la vocación que recibió de Cristo al primado petrino, a ser su Vicario en la tierra, es simplemente irrenunciable “El siempre es también un para siempre, no hay más un retorno a lo privado”. Así lo quiso hacer, y así lo hizo.

¿Por qué Benedicto XVI sigue siendo el Vicario de Cristo?

misa

El Papa Benedicto XVI no renunció al cargo divino que en 2005 lo convirtió en Vicario de Cristo, sino solamente al ministerio de obispo de Roma y a los cargos administrativos del Papado, al declarar (discurso del 27 de febrero de 2013) que él mantendría el “primado petrino”, por lo cual dejó ver que sigue llevando sobre sus hombros la carga y la vocación de ser el Vicario de Cristo. A eso no se puede renunciar, es una cualidad “ad vitam” otorgada por Cristo a Pedro y sus sucesores.

El Papa Ratzinger pronunció, un día antes de tomar el helicóptero para retirarse temporalmente a Castel Gandolfo, un discurso que aclara la situación que guardan los dos “Papas” que actualmente viven en Roma.

En esa alocución se refirió a la invitación que recibió de Dios cuando fue electo sucesor de San Pedro el 19 de abril de 2005. En esa ocasión dijo (párrafo 23) que la vocación que recibió de Cristo es ad vitam (para toda la vida) y que, por ello, nunca podrá renunciar a ella (como siempre lo entendieron todos los Papas en la historia de la Iglesia): “El siempre es también un para siempre, no hay más un retorno a lo privado”. “Mi decisión de renunciar al ejercicio activo de ministerio no revoca esto (el primado petrino)”. 

despedida

Además, Benedicto estableció, ante los órganos jurídicos de la Iglesia, que él conservaría la sotana blanca, mantendría el apelativo “Su Santidad”, conservaría las llaves de Pedro en su escudo, y seguiría siendo Papa, añadiendo simplemente el epíteto “emérito”. Esto último es muy significativo pues, cuando el Papa Gregorio XII renunció, volvió a ser cardenal, y cuando el Papa Celestino V renunció, volvió a ser monje. No lo estableció así el Papa Benedicto XVI. Él estableció que seguiría siendo Papa, caso totalmente inédito en la historia de la Iglesia.

Ese discurso expresa claramente la convicción de que él seguiría siendo Vicario de Cristo y cabeza espiritual de la Iglesia, y de que solamente estaba renunciando a los cargos administrativos del papado. En su mente, una cosa es el ministerio del obispo de Roma, y otra cosa es el primado petrino, el cual es ad vitam y al que no se puede renunciar. Sic et simpliciter.

La válida renuncia al papado exige renunciar al munus, (cargo del oficio de Pedro) como expresa el Código de Derecho Canónico (CDC canon 332.2), no al ministerium, como hizo el Papa Benedicto XVI.

Veamos el tenor literal del canon 332.2 del CDC:
“Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur”. (“Si el Romano Pontífice renunciase a su cargo se requiere, para la validez, que la renuncia sea libre y se manifieste formalmente, y que no sea aceptada por nadie”.

Leyendo el texto de la renuncia de Benedicto XVI se observa que el Papa no renunció al munus petrino sino solo al ministerium como obispo de Roma: “declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae… commisso renuntiare”.

Una persona tan sabia como Benedicto XVI entendía perfectamente que la renuncia al papado, para ser válida, requería renunciar al munus, no solo al ejercicio del mismo (ministerium). No cabe aquí alegar ignorancia. No en él, quien es una de las personas más doctas y conocedoras de los asuntos eclesiásticos. Por tanto, esa diferencia en la fórmula empleada quería significar algo. Algo así como: “Sigo siendo el Vicario de Cristo, aunque renuncie yo al gobierno ejecutivo de la Iglesia. No lo puedo decir abiertamente, pero aquí seguiré, vestido de Papa, viviendo en el Vaticano y llamándome “Su Santidad”, para quien lo quiera entender”.

Benedicto XVI es aún el Vicario de Cristo, porque nunca renunció a tal cargo pero, para mayor claridad, nos dice explícitamente que solo renunciaba al ministerium.

Recordemos que el papado es un cargo, como nos recuerda la Constitución Dogmática Lumen Gentium: “Porque el Romano Pontífice tiene sobre la Iglesia, en virtud de su cargo (munus) como Vicario de Cristo y Pastor de toda la Iglesia, plena, suprema y universal potestad, que puede siempre ejercer libremente”. Así lo declaró antes también el Concilio Vaticano I en 1870, repitiendo el magisterio anterior, en particular, el del Concilio de Florencia del siglo XV.

En el papado, el munus se recibe con la elección en el cónclave y se pierde con la muerte, y el ministerium, que es consustancial a él e inseparable, equivale al ejercicio jurídico del obispado de Roma, hoy cabeza de todos los episcopados . Al haberlos separado, Benedicto XVI está lanzando un mensaje muy fino y delicado al mundo y a la Iglesia.

Las famosas palabras de monseñor Gänswein, arzobispo alemán, jurista, secretario personal de Benedicto XVI y prefecto de la Casa Pontificia de “Francisco”, sobre un “ministerio alargado” (con dos miembros) confirman de manera contundente esa misma conclusión: Benedicto XVI sigue manteniendo la investidura o munus, luego Francisco no es realmente el Vicario de Cristo.

Monseñor Gänswein recordó que Benedicto XVI no renunció ni a su nombre ni a su hábito talar blanco: “Él no se retiró a un monasterio aislado, sino que continúa dentro del Vaticano, como si hubiese dado apenas un paso al costado, para dar espacio a su sucesor y a una nueva etapa en la historia del papado”.

Por eso Benedicto XVI sigue vestido de blanco, con su solideo, el anillo del pescador, su título de Papa y el apelativo Su Santidad. No volvió a ser cardenal Ratzinger, como sucedió con Gregorio XII, quien volvió a ser el cardenal Angelo Correr después de renunciar. Benedicto sigue en el Vaticano y no se ha vuelto a su querida Baviera o a algún monasterio lejano, y no es cardenal Ratzinger.

Ni hace falta decir que monseñor Gänswein no hizo estas gravísimas declaraciones sin contar con el apoyo del propio Benedicto XVI. No fue más que una explicitación de las conclusiones en su despedida del 27 de febrero de 2013.

De hecho, Benedicto XVI no usó la fórmula de renuncia establecida por Bonifacio VIII. La norma expresa que regula la disciplina sobre la renuncia papal se encuentra en la Constitución Apostólica Quoniam aliqui, que fue fijada en el Código de Derecho Canónico de 1917, y actualmente en el canon ya citado del CDC de 1983, el #322.2.

Veamos el texto de esa Decretal de Bonifacio VIII:
“Decretal de Bonifacio VIII (in 6°), 1.1, T.7, cap. 1: De Renunciatione: «renunciare valeat Papatui, eiusque oneri, et honori…”. Es decir, se establece que debe renunciar explícitamente a su cargo y a todos sus honores.

Tampoco usó la fórmula empleada para renunciar usada por el único Papa que lo hizo antes que él, Celestino V: «cedo Papatui, et expresse renuncio loco, et dignitati, oneri, et honori» («me retiro del Papado y, expresamente, renuncio al lugar y a sus dignidades, cargas y honores»).

Por el contrario, Benedicto XVI usa por primera y única vez la fórmula explícita y clara “ministerio Episcopi Romae… commisso renuntiare” (renuncio al ministerio de Obispo de Roma).

fchiz64w8x00mepvqfx55zxv3mepvqfx55zxy

Al cumplir sus 90 años, el 16 de abril de 2017, el Papa Benedicto XVI fue fotografiado en los jardines vaticanos.

Monseñor Gänwein muestra sonriente que Su Santidad sigue llevando el anillo del pescador, signo de la autoridad papal.

Pescador

 

Conclusión: en la Declaración de renuncia leída por Benedicto XVI el 27 de febrero de 2013, no hay alusión alguna al canon 332.2 del CDC, lo que parece extrañísimo viniendo de alguien tan conocedor y minucioso teólogo. Tampoco usó ni la fórmula de la Decretal de Bonifacio VIII (renuntiare Paptui) ni la fórmula usada válidamente por Celestino V (oneri et onori). Gran mensaje para la Iglesia y para el mundo:

la vocación que recibió de Cristo al primado petrino, a ser su Vicario en la tierra, es simplemente irrenunciable “El siempre es también un para siempre, no hay más un retorno a lo privado”. Así lo quiso hacer, y así lo hizo.

 

 Benedicto XVI Magno: ¡Grande entre los Grandes!

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Homosexuality must be defined in terms of attraction. It is the condition of being chronically or periodically sexually attracted to the same-sex, along with rudimentary or reduced heterosexual interest, and this after adolescence, say 17-18 years.

TwitterEmailPocketGoogle+

Homosexuality in the Church, Cardinal McCarrick, and the Internal Ecclesial Attack on Humanae Vitae

OnePeterFive
7

In light of the revelations about the secret life of Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick — a man who has been described with alarming frequency over the years (even though these warnings have gone largely unheeded) as a homosexual predator who took advantage of vulnerable seminarians under his spiritual authority — we wish to present to our readers a talk by Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, a member of the newly formed John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family, which was given at their recent conference in Rome. Dr. Aardweg has has written extensively on the topics of homosexuality and pedophilia, and is considered one of Europe’s foremost experts on these topics — as well as gays within the Catholic priesthood.

In his talk, given earlier this year, van den Aardweg points out that gay ideology includes a hatred of natural marriage, and sees Humanae Vitae (HV)as its primary obstacle, which must be defeated. When one considers the number of bishops and priests who have opposed HV over the past 50 years — or even the current push to re-evaluate its lessons on the occasion of its anniversary year — the accusation that gay ideology sees this encyclical as its enemy brings certain developments in the ecclesiastical sphere into sharper focus.

Dr. van den Aardweg’s talk deserves to be read in full, and we have included the complete text of it at the conclusion of this commentary. But it seems opportune, given the events of the past few days, to highlight certain important points deserving of special consideration by our readers.

First, Dr. van den Aardweg makes an important observation regarding the approach one may take to his homosexual attraction:

It is crucial whether or not a person normalizes his attractions. Doing this, he suppresses his reason and conscience, for the inner perception that homosexual activities are contra naturam is inborn and universal. Starting thus to lie to himself, he must suppress his awareness of the normality of man-woman love and of normal marriage with its fertility, and is forced to cling desperately to rationalizations that justify his choice to see himself as normal, healthy, and morally good. Thus he alienates himself from reality, locks himself up in wishful thinking and, not willing to seek the truth about himself, wants to change the natural feelings and opinions about homosexuality of 98% of mankind which he feels as hostile to him. In reality, it is not society, culture, or religion that persecute him but his own conscience.

On the nature of “gay ideology,” Dr. van den Aardweg states:

The gay ideology proclaims that gay sexuality, including its inherent polygamy, is a natural instinct, that faithful non-contraceptive marriage is unnatural, and so is diametrically opposed to Humanae Vitae. It hates marriage, out of jealousy and rebellion. Insofar as it has infiltrated in the Church, which is rather far, it is out to eliminate its main obstacle, Humanae Vitae.

In a section directly relevant to the abuse of minors by clergy, Dr. van den Aardweg informs us that:

Homosexual pedophiles on their part likewise childishly idealize man-boy love. Same-sex sexual feelings are pubertal: 40% of male homosexuals are (whether or not exclusively) attracted by adolescents, and for two-thirds of homosexual men the ideal partner may be under 21 years. Thus pederasty, contact with minors, has always been one of the most common expressions of homosexuality. (By the way, the priest scandals overwhelmingly concern pederasty, these priests are ordinary homosexuals.)

And what of the ideological alignment of some of our progressive prelates? Could homosexuality play a role?

Activist homosexuals and lesbians have played key roles in the sexual reform movement. Understandably, because they are animated by deep-seated anti-marriage sentiments. Homosexual organizations have always been adamantly pro abortion, sterilization and contraception; no pro-life manifestation or a horde of screaming, provoking gays and lesbians try to disturb it. That is one reason why Planned Parenthood and the Population Movement “encourage increase of homosexuality”[xvi] and why the hostility of Freemasonry to normal marriage has been powerfully instrumental in the legalization of both contraception and homosexual “marriage”.[xvii] And so we see Hirschfeld, an effeminate, very polygamous homosexual, act as the leader of the International Congress for Sexual Reform in Vienna, 1930, where he “pathetically exclaimed: ‘Better a love without marriage than a marriage without love!’ (‘Lieber eine Liebe ohne Ehe, als eine Ehe ohne Liebe!’).”[xviii] He was quite aware that “free love“ implies contraception, and that contraceptive habits erode the resistance to homo-sex.

As pertains to the directly preceding passage, I note that one of the things I’ve come across in my research on McCarrick was the way he “failed to inform the bishops about Ratzinger’s letter authorizing them to refuse Communion to pro-choice congregants or politicians.”

That was the New Yorker‘s take. Phil Lawler was a bit more acrid in his assessment:

In 2004, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote to the American bishops, advising that prominent Catholics who “reject the doctrine of the Church” should not receive the Eucharist. That statement was clearly addressed to the situation of politicians who supported legal abortion: politicians like Ted Kennedy, in fact. But Cardinal McCarrick, to whom the Ratzinger letter was addressed, did not convey that message to his brother bishops in the US; instead he presented them with a bowdlerized version of the letter, carefully vetted to suggest that the Vatican had not recommended withholding Communion from abortion advocates.

On the occasion of Kennedy’s funeral, however, Cardinal McCarrick did not censor a letter from the Vatican. Quite the contrary. The cardinal read a letter from the Vatican Secretary of State, creating the impression that it was a friendly personal letter from the Pope. Yet again, the net result of the cardinal’s action was to suggest that the Church– in this instance the Pope– retained a warm sympathy for Senator Kennedy despite his support for the Culture of Death.

On the matter of the gay subculture — which, if some reports are to be believed, is less a subculture than a superculture — in the priesthood, Dr. van den Aardweg says:

There has been subversive gay networking within the Church, even on high levels, to normalize homosexuality. Moral theologians provide the arguments, some openly, like Charles Curran: “The Church should accept the normal value and goodness of same-sex relationships”. In general, gay or pro-gay priests dissent to Humanae Vitae, and conversely, many dissenters to Humanae Vitae are pro-gay, although they do not show their colors.

Dr. van den Aardweg points again to the enmity between clerical homosexuals and the Church’s moral teaching, as exemplified in HV — and shows why they feel the need to attack it:

As a matter of fact, from what happened in the world, we can learn that the promotion of contraceptive sex has for a large part been the work of people driven by the wish to normalize their own abnormality and impose their immorality on the society at large. Now it is rather probable that the existing attempts within the Church to amend the doctrine of Humanae Vitae is likewise strongly motivated and orchestrated by gay priests. Not out of compassion with parents, for whom observing Humanae Vitae would be too difficult. Because gay men, having little affinity with and understanding of adult marital love, are motivated in this issue by more ego-centered feelings: Humanae Vitae stands in the way of their own, dubious ideals.

And what of McCarrick? After examining a number of places in official Church documents — including the Catechism of the Catholic Church — where homosexual behavior is not placed in the moral context it demands, the elephant in the room is at last acknowledged. This week, everyone is asking the question of how a man who had a history of financial settlements over encounters with adult men during his tenure as a bishop wound up appointed to one of the most important sees in the United States and given a red hat. But Dr. van den Aardweg has already provided the answer:

It is not amazing that so much subtle and less subtle gay propaganda is echoed in Church documents. Since the priest scandals, the reality that, at least since the 1950s, a disproportionally high percentage of seminarians and priests are homosexual has surfaced. Many of them must have “normalized” their feelings for themselves. And many of them must have arrived at the higher echelons in the Church, also because many homosexual priests tend to ambitiously strive after ecclesiastical careers and are successful in that.

And now, without further preamble, we present the full text of the talk of Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg on these questions the Church must grapple with if she wants the scandals we face to come to and end.


THE “NORMALIZATION” OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND HUMANAE VITAE

Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg

Homosexuality must be defined in terms of attraction.(i) It is the condition of being chronically or periodically sexually attracted to the same-sex, along with rudimentary or reduced heterosexual interest, and this after adolescence, say 17-18 years. According to the best estimates less than 2% of men have these attractions, and less than 1.5% of women.[ii]

The term “gay” I shall use for those who choose to declare their tendency normal and live it out; that is the majority today; however about 20% do not want to identify themselves as gay and to live that way. This group has no public voice and is discriminated against by the gay establishment. It is crucial whether or not a person normalizes his attractions. Doing this, he suppresses his reason and conscience, for the inner perception that homosexual activities are contra naturam is inborn and universal.[iii] Starting thus to lie to himself, he must suppress his awareness of the normality of man-woman love and of normal marriage with its fertility, and is forced to cling desperately to rationalizations that justify his choice to see himself as normal, healthy, and morally good. Thus he alienates himself from reality, locks himself up in wishful thinking and, not willing to seek the truth about himself, wants to change the natural feelings and opinions about homosexuality of 98% of mankind which he feels as hostile to him. In reality, it is not society, culture, or religion that persecute him but his own conscience.[iv] Gay normalization turns things upside down; not I am crazy, but the rest of you are. The gay ideology proclaims that gay sexuality, including its inherent polygamy, is a natural instinct, that faithful non-contraceptive marriage is unnatural, and so is diametrically opposed to Humanae Vitae. It hates marriage, out of jealousy and rebellion. Insofar as it has infiltrated in the Church, which is rather far, it is out to eliminate its main obstacle, Humanae Vitae.

The gay ideology propagates various justifications, all of them falsehoods. It thrives on the dogmas of biological causation, or of being born-that-way, and of the immutability of the disorder. In fact, the biological theory was never proved. Since the gay ideology began to tyrannize the scientific establishment after the gay putsch in 1973, when the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations gave up their scientific integrity, renewed efforts have been made, and mostly by activist gay investigators, to finally detect some biological cause. But interestingly, precisely the opposite result was obtained. The biological myth is exploded. Homosexuals have normal hormones, genes, and brains.[v] Even the pro-gay British Royal College of Psychiatrists declared in 2014 that homosexuality is not an inborn variant of sexuality.[vi] But this reality hardly penetrates. Also the dogma of unchangeability is fiercely upheld, for the possibility of change not only threatens a key argument of the normalizers but also a necessary argument for many to justify their personal lifestyle. Due to the political and social advance of the gay ideology, change-directed homosexuality treatment and counseling have increasingly become tabooed; yet psychological counseling and Christian self-help initiatives outside the mainstream continued and demonstrated the viability of such approaches. Just a short note: overcoming these tendencies is mainly a battle with oneself,[vii] but a major, and even radical and lasting change has been resulted in many cases,[viii] mostly with the support of a sustained religious inner life.[ix] The gay-promoting political establishment tries to stamp out these activities and publications. Hence, for instance, the actual Bill of Prohibition of homosexuality treatment in Ireland. Surely, a homo-tyranny is upon us. In 2003, prof. Spitzer of Columbia University, the same psychiatrist who had managed the surrender of the APA to the militant gay lobby, published his study on the effects of sane counseling of 200 homosexuals, male and female. A minority changed profoundly, most others improved, both as to sexual orientation and overall emotional balance. No signs of harm, but a noticeable decrease of depressions.[x] A hurricane of hatred from the gay establishment fell over him, with such violence that he felt a broken man who (some months later) assured me he would never, never again involve himself with that terrible subject of homosexuality.

One classical rationalization is the idealization of gay love as superior to “vulgar” hetero-love: it would be more tender, refined, noble, creative, progressive, etc. This betrays the childish naivety of these people, who are emotionally fixated to their teens, when normal sexual love between adults is yet outside the scope of the youth. Homosexual pedophiles on their part likewise childishly idealize man-boy love.[xi] Same-sex sexual feelings are pubertal: 40% of male homosexuals are (whether or not exclusively) attracted by adolescents, and for two-thirds of homosexual men the ideal partner may be under 21 years.[xii] Thus pederasty, contact with minors, has always been one of the most common expressions of homosexuality. (By the way, the priest scandals overwhelmingly concern pederasty, these priests are ordinary homosexuals[xiii].)

***

Now, to give you a general idea of what follows, I want to give you some key psychological facts and insights. I must restrict myself to male homosexuality, but most of it also applies to lesbianism with this difference that “father” must be substituted for “mother”, “girlish” for “boyish”.

Same-sex feelings usually arise in adolescence, in boys who are wanting in boyishness or manliness, more specifically, in daring and fighting spirit. They lack boyish firmness and tend to be overly soft to themselves. This character trait, which in pronounced form appears as “sissiness” or effeminacy, makes them feel uncomfortable among their same-sex companions and inferior as to their manliness. This trait is not inborn, but the effect of upbringing, parent-child interactions and habit formation. In a nutshell: frequently, the prehomosexual boy’s underdeveloped or suppressed masculinity results from some combination of a mother who overly dominated his emotional life, in some way or other, while the masculinity-encouraging influence of the father was insignificant or negative. Variations of this pattern occur in at least 60% of cases of male homosexuality. (Other factors of importance can be physical defects or handicaps, exceptionally young or old parents, upbringing by grand-parents, sibling relationships.) Very often, the boy was unhealthily attached to and dependent on his mother, while the bond with his father was defective. He may have been overprotected, babied, adored as mother’s favorite, over-indulged; or over-“domesticated”, treated with too much maternal coercive interference; but not as “a real boy”, sometimes in a feminizing way. There is no doubt that these parent-child interactions factors are well-established.

Yet more closely correlated with later homosexual attractions is the factor of maladjustment to the same-sex world of boyhood and adolescence, the factor of “peer isolation”. Feeling the outsider, inferior in manliness, is traumatic. This feeling of not belonging may animate passionate longings for friendship and idolization of youths who in the eyes of the boy possess the sort of manliness he feels he has not. During puberty such longings may engender erotic fantasies about physical affection from some adored but inaccessible comrade. Such daydreams are pathetic, they spring from self-pity or self-dramatization about being lonely, having no friends, not being “one of the other boys”. Especially when accompanied by habitual masturbation, they reinforce the boy’s yearnings and nourish his self-pity and feeling the tragic outsider. These feelings are addictive. In short, homosexual partner seeking is an anxious chasing after impossible pubertal illusions. It is fully self-centered: the other one is totally claimed, he must be totally for ME; it is begging for love, demanding love, not loving. When this craze is not outgrown before adulthood, it may take control of the person’s mind, so that it becomes an autonomous drive. As a result, he partly or even largely remains emotionally the teenager in much of his thinking and feeling, his personality habits, relationships with his parents and others, his feelings with respect to his own sex and the opposite sex. He never becomes mature and is dominated by immature self-love, excessive self-centeredness, especially in his same-sex cravings. Film maker Pasolini was one of numerous examples; of himself, he said he had “an infinite hunger for the love of bodies without souls.“ A German gay fashion designer called it an enslavement to drinking salt water, the more you drink, the greater your thirst. Anyway, gay relationships are exercises in “selfism”. “I lived with a succession of roomates, some of whom I professed to love”, said a middle-aged gay man. “They swore they loved me. But homosexual ties begin and end with sex. … After the first passionate fling, sex becomes less and less frequent. The partners become nervous, want new thrills, begin to cheat each other.” His summary of the average gay life is sobering, the realistic truth devoid of pubertal idealizations and propaganda lies: “Gay life … is a rough world, I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.”[xiv]

Don’t believe the propaganda for the noble, faithful, loving gay “marriage” of devote Catholics. It is a trick to sell acceptance of gay sex.[xv]

Otherwise, the just quoted gay man illustrates the fact that treatment, or self-education no doubt must fight the sexual addiction, but above all the person’s generalized infantile self-seeking, self-love and self-pity. Fighting the vices, exercising the virtues; above all the virtues of sincerity, loving, responsibility, and fortitude or character strength. Homo-sex is neurotic sex. Homosexuality and pedophile homosexuality a sexual neurosis, but also a sickness of the soul.

***

I return to the main theme. The advocacy for homosexuality-normalization began in the second half of the 19th century when contraceptive sex became acceptable through the propaganda for free love, sexual reform and divorce. It was sponsored by all Malthusian movements: the socialists, Marxists, freethinkers, humanists and feminists. In 1897 the Marxist physician Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, and in 1917 the first Institute for Sexology in Berlin. The motto of his enterprise was per scientiam ad justitiam, through science to justice, which expressed the eternal falsehoods of the gay normalization ideology, then as now. Namely, the normality view is based on science, and homosexuals and lesbians are denied their natural sexual rights. Society and religion must change their attitudes.

Activist homosexuals and lesbians have played key roles in the sexual reform movement. Understandably, because they are animated by deep-seated anti-marriage sentiments. Homosexual organizations have always been adamantly pro abortion, sterilization and contraception; no pro-life manifestation or a horde of screaming, provoking gays and lesbians try to disturb it. That is one reason why Planned Parenthood and the Population Movement “encourage increase of homosexuality”[xvi] and why the hostility of Freemasonry to normal marriage has been powerfully instrumental in the legalization of both contraception and homosexual “marriage”.[xvii] And so we see Hirschfeld, an effeminate, very polygamous homosexual, act as the leader of the International Congress for Sexual Reform in Vienna, 1930, where he “pathetically exclaimed: ‘Better a love without marriage than a marriage without love!’ (‘Lieber eine Liebe ohne Ehe, als eine Ehe ohne Liebe!’).”[xviii] He was quite aware that “free love“ implies contraception, and that contraceptive habits erode the resistance to homo-sex.

The by far most influential sexual reformer after the war, the father of the sexual revolution of the 50s and 60s was also a sex-enslaved homosexual, (and probably a pedophile homosexual, too): Alfred Kinsey, the founder of the institute of sexology named after him, and the mastermind behind the de-humanizing sexual education of today. Like Hirschfeld, he was obsessed with the wish to abolish society’s moral standards based on normal marriage and to normalize homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest. To him, faithful marriage was unnatural, homosexuality and all sexual abnormalities natural; abortion should be legitimized; masturbation, contraceptive sex, adultery, prostitution were healthy. Also Kinsey posed as a great scientist, but his intensively propagated books were gay propaganda based on fraudulent research.[xix]

A third example: Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre’s companion, the mother of radical feminism and of the gender theory. Her influence in France directly led to the foundation of the Ministry of Women’s Rights and the De Beauvoir Commission on Women. Her book The second sex,[xx] touting the puerile slogan that one is not born but made a woman through cultural and familial coercion, “the Bible of the Women’s Movement, set in motion an unstoppable train”.[xxi] She was a lesbian, who, which is frequent among lesbians, “had never felt the wish to have a child, [and] could not imagine what impels a man and woman to wish for it”.[xxii] She was animated by “disgust, fear, hatred of motherhood”.[xxiii] “Babies filled me with horror”, she said. “The sight of a mother with a child sucking the life from her breast … it all filled me with disgust.”[xxiv] The disturbed femininity underlying her lesbianism made her a passionate rebel against marriage and motherhood, a fierce propagandist of contraceptive sex and abortion with a destructive impact.

Militant homosexuals and lesbians, although they certainly do not represent even the 2% of the population with homosexual tendencies, have tremendously contributed to the present contraceptive mentality and habits through their influence in the sexual reform and feminist movements. But not less through the successful normalization of their own lifestyle. This success has still further obscured the perception of many, especially in the younger generations, of the moral and psychological degeneracy of contraceptive relationships in contrast to the beauty of faithful, child-directed marital love. For, if sexual relations involving the disgusting genital contacts between two men or women are officially celebrated and such liaisons, which are inherently not even monogamous and most neurotic, are given the status of “marriage”, then any sterile heterosexual relation becomes normal by comparison. A study on the effects of gay “marriage“ in Scandinavia concluded that it had “driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated and that virtually any family form … is acceptable.”[xxv] This necessarily means increased contraception.

***

In sum, any approval or suggestions of approval of the falsehoods of the gay ideology undermine the teachings of Humanae Vitae. Yet for about half a century such suggestions are to be found in important documents of the Catholic Church. Let us see:

In 1975, the Declaration on certain questions of sexual ethics of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote that “A distinction is made, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency … is transitory or at least not incurable, and homosexuals who are definitively so because of some innate instinct … judged to be incurable.” At the time, the distinction between so-called “nuclear” and superficial homosexuality was a favorite pseudo-scientific contention among the gay normalizers in professional circles. It was shortly after the gay lobby in the American Psychiatric Association had “normalized” the definition of homosexuality from “disturbance” to “condition”. The Vatican Declaration uncritically gave authority to the gay dogmas “born that way” and “immutable”. Perhaps sheer naivety, but in any case blameworthy ignorance and incompetence. The “born that way” statement has been followed in several later Church documents.[xxvi]And with serious consequences. Instead of opposing the secular world’s fatalist gay propaganda that homosexual inclinations had to be accepted as a fact of nature, the authority of the Church poured some more oil on the flames. Instead of helping parents to prevent a homosexual orientation in their children, of teaching parents the wisdom about natural femininity and masculinity both in their marriage relations and educational roles of father and mother, they came with the passive and hope-less message of acceptance and “nothing can be done about it”.[xxvii] But In fact, also in 1975 the biological theory had not a leg to stand on, as there was not a single bit of solid evidence for it, while there was ample evidence for the psychological causation.

Really troubling are the statements on homosexuality in Nrs. 2357 and 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992. They create the false impression of homosexuality as a complex, profound mystery of nature, which view is one of the trump-cards of the gay normalizers. The mystery view is emphasized in the puzzling affirmation: “Its psycho-genesis remains largely unexplained.” Is this meant to support the myth of biology? At any rate, it is conform to the gay policy to totally ignore the psychological approach, representing it as unscientific and insignificant. It is highly misleading and incorrect. Correct would have been a text in the sense that the psychological causation had the most convincing and scientifically best arguments. But apart from this, the “largely unexplained” contention is a (mis-) judgment that lies out of the domain of theologians. It belongs to that of the human sciences. (Remember the Galileo lesson). In truth, all non-morality statements on homosexuality must be removed from the Catechism. Like in the parable, they are weeds, sowed among the wheat of sound doctrine when some people were asleep.

Another dubious statement speaks of the “not negligible number of men and women [with] profound homosexual tendencies.” In 1992, this was support for the Kinsey propaganda that 10% of the male population was homosexual, which would indicate how “normal” it was. And then we read this simplistic half-truth: “They do not choose their condition … [which] is an ordeal for most of them.” Very dubious, furthermore, is the melodramatic representation of homosexual people as innocent victims of discrimination, as is suggested in the following admonition: “…they must be treated with respect, compassion, delicacy. Every mark of unjust discrimination against them must be avoided.” This over-dramatization is grist to the mill of the gay propaganda. Precisely the massive public indoctrination with the image of the homosexual as the victim of social oppression, in combination with the born-that-way fallacy, has been devastatingly effective in overcoming public resistance to the gay claims to “equal rights” for their sexuality. Why not a sober reminder of the normal duty of charity?

Anyway, the rhetoric of compassion and melodrama has been fully developed in subsequent Church documents to create an atmosphere where objection to homosexual practices begins to feel as unchristian. A case in point is the “Message” of the American Bishops to parents of (allegedly) homosexual children, Always Our Children (1997). It is all pastoral unction, dramatization, and psycho-babble about: “Accepting and loving your child as a gift of God”, “sexual identity helps define the unique person we are”, “chastity means … integrating one’s thoughts etc. … in a way that values and respects one’s dignity and that of others”, “All homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed in the community”, “A shocking number of homosexual youth end up on the streets because of rejection by their families…”, “Accept and love yourselves as parents … do not blame yourselves for a homosexual orientation.” The Interim Report of the Vatican’s Synod on the Family in 2014 continues in the same whining style that is typical of the gay propaganda about the victimhood of the repudiated homosexual, but now its intention to legalize homosexual relations and to tinker with Humanae Vitae is more evident. “Homosexuals”, it says, and it clearly does not exclude practicing and self-normalizing homosexuals, “have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community”; the faithful must “provide them a place of fellowship in our communities” because they “oftentimes want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home.” Thus they are poor outcasts; but with a right to be warmly accepted in the Church. It are the faithful must be educated, who are lectured for their mercilessness, not those who live immorally: “Are our communities capable of … accepting and valuing their sexual orientation?” The gay union is presented as respectable love: “…there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.”

***

To conclude, it is not amazing that so much subtle and less subtle gay propaganda is echoed in Church documents. Since the priest scandals, the reality that, at least since the 1950s, a disproportionally high percentage of seminarians and priests are homosexual has surfaced. Many of them must have “normalized” their feelings for themselves. And many of them must have arrived at the higher echelons in the Church, also because many homosexual priests tend to ambitiously strive after ecclesiastical careers and are successful in that.[xxviii] There has been subversive gay networking within the Church, even on high levels, to normalize homosexuality. Moral theologians provide the arguments, some openly, like Charles Curran: “The Church should accept the normal value and goodness of same-sex relationships”. In general, gay or pro-gay priests dissent to Humanae Vitae, and conversely, many dissenters to Humanae Vitae are pro-gay, although they do not show their colors.

As a matter of fact, from what happened in the world, we can learn that the promotion of contraceptive sex has for a large part been the work of people driven by the wish to normalize their own abnormality and impose their immorality on the society at large. Now it is rather probable that the existing attempts within the Church to amend the doctrine of Humanae Vitae is likewise strongly motivated and orchestrated by gay priests. Not out of compassion with parents, for whom observing Humanae Vitae would be too difficult. Because gay men, having little affinity with and understanding of adult marital love, are motivated in this issue by more ego-centered feelings: Humanae Vitae stands in the way of their own, dubious ideals.


Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg is a member of the newly formed John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family. He has written extensively on the topics of homosexuality and pedophilia, including The Battle for Normality: Self-Therapy for Homosexual Persons and Homosexuality and Hope: A Psychologist Talks About Treatment and Change. Dr. and Mrs. van den Aardweg have seven children and seventeen grandchildren.

This post has been updated.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

WORD COMES FROM CHICAGO THAT CARDINAL CUPICH DOES NOT LIKE TO EAT CROW, THEREFORE BOOKIES ARE TAKING BETS THAT FATHER PHILLIPS WILL LANGUISH IN LIMBO

We have confirmation that after several weeks the Congregation of the Resurrection has indeed concluded its hearings and investigation of the accusations directed against Father Phillips.

An independent Review Board of three public-spirited leaders from the Chicago area, who are not members of St. John Cantius Church, was constituted. Thereafter, the Review Board interviewed the detractors and several witnesses, persons who personally know the accusers, and other individuals who came forward to testify in defense of Father Phillips’ integrity. In accordance with directives given by Card. Cupich the members of the Canons Regular were not interviewed.

The Review Board has concluded that Fr. Phillips has not violated any secular criminal, civil or canon law.

Fr. Phillips, having been exonerated thusly, and this in turn confirmed by the votum of The Rt. Rev. Gene Szarek, C.R., Ph.D. Provincial Superior of the Congregation of the Resurrection upon receipt of the Review Board Report. We now prayerfully await the response of His Eminence, Blase Cardinal Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, for the return of our pastor.

While recalling the words of Pope Francis on the occasion of the 52nd anniversary to commemorate the World Day for Social Communications [13th May 2018], exhorting us as Christians to be the number one media capable of truth and an efficacious enunciation of good. False news is always « evil », because it impacts relationships between persons, violating the dignity of those same persons, and sometimes entire peoples. A Christian, instead, never divides the truth from good. Just as Jesus of Nazareth did, when He affirmed: “the truth will make you free.”

We therefore remain confident that in this process, justice and truth will prevail over the mendacity, falsehoods, spitefulness and malevolent connivance from which this unpleasant episode originates; and that the accusers, who recklessly have besmirched their own reputations in this matter, will too choose to make themselves “free”, by each of them individually presenting an unconditional retraction.

Church sources tell us, the above cited conclusions and votum have not been made public, inasmuch as further legal action could be taken to fully restore Fr. Phillips’ good name.

We turn to the Blessed Virgin Mary as our advocate and plead for her maternal help and guidance.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

LAURA BUSH JOINS THE DEMOCRATS AND BLASTS TRUMP FOR ENFORCING A LAW THAT HER HUSBAND GEORGE SIGNED INTO LAW, TRULY THE WORLD IS GOING MAD

June 21, 2018, 12:05 am

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

HERE ARE THE PHOTOS OF OBAMA’S ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DETENTION FACILITIES THE MEDIA WON’T SHOW YOU

HERE ARE THE PHOTOS OF OBAMA’S ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DETENTION FACILITIES THE MEDIA WON’T SHOW YOU

Benny Johnson | Reporter At Large
130297 28997
 THE DAILY CALLER

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DHS Secretary Kirsten Nielsen: “”10,000 of the 12,000 [ children “in the care of HHS right now”] were sent here alone by their parents.” SNATCHING, WHAT SNATCHING ???

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

It’s not about Child/Parent Separation, but Child Abuse, Smuggling & possibly Sex Trafficking by Parents handing their Children to “Human Smugglers” & Drug Cartels

Most Americans don’t realize how dangerous and corrupt the Mexican border towns are:

When I visited a Mexican border town about 8 years ago to visit a relative of a in-law, the town mayor had just been killed probably by the local Mexican drug cartel.

A friend and relative of mind were attacked and beaten by the border townspeople when they protested about being cheated. Luckily, the Mexican police arrested them and they were able to bribe their way back to the USA.

Even Wikipedia admits that those who traffic in bringing people over the borders called “Coyotes” or “human smugglers” have a “growing association with drug cartels.”

What kind of parents would allow their children to be involved with “human smugglers” and drug cartels or hand them over to them?

Yesterday,  DHS Secretary Kirsten Nielsen told Breitbart:

“”10,000 of the 12,000 [ children “in the care of HHS right now”] were sent here alone by their parents.”

If anyone in the US handed their children over to “human smugglers” and drug cartels, they would be arrested for child abuse.

Child abuse is when parents or caregivers through actions or failing to act, causes injury, death, emotional harm or risk to the underaged boy or girl.

Freedomoutpost.com, today, noted:

The “footage recently released by the HHS…[is]  only boys ages 10 and up. Where are the girls?”

What do drug cartels do besides sell drugs and do human smuggling?

Prostitution is usually another business of drug cartels.

What kind of child abusing parents would hand over their sons and daughters to “human smugglers” and drug cartels who possibly are, also, dealing in sex trafficking and prostitution?

“Where are the girls?”

Pray an Our Father now for the poor children of such parents.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

CURIOUS, WHY IS THAT THE BISHOPS HAVE NOTHING NICE TO SAY ABOUT THE MOST PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT AMERICA HAS EVER HAD, ONLY CRITICISM OF TRUMP’S ENFORCEMENT OF OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION LAWS

Catholic Bishops Gear Up to Beat Trump in 2020

Image: Catholic Bishops Gear Up to Beat Trump in 2020
Cardinal Blase Cupich speaks at an end of school year peace rally on June 15, 2018, in Chicago, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

By Deal Hudson
Monday, 18 June 2018 12:28 PMCurrent | Bio | Archive

 NEWSMAX

The Catholic bishops met in Fort Lauderdale a few days ago. The dominating topic of discussion was politics, specifically, their official guide to Catholic voters, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.The Pope Francis faction, led by Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago, called for a complete rewriting of the document since it no longer represented “the new body of teaching” as taught by the present pontiff, specifically mentioning climate change, poverty, and immigration.

Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego went a step further saying the present document doesn’t represent “Catholic teaching as it is now.”

These two are not the only ones who believe that in the space of five years, since Bergoglio’s 2013 election, the moral and social teaching of the Church has been so fundamentally altered Faithful Citizenship no longer speaks with the true voice of the Church. So much for an institution considered slow to change.

Other leading bishops, however, including Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles, opposed writing a new document, arguing what was needed was a more straightforward, significantly redacted version of Faithful Citizenship along with an accompanying video for YouTube, etc.

When the votes were tallied, 77 percent of the bishops voted for the creation of shorter materials — a letter, video, and other “resources” to supplement Faithful Citizenship.

During this discussion there was no mention of Trump being the most pro-life president in our nation’s history. It should not surprise us at that omission since the intent behind the beefing up of Faithful Citizenship is to deny Trump a second term in office.

The bishop’s present silence about the president’s achievement is only another iteration of their attempt during the campaign itself to camouflage Hillary Clinton’s pro-abortion stance by arranging with moral indictments Trump about “The Wall.”

The strategy didn’t work. Faithful Catholics would not be bullied into seeing moral equivalence between killing the unborn and insisting on secure national borders.

Trump/Pence won 52 percent of all Catholic votes and 56 percent of mass-attending Catholics. In the election aftermath, the weeping and wailing at the USCCB must have matched that of Hollywood, the EU, and the mass media.

As it stands, the 2015 version of Faithful Citizenship is a flawed document. A close reading of it offers the Catholic voters several loopholes allowing them to ignore a candidate’s abortion stand if other “morally grave reasons” prevail. It remains to be seen, whether the new supplements will magnify these flaws or keep them buried in theological mumbo-jumbo where they belong.

We can fully expect, however, the redacted version of Faithful Citizenship to put the immigration issue front and center. This placement will create the impression of a de facto moral equivalence with settled life issues such as abortion. The bishops approved language that virtually guaranteed these new shorter materials will “apply the teachings of Pope Francis to our day.”

But just as in 2016 when the bishops pressed the immigration issue, it won’t work in 2020. For one thing, Pope Francis has spent all the capital of good will created by his election and his successful U.S. visit. Pope Francis, as it were, has no ‘coattails.’

If the bishops produce election materials that recast Faithful Citizenship to fit the Pope’s vision, it will only create greater distance between the bishops and their faithful. They will be relegating themselves to becoming just another cadre of grumpy Never-Trumpers.

At the very least, the bishops could have expressed common ground with the Trump administration on his efforts to defuse the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. After all, doesn’t this come under the rubric of “world peace”?

The bishops, instead, focused on the president’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Agreement. The USCCB itself has been asked to sign the Paris declaration by its own Catholic Climate Covenant created in 2006. How much money will it cost Catholics if the bishops decide to play in European politics on that issue?

Meeting in Fort Lauderdale, the bishops ignored the opportunity of voicing solidarity with the president’s pro-life agenda and his the quest for peace between North and South Korea. Instead they prepared to sharpen their knives for the 2020 election. Is this what we now call “evangelization”?

Dr. Deal W. Hudson took over Crisis Magazine in 1995, leaving in 2010 to become president of Catholic Advocate. While at Crisis, Hudson led the Catholic voter outreach for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and later advised the campaigns of both John McCain and Donald Trump on Catholic outreach. In 2014, he began his weekly two-hour radio show, “Church and Culture,” on the Ave Maria Radio Network, and launched http://www.thechristianreview.com in 2015. His books include “Happiness and the Limits of Satisfaction” and “Onward Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States.” To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

People (including bishops) are being led around like a pig with a ring in his nose by the left/liberal Trump-hating media.

13 Facts the Media ‘Pros’ Don’t Want You to Know About ‘Family Border Separation’

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 13: (L-R) U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) march to the headquarters of U.S. Customs and Border Protection during a protest June 13, 2018 in Washington, …
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Brietbart News

The fire hose of fake news from the establishment media this week on the issue of illegal immigrant families separated at the border is designed to mislead the American people — and to distract from Trump’s recent successes.

Here are the facts — 13 truths the media do not want you to know about President Trump’s legal, humane, and moral handling of adults and childrenwho enter our country illegally.

  1. Trump Is Only Enforcing the Law

The establishment media’s manufactured narrative about the necessary and moral separation of illegal alien parents from their children is designed with the specific purpose of spreading the fake news that, only as a means to be cruel,  President Trump is somehow making all of this up as he goes along.

In truth, Trump is only complying with and enforcing the law, which is his constitutional duty and responsibility.

When the media claim Trump has a “choice,” what they mean is he has a choice to ignore the law as Obama did when he illegally released untold numbers of illegals into America.

Trump’s “zero tolerance policy” is merely his administration treating all lawbreakers as lawbreakers, because the only other option is to let them loose into America with nothing but a court summons.

  1. Trump’s Only Choice Is to Separate Illegal Alien Families

When an illegal alien crosses the border into the U.S., he is a lawbreaker, and, like any lawbreaker (including American citizens), he is put into the criminal justice system.

This is the law.

Obviously, when an illegal alien is in custody, he is housed in an adult detention center. For obvious reasons, it would be illegal for Trump to “reunite” this family by allowing children to live in adult detention centers.

Keep in mind that when we are this early in the process, we do not even know if this is a real family unit. It is not uncommon for illegal aliens (including criminals) to pretend the children they are traveling with are their own. They do so in the hope this special family status will result in them being released (this madness is known as “catch and release”) into America with nothing more than a court date — a date many never show for, most especially those with criminal intent.

And so, while the illegal adult is held in an adult detention center, the migrant child is cared for in shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Generally, the adult illegal is processed quickly, sentenced to time served, and the family is quickly reunited during the deportation process.

In other words, in order to keep the family unit together, we can either put children in adult detention centers (unthinkable), put adults in child detention centers (unthinkable), or hold no one, which means “catch and release,” which means letting even more illegal immigrants loose to live in our country illegally.

The only moral and legal option here is to temporarily separate families while the criminal justice system runs its course.

  1. The Left Wants Illegal Aliens to Enjoy Privileges Denied to American Citizens

If an American citizen breaks the law and is funneled into the justice system, he is separated from his family and children. This American citizen is not allowed to keep his family with him in a detention center.

Once again, our media want illegal aliens to enjoy special rights and privileges American citizens do not enjoy.

One more point…

These migrants are guilty of walking minor children through miles and miles of desert with the intent of committing a crime (crossing a border illegally).

If you or I walked a child through miles and miles of desert with the intent of committing a crime, child protective services would take our children away (and should).

  1. Asylum Seekers Not Breaking the Law are Not Being Separated

If you cross the border illegally and claim asylum, you are still a lawbreaker. Regardless of your intent, crossing the border illegally automatically puts you in the criminal justice system, where you will obviously be separated from family.

These asylum seekers are choosing to break the law, are choosing to be separated from family.

Asylum seekers who respect our laws, by turning themselves in at legal points of entry, are not being separated. Over-crowding due to the abuse of this policy might eventually make this impossible, but it is up to Congress to allocate more funds.

  1. Trump Is Correct About the Loophole

In 1997, a consent decree called the Flores Settlement made it illegal for America to hold migrant children for longer than 20 days. Meaning, in order to keep the family together after 20 days of detention, we can either reunite the family by letting them loose to live illegally in America, or we can keep the parent in detention and place the child in a foster home or with a relative who lives in America.

Trump is wisely choosing to do the latter (for a number of moral reasons I will explain later).

A case involving an illegal border crosser not seeking asylum is usually adjudicated before the 20 days are up, which means the family unit is reunited during deportation and no foster care is needed.  This, obviously, is the best case scenario.

Those who cross the border illegally and then claim asylum status (an important distinction from asylum seekers who obey the law) are another story, because the asylum process almost always exceeds the 20 days, and this is the law the Trump administration wants changed.

By speeding up the asylum process, the family unit can be reunited faster, either in the deportation process (if asylum is not granted — and this process is frequently abused) or in the resettlement process (if asylum is granted).

Another option is to end the 20-day limit so foster care does not become necessary. Parent and child can remain in the detention centers until the asylum process is settled.

  1. “Reuniting” Families Would Be a Disaster for Countless Children

Again, the only way to “keep a family together” is to allow illegals to pour into our country.

This policy would be a total disaster, especially for the children.

If word gets out that America automatically allows illegal border crossers with small children loose into America just because they have minor children, this would only further incentivize those who engage in the child abuse of dragging children along on the unbelievably dangerous trek across the border — or, even worse, both exploiting them for catch-and-release and then trafficking them after making it into the country.

No one who truly cares about these children wants to further incentivize that kind of abuse.

  1. Obama and Democrats Incentivized This ‘Family Separation’

Until Obama came along, illegal border crossings primarily involved young, single men. Obama incentivized the idea of dragging minor children along on this dangerous journey (where many children are sexually assaulted) through his policy of  “catch and release.”

Once word got out that illegals with small children would be let loose into America, the number of children crossing the border exploded.

Again, the last thing decent people want is for the American government to further incentivize the cruel act of bringing small children along on this brutal trip across the border, which is exactly what Trump is hoping to stop with his zero tolerance policy.

  1. Barack Obama Separated Illegal Alien Families, Media Said Nothing

Under Obama, when illegal border crossers were put into the criminal justice system, families were indeed separated. Obama, of course, rarely prosecuted, even though the law calls for it.

Neither Democrats nor the media cared about family separation then, which proves this manufactured and coordinated uproar is only about politics.

The only reason the media suddenly came to care about family separation is as a means to fabricate a controversy, as a tactic to distract voters from three legitimate news stories from last week that benefit Trump: 1) our economy is booming,  2) Trump had a successful summit with North Korea, and 3) the Inspector General report exposed James Comey’s FBI as a swamp of corruption out to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame Trump.

  1. IMPORTANT: The ONLY Way to Unite Families Is to Release Them into America

Obviously, we cannot have children living in adult detention centers. Obviously, we cannot have adults living in child detention centers. Therefore, the only way to “reunite” these families is to release these illegals into our country.

The media will not tell you this because the media do not want you to know that flooding America with non-citizens is their true agenda. The rich and powerful love to exploit and abuse these individuals, as they can leverage their immigration status for illegally low wages, and politicians are salivating at the chance to bestow voting rights on them — and thus entrench their power.

But when you hear the media call for these families to be reunited, remember that is coded language that means only one thing: releasing illegal aliens into our country with nothing more than a court summons.

  1. Incentivizing the Act of Bringing Minor Children Across the Border Is Evil

The media do not want to inform Americans of one crucial fact: the dangers inherent in crossing the border from Mexico into America, most especially the dangers faced by minor children.  Sadly, these dangers too often involve sexual abuse.

Decent people who truly care about these children, like President Trump, want to do everything in their power to end this abuse — either by building a wall, or through this zero tolerance policy that will hopefully curb this abusive practice.

Evil people want these children dragged across the border, want this abuse incentivized by “keeping the family unit together,” because  flooding the country with future indebted voters is more important to them than the safety and well-being of small children.

  1. Those Who Come to America Legally Face ‘Family Separation’

Many people who come to America legally from other countries are separated from family. A big part of America’s LEGAL immigration policy involves family separation when one or two family members come over before the rest are legally or financially able.

And so, once again, we have the media and Democrats demanding special treatment for illegal immigrants that legal immigrants do not enjoy. Once again we are incentivizing lawbreaking and treating the line-jumpers better than those who follow the rules.

  1. Family Reunification” Is an Invitation to Human Traffickers

Because of “catch and release,” because of this dumb and destructive loophole carved out for families, the number of illegal aliens using children to enter the U.S. increased by 315 percent between October 2017 and February 2018.

Trump understands what is happening and this is why he has moved to a zero tolerance policy.

Anything other than zero tolerance only serves as an incentive for human traffickers and other criminals to use these children as their free pass into America.

Incentivizing such a thing is monstrous:

  1. Media Do Not Give a Shit About American Families Separated by Criminal Illegal Aliens

Illegal alien families are choosing to be separated by voluntarily engaging in lawbreaking. These illegal alien families, if they so choose, can stay together, simply by obeying the law.

This is not hard.

Those who do not have a choice in family separation are the legions of American families permanently separated from family members when that family member is killed at the hands of an illegal alien.

As Steve Bannon accurately pointed out over the weekend, “I don’t see the mainstream media and the liberal left embracing the Angel Moms, those people who were permanently separated from their children because of illegal aliens who came over here and committed crimes and killed people. You’re being very selective.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

This is what is wonderful about living on the ‘left’, it is like living while being constantly high on smoking pot, reality is not out there, it is in your mind and you are in control.

The word “ideology” first appeared in French. In the 1790s, a gentleