behavior against those whose opinions continue to differ from our own. It is a decision that confers a civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it before. It does not resolve the moral debate that preceded it and will most certainly continue in its wake.

This evil and illicit ruling is nothing if not a license for incivility and vile behavior.  The problem is the offense only goes one way.  An attack not resisted is conquest.

Did he really call this a ‘civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it?’  I find the Archbishop’s language ‘venomous’ –  you know, like something a snake might utter.

This moral debate must also include the way that we treat one another – especially those with whom we may disagree. In many respects, the moral question is at least as consequential and weighty as the granting of this civil entitlement. The decision has offered all of us an opportunity to continue the vitally important dialogue of human encounter, especially between those of diametrically differing opinions regarding its outcome.

Who is having a moral debate?  This is a ruling. The debate’s over.  Nor is there a current debate about how we treat each other either.  There is only you and others like you urging decent people to lie down, comply, and neglect to confront evil.  There is no such thing as a ‘dialogue of human encounter.’  There is only right and wrong, life and death, Heaven and…What the Hell is this FrancisBishop talking about?

The decision has made my ministry as a pastor more complex since it demands that I both continue to uphold the teachings of my Church regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony while also demanding that I insist upon respect for the human dignity of both those who approve of the judgment as well as those who may disapprove.”

Everything liberals think is complex.  That’s what they say when they’re getting ready to do something evil.  If you protest you’re just too simple.

You can’t truly ‘uphold’ Catholic teaching without correcting, shaming, silencing, and checking the advance of sin.  You can only pretend to, just like Archbishop Gregory does.  They’re always handing out human dignity like coupons and applying it like Vicks.  But those who approve of this judgment have already abused their own dignity and deserve neither respect nor deference from faithful Christians.  The problem is it’s illegal now in this world of false prelates and corrupted justice.



Pro-religious freedom like the Apostles?

Pro-religious freedom like the Apostles?

At the Remnant Chris Jackson makes a logical yet counter-cultural point:

As reported:

Dozens of Christian protesters gathered in Detroit, Michigan, on Saturday to denounce the unveiling of a bronze nine-foot, one-ton goat-headed statue of Satan called the Baphomet monument.

The statue was presented by the Satanic Temple, an organization “dedicated to Satanic practice and the promotion of Satanic rights,” at an undisclosed location in the city as a security measure. The Satanic Temple kept the site of the unveiling of the huge statue secret, e-mailing the information only to members of the group and others who were previously given tickets to witness the occasion, according to Raw Story.

Different Neo-Catholic commentators have decried this event, most notably Michael Voris of Yet these same Neo-Catholics fully support the “religious freedom” championed by Vatican II, and also support the ecumenical initiatives of the post-Conciliar popes. Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae,states:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

…the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

So why then aren’t the Neo-Catholics obeying Vatican II? Instead of protesting the Satanists, they should instead be celebrating their right to religious liberty! For Vatican II declares that Satanists have a right “to be immune from coercion on the part individuals, or of social groups, and of any human power” (including Neo-Catholic protestors) so that they are not forced to act in public a manner contrary to their own beliefs. Why instead are the Neo-Catholics trying to coerce these poor Satanists into repudiating their beliefs and shut down the public expression of their religion? As for a “just public order” being observed, the Satanists are breaking no civil laws, they are simply unveiling their satanic goat statue in private. The Satanists are not causing wars or riots. In fact, the only thing close to disrupting of the public order is the media event caused in large part by the protest of Neo-Catholics and Protestants.

Further, it was none other than Pope Benedict XVI who, in a December 2005 address given to the Roman Curia, stated:

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith – a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God’s grace in freedom of conscience.

So why are the Neo-Catholics opposed to these Satanists professing their faith when the martyrs of the early Church died so that they may do so? Are they in opposition to Vatican II AND Pope Benedict? After all, seeing how zealously Neo-Catholics cite Pope Benedict’s side-note that the SSPX clergy possess “no legitimate ministry” as near infallible doctrine, you would think they would pay even more respect to this pontiff’s solemn expounding on the text of an Ecumenical Council.

It’s amazing that this very simple idea is so unpopular today.  I don’t think it’s true that the Apostles died for freedom of conscience.  They died because Jesus was the Messiah.  Their faith was THE faith.  It was the Jewish faith itself.   They didn’t say to themselves, “If I die then it will be good.”  They proclaimed the Gospel and someone else decided it would be good for them to die.  It’s good to be free to preach the true Gospel of Christ.  It’s not good to be free to teach lies about God.

Laws against heresy have been in force everywhere for all time except in the modern era.  If religious freedom was the cry of the Apostles, why did the Church support laws against heresy for two millennia? Where would Our Faith be today if they hadn’t?  If heresy had been put down, the English nobility would never have been able to steal the Faith from the people and raid the Churches.  To defend the Faith against men like Martin Luther is always to protect the innocent against the unjust.

If you don’t rule over the heretic, the heretic rules you because Evil also has its kingdom.  There’s no ‘gray area’ meadow of life in which to stroll and learn, plucking different flowers, dialoguing, sharing, and practicing gradualism.  Have you seen what happens to pro-life Democrats, and now pro-marriage Aussie leftists?  The enemy is lined up and in formation while we lie down and giggle, pretending this pleases God.

No. Religious freedom in effect just means the spread of heresy and that is more destructive than any other crime there can be.  Worship of Satan is a religion – an evil one, but in the end is it really much less evil than any religion outside the Church?  The Faith is a living unified whole, a person.  You can’t just break pieces off here and there.  You can’t defy the order of Heaven and still be part of it.  So where does that leave the heretic in the long run?  It leaves him in the same evil place as the Satanist.

Religious freedom is only good when it’s the freedom to worship the true God in His Church.  Other than that it’s just morbid.  Witness its proud fruit all around you and learn.

Further, in a 1985 address to the Leaders and Representatives of the Islamic and Hindu Communities in Kenya, Pope John Paul II stated:

The close bonds linking our respective religions – our worship of God and the spiritual values we hold in esteem – motivate us to become fraternal allies in service to the human family…

…We are all children of the same God, members of the great family of man. And our religions have a special role to fulfil in curbing these evils and in forging bonds of trust and fellowship. God’s will is that those who worship him, even if not united in the same worship, would nevertheless be united in brotherhood and in common service for the good of all.

Thus even the worship of the abstract Hindu notion of “God” found among multiple deities and strange pagan practices is considered by Vatican II and Pope John Paul II to be worshipping the true God.

So, couldn’t the same be said for those Satanists who consider Satan a deity? For, the Neo-Catholic argument goes, there is objectively only one true God. Therefore, all who believe in a Supreme Being and worship Him, are, objectively worshipping the one true God. Thus Satanists, even if they subjectively get a lot of things wrong about God, like the Muslims and Hindus, really worship the true God, whether they know it or not. Thus, in the words of Pope John Paul II, neo-catholics should “be united in brotherhood” with Satanists and “in common service for the good of all.”

So Vishnu is god. Allah is god, but not Satan?  Everything but Satan is god?  Do you think perhaps that the real God may take some issue with that extremely low standard and level of honor? Are we circling a drain here?




No time for trouble

No time for trouble

Is Catholic Answers an ideal resource? Its founder Karl Keating has taken a few hits in recent years over money and orthodoxy, and the site doesn’t have same reputation it had.  Why then yesterday, other than in the spirit of gracious appreciation, did Keating publish a lengthy thank you to his early sup

orter, notorious Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony?

As my first book was going through the publishing process at Ignatius Press, the editors sought endorsements from prominent Catholics. Among those who were asked for a blurb was Roger Mahony, then Archbishop of Los Angeles, a see to which he was appointed in 1985. (Six years later he was named a cardinal.)

Three weeks after receiving the manuscript of my book, Mahony replied to Ignatius Press with a letter dated January 28, 1988:

“I am very enthusiastic about the new book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, and I hasten to offer my support and endorsement for this book.

“The book is a fine defense of the Catholic Faith in the context of Fundamentalism’s widely accepted claims against the Roman Catholic Church as a ‘cult,’ a ‘perverted form of Christianity,’ and ‘one of the cruelest institutions in the history of Western civilization.’ It is also a fine exposition of the false assumptions—historical and doctrinal—which underlie Fundamentalism’s claims against the Church.

“Furthermore, this new book takes the main claims of Fundamentalism—its own doctrines as well as its anti-Catholic positions—and refutes them with convincing argumentation. The book also discourses well on the scriptural basis of Catholic doctrine and offers the reader a means of responding to Fundamentalism’s anti-Catholicism.”

The publisher considered this a fine and generous endorsement, and so did I, but there was more, something not even asked for:

“Not only do I endorse this book with enthusiasm,” wrote Mahony, “but I am also pleased to grant both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, should you find that helpful.”

It was found helpful, and Mahony’s imprimatur was used, even though doing so constituted a bit of an irregularity. Under canon law, the imprimatur may be granted by the bishop of the diocese where the author lives (I reside in San Diego) or the bishop of the diocese where the publisher is located (Ignatius Press is in San Francisco).

I suppose it was a bit of a stretch to have the Archbishop of Los Angeles grant the imprimatur, but perhaps use was made of the fact that Los Angeles is the metropolitan diocese in Southern California—that is, that Los Angeles has a certain pre-eminence over the other dioceses of the area, even if it doesn’t quite have jurisdiction over them.

When I later had a chance to meet Mahony, he told me that, once he had received the manuscript, he read it straight through. He made other kind remarks about the book, and I was grateful that a prominent prelate thought the book to be useful.

That was not the only kindness Mahony displayed toward me. In September 1988, entirely at his own initiative and not in response to any request from me, he wrote to all of the priests of the archdiocese:

“I am very pleased to recommend to you an organization called Catholic Answers.

“The attached sheet indicates their background and activities, and I cannot recommend Mr. Karl Keating and his group more highly to you. They give an excellent presentation on the real meaning of Fundamentalism and the various sects which operate so widely here in Southern California.

“Several of our parishes have already had Mr. Keating speak and give workshops, and I would recommend that you consider him for your ongoing adult education effort.”

This endorsement was sent just eight months after I went into full-time apologetics work. Over the next few years my colleagues and I gave many parish seminars in the Los Angeles area. I’m sure we would not have had so many had it not been for Mahony’s encouragement.

In those early years, we drove up from San Diego in the late afternoon, after preparing our materials at the office (we took much literature, very little of which, at that time, was produced by us). Usually it was three of us and lots of boxes crammed into a van.

At the parish, we arranged our tables, gave the presentation, and then answered questions for as long as anyone was interested in sticking around. The seminar itself might conclude by 9:00, but often we found ourselves going one-on-one in the parking lot far past midnight. It wasn’t uncommon for us to get back to the office around 2:00 a.m.

At best, on the way up, we’d have a chance to stop for a snack, so by the time everything was over, we were famished. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much open in the wee hours other than Denny’s. We got to know its menu all too well.

Some weeks we had multiple engagements in the Los Angeles area. We’d drive up for parish A on Tuesday, parish B on Thursday, parish C on Friday, and parish D on Saturday. We put lots of miles on the van and lots of miles on ourselves. One week I kept a tally of how long I worked: 101 hours. After that, I no longer kept a record.

As tiring as those trips were, they laid the foundation for Catholic Answers’ public presentations. They allowed us to refine our talks, hone our arguments, and polish our styles. After a while, we discovered that we could handle whatever a questioner might ask. We didn’t flail, as we sometimes did when we first went on the road. It was a wonderful, educative experience, even if exhausting.

It would have been different if Roger Mahony hadn’t endorsed my book and endorsed my organization. In 1990 he celebrated Mass at the very first Catholic Answers national conference, which was held in Long Beach. After that, we more or less lost touch. He became a cardinal the next year, and not only did his duties change in important ways, but so too did his interests and, perhaps, some of his opinions.

Eventually he came to be considered the dean of the liberal wing of the Church in America. It may be that his views changed about the kind of work and the kind of approach that Catholic Answers has engaged in. I don’t know.

I do know that for the next twenty years, until his retirement, he was the frequent object of complaints by orthodox Catholics. For many, he was their bete noire. At the end, he was embroiled in the abuse scandal and had his administrative wings clipped by his successor. He ended in semi-disgrace.

In all those years I never wrote anything against him. There wasn’t much need to. Plenty of others were eager enough to take him to task; there was justification for that. There was no good reason for me to pile on. I had nothing to say that hadn’t been said by many others.

That was part of the reason I didn’t go after him, but the main reason was that I remember when someone does me an unexpected kindness—or, as in his case, more than one. I honor that because, I think, it’s the honorable thing to do.

So Cardinal Mahony was nice to Karl Keating and his organization, yet so often not nice otherwise.  Is it honorable to look the other way out of gratitude?  Isn’t that the kind of thing that keeps trouble circulating among cronies?  Is it possible that the Cardinal was perhaps eager to get Keating in his debt early on, particularly since he was so frustrated by EWTN’s Mother Angelica at the time?

St. Paul’s admonition to bring correction privately first, then publicly if you have to is sound and honorable.  So was Mother’s reply when the Cardinal was using all his weight to intimidate her into yielding control of her network, “I’ll blow the damn thing up before you get your hands on it.”




I don't know what in the world he's talking about but I must submit my mind to it.

I don’t know what in the world he’s talking about, but I will nevertheless submit my mind.

The UK Catholic Herald has a sad piece today telling faithful Catholics to stop up their ears and close their eyes.  We aren’t supposed to think, just obey the hierarchy, yes?  Makes sense.  They’re all so nice.

But, huh, society being what it is, people will be people.

Authority is something Western society has a problem with. We like to make our own minds up, and even in Britain, once famed for its deference, everyone is their own expert.

In terms of religion, this is a very Protestant attitude. You go to the Bible, you find your proof text and you cite it, usually to support a position you have already taken up. This is not the Catholic attitude. We know what Scripture is because it was canonised by the Church, which also possesses the authority to expound it correctly, situating the texts within its traditions.

If your bishop is actually a Protestant, does that make you a Catholic to be a Protestant?  What if it’s your pope?

The Magisterium has a teaching authority, which is expressed in many ways, including encyclicals. But, as reaction to the most recent papal encyclical, Laudato Si’, showed, even Catholics have a tendency to think that such teaching is something they can take or leave. Indeed, as with so much of the reaction in some quarters to Pope Francis’s comments, there was a tendency for commentators to assume they were more Catholic than the Pope – something which seems to happen a great deal with Francis.

Why?  Why does it happen so much with Francis?  Don’t tell me.  It’s because he’s so wonderful and prophetic our hard hearts can’t hear it.  We’re just too challenged by his holy correction.  We don’t feel guilty enough about money.  We’re not afraid of the weather. We’ve been bribed by an oil company, and fooled by all the papers.

What do these writers suppose Heaven will make of their spin someday?

Popes are neither impeccable nor infallible in all they say, but it should be borne in mind that a papal encyclical is part of the ordinary magisterium, to which, as the Vatican II text Lumen Gentium reminds us, “religious submission of mind and will must be shown … in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence.” That means acknowledging the authority of the Magisterium, and, even when we disagree with some of what is said (acknowledging that on politics, economics and science, there is no question of infallibility applying), we should do so in a manner which shows respect.

Respect for a mountain of destructive lies?  Maybe that’s part of your faith, Mr. Charmley.






Full enabled to penetrate Catholic communities, now.

Fully enabled to penetrate Catholic communities, now.

If these top Washington bureaucrats are so smart that they rule over us, inform the United Nations, and now drive the Vatican; why do they betray their careful schemes to the press? Is it carelessness?  Do they assume they are commiserating with someone who, of course, also thinks Catholicism is just a tremendous hoax played on the simple, or is it just their egos?

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said there is no need to continue debating the science behind climate change.

“I can remember a day when the weather report was in the middle of the domestic and international news and took about a minute and a half. It wasn’t the news. When you go on the news today the first thing you’ll hear about is the weather. So there is a dramatic difference in the way people perceive the ability of the climate to impact their lives because they’re feeling it today,” McCarthy said during an event sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Their endless climate propaganda is its own proof.  Like Jack Nicholson said in The Shining,  “It’s okay. He saw it on the television.”

“I think we need to make it very clear and not continue to debate the science. I think we need to get more people speaking about it than EPA, or NOAA or NASA. I mean, those people are great and looked at as being experts, not necessarily the best at making climate change science personal for people so they understand it,” she added.

Why does she speak of the organization she runs as ‘those people?’  Is it so enormous she doesn’t even feel like she’s part of it?  Like a Nazi McCarthy shouts, “No more debates!”

Hmmm.  How can we make the global warming scam ‘more personal?’  How can we get the stupid masses to understand?  If only we could put one of our boys at the top of the Church, we could get all those pope-worshiping Catholics to do what we say.

McCarthy, who met with the Pope Francis in January to discuss climate change, applauded his encyclical as “a big game changer.” She said it’s America’s “moral responsibility” to act on the issue.

These elitist anti-life overlords looooooove that encyclical.  Now it’s moral!  The Catholic doctrine is ours in new FrancisChurch.  We will finally penetrate those impossible Christian ‘communities.’

“He can reach to communities that we can’t. I think it’s very difficult to say the pope is saying it for political reasons. He’s, I think, able to make the case that this is really a factual occurrence that humans are impacting the climate, that’s it’s really important, that it’s most important for the poor, the low-income minority communities that can’t get out of the way of the climate impacts,” McCarthy said.

It’s very difficult to say that the pope is a political agent?  Why would that be a benefit for McCarthy to celebrate?  How is it they can speak of the leader of the Catholic Church as if he is at once hawking their fiction-driven agenda and at the same time perceived as the voice of wisdom and truth?

It’s because they think the Church is a lie already, so why not make it their lie.  It’s worked before, and now that we’ve gotten hold of the mechanism, it will work again.  The problem is, similar to those Detroit atheists dancing around their new Satan statue, they don’t know what they’re playing with.

The reason Gina McCarthy and others like her reveal their strategy is because they are so thrilled about Pope Francis they can’t contain their excitement.  Francis is really able to ‘make the case,’ she exclaims, that the poor can’t get out of the way of the climate!  But is that a case or a sell?

It all seems impossible.  This new Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity because it’s about stealing and hurting the poor, but their FrancisChurch will stick and spread even as it kills.  Why?  Because you can always find enough bitter malcontents around to pay to make trouble.  They did it to the Latin Church.  They can do it to the world.


'catholic' spiritual direction at New York's renewed Church of Our Savior

‘catholic’ spiritual direction at wreckovated New York’s Church of Our Savior?

How did New York’s Church of Our Savior go so deeply in debt in just one brief year?  One must assume that the ongoing wreckovations, which are ‘sensitive’ to the past yet prepared for future technologies, cost money.  There’s also that tremendous collapse in collections from the Park Avenue jewel.  Still, there are many other ways for a Manhattan parish to waste Catholic contributions in the new FrancisChurch.  For example, you can hire someone to ‘renew’ lay ministries and apply deep-tissue spiritual direction at the same time.

Kathleen T. Ullmann, Class of 2013, has been called by the Church of Our Savior, NYC, as their first pastoral associate for lay ecclesial ministries.

The entire Archdiocese of New York is now involved in a strategic planning process called Making All Things New to ensure that the pastoral care of parishioners is not sacrificed or short-changed as the Archdiocese engages in the merging of parishes. Ullmann will be tasked with accomplishing the renewal of lay ministries in the three parishes of Church of Our Savior, Church of St. Stephen and Our Lady of the Scapular, and Chapel of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

That’s handy.  While they’re busy chewing up three parishes and selling them off as priceless real-estate, scattering the flock and reshuffling them far from home, they’re also actually ‘renewing’ the lay ministries – and since it’s too much for the remainder priests and faithful volunteers, they bring in an expert.

Before receiving her MA in Theology as well as a certificate in Spiritual Direction from General, Ullmann received a Master’s Degree as an early childhood special educator and is a licensed massage therapist.  She has completed three years of CPE in various hospital settings in NYC and will soon begin another  year of CPE at VA Medical Center.

CPE is an ‘interfaith’ spiritual direction license, The General is an Episcopal Church seminary, and a massage therapist is paid to give massages.

There’s more to a wreckovation than just ‘renewing’ churches and the Mass.




Calm down right-wingers. The Holy See says the UN is quite the opposite of this.

Calm down. The Holy See says the UN is quite the opposite.

Vatican Global Warming Archbishop and UN point man, Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, never has a good answer to a question:

The United Nations is not “the devil,” so a papal think tank is free to collaborate with the international body as well as people of any political persuasion, said Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

The church will continue to collaborate with the United Nations on any joint project that “does not go against the doctrine of the church,” he said at a news conference July 15.

The Vatican academy is sponsoring a one-day symposium July 22 with the United Nations’ global initiative, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, headed by U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs.

The unjust and oppressive schemes going on in the Vatican certainly do go against the doctrine of the Church, which is exactly why it’s entirely appropriate that it collaborates with the UN.  Of course the UN is not ‘the Devil’ but, much like Archbishop Sanchez Sorondo, it does make the Devil very pleased by doing all his dirty business.  He’s a huge fan.

“The United Nations is not the devil. Rather, quite the opposite,” he said.

If the United Nations is completely opposed to the devil it must be the Church, yes? – or even God himself!

Is the Vatican so infested there’s not a saved soul in it?

Blessed Pope Paul VI, who was the first pope to visit the United Nations, told the general assembly in 1965 that the world organization represented the mandatory path of modern civilization and world peace, Bishop Sanchez said. Successive popes showed the same kind of support with their own visits to the U.N., too, he said.

Speaking to the UN and doing its cruel job are two different things.  Citing the only Pope with the nerve to suppress the Mass of the Apostles and replace it with one he made up, and who flooded the hierarchy with faithless homosexuals, is at the least unconvincing.  I know Pope Francis made him a blessed so you’re right, there’s that.

“Therefore, I don’t see how there can be any problem” with collaborating with the United Nations, especially as the academy has worked with many other world organizations and leaders, he said.

That’s a good point.  The line of thugs and dictators trolling through the Vatican lately is quite long.  None of them are the devil either.

“To see the devil in the United Nations, which some on the right tend to do, is not the position of the Holy See,” he said.

Take that ‘position of the Holy See’ line to St. Peter at the gates.  That oughta fly.




This way to UN Heaven.

This way to UN Heaven for the believer

The Eponymous Flower has the inside story on the latest Sanchez Sorondo UN Global Warming atrocity in Rome.

(Rome) on the 21st and 22nd of July, mayors from around the world meet at the Vatican to discuss the global climate and modern slavery. What sounds so politically correct, should be through and through. Initiator of the Mayor Meeting is the Argentine, Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, Curial Archbishop, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences . He was the organizer behind the eco-Encyclical Laudato Si who besides creating the contacts next to the dead letter, especially at the United Nations and the “high politics”.

I must be ignorant but I fail to grasp this ‘modern slavery’ issue.  People throw out the words, ‘slavery’ or ‘human trafficking,’ and no further explanation is really given.  Statistics cite hundreds of thousands of slaves and usually associate them with that other fungible word, ‘refugees.’

Are we talking about Saudi housekeepers, illegal aliens, prostitutes, or the women of ISIS?  If so, then why don’t they just use the specific reference so we can know whom they’re talking about?  Are there slaves in the USA? If so then where are they?  Do they go to school? Do they work?  Are they in chains and at gunpoint or enslaved by drugs and harsh words?  Is it their poverty that keeps them where they are, because I would move that into Pope Francis’s poverty column then.

Are the two thousand people parked outside the telemarketing mill downtown slaves. If not, then what are they?

I wonder if generally, except for criminal gangs and many women in the Muslim world, these ‘slaves’ just don’t exist.  Sure, there are people on the very low end of life who are poor or immigrant and generally under the control of others all over the world.  But even if there were an actual worldwide slave problem it would have nothing to do with a catastrophically warming planet.  On the other hand if the slave problem was for the most part invented, then in that case they would have everything in common.

It seems to be very important these days at the UN, and now in the halls of what was once the Catholic Church, that there be non-stop conferencing and binding agreements made to solve problems that don’t really exist.  If the central issue being fixed isn’t real, then you can hurl useless ineffective ‘solutions’ at it all day and get away with it.  It’s the perfect excuse for government work.

In the new one-world UN faux-Christendom there’s no more need for the Veterans Administration or the Departments of Transportation and Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, because those entities rely upon something real.  Now, with replacement-Pope Francis and Abp. Sanchez Sorondo’s help, you can rule the world by pretending to solve problems that are completely fictional.

He organized ahead of the encyclical, the concept of an international workshop of “climate change and sustainable development” in the Vatican. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will give the opening speech. The keynote speaker will be his right hand, the UNSDNS Director Jeffrey Sachs (UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network). Thus, not only will the representatives who believe in  manmade global warming will gather in the Vatican, but also the neo-Malthusians.  Not only that, but climate skeptics were systematically removed from the registration list. The Vatican has been (see the promoters of a guided, one-sided meeting in accordance with the UN World Warming thesis  Climate skeptics Excluded From  Vatican Meeting – Other Opinions Undesirable ).

60 Mayors from Around the World Meeting in the Vatican – are “Exclusively” of the Left

The end of May  Sanchez Sorondo gave an inglorious interview in which he meant to identify the causes for the global children’s killings by abortion and climate change (see Abortion and Climate Change: In the Vatican someone was persuaded of great nonsense ). The Curial Archbishop has since been an architect of the approach of the Catholic Church to the UN agenda. It’s an initiative  that he can develop only with the necessary backing from the highest level.

Sanchez Sorondo’s next step will be to bring 60 mayors from around the world to the Vatican  next week. The cross-section is impressive, and the political positioning of the mayors rather “colorful”. Coming will be  the leftist Catholic Mayor of Rome, Ignazio Marino; the communist mayor of Milan, Giuliano Pisapia; the left-liberal mayor of Naples, Luigi De Magistris; the left-wing mayor of Madrid, Manuela Carmena (from the beginning of her judicial career a member of the Communist Party of Spain, then without a party, the 2015 top candidate of an electoral alliance between the Socialists and the radical left movement,  Podemos); the feminist, Socialist Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris.

Not only are true scientists excluded from presenting to the Academy of Sciences but only Democrats, or in Europe communists, were invited to this mayors conference.  There are absolutely no faithful Christians in any of these Vatican meetings because, despite the fact Pope Francis says he knows many who are good people, there is no such thing as a righteous communist and if you’re going to bind the world to treaties based completely upon lies, you can’t expect much help from people of character.

The next time Pope Francis rails against ‘ideology’ we must remember, not only that he is of course a notorious ideologue himself, but that his henchman Abp. Sanchez Sorondo can’t even find the least bit of truth or credibility in something that isn’t leftist:

The United Nations is not the devil, but the opposite,” said Sanchez Sorondo to a journalist’s question, whether it was not strange that the Vatican was harboring a UN event. “The symposium is not organized by the UN, but by the Pontifical Academies and the UN,” said the Archbishop. He meant the two academies, whose chancellor he is. Already Paul VI. has visited the United Nations in New York goes the justification of the Pope’s confidant. “In September, Pope Francis will visit them. I do not see where there should be a problem. In the United Nations to recognize the devil, is position typical of   the right, that is not the position of the Holy See. The united left gathered in the Vatican  would all be  happy with this statement.

Oh sure, right-wingers think the UN is bad.  That in and of itself is enough to silence a critique for the archbishop, the White House, and the editors of the New York Times.  This phony priest would pay the same compliment to every tenet of the Faith if he had to.

On the question of other journalists, whether the “exclusive presence of mayors of the left of   center is not a sign of partiality,” Sanchez Sorondo answered mockingly: “The invitation is open to everyone, if you bring us another mayor, we are grateful. We have no reservations.”  The one-sided color preference of the loaded mayor guest list suggests the opposite. It should rather have been a selective contact  including invitation.

Complain to Sorondo once, you get insulted.  Complain twice, you get a lie.  This is FrancisChurch.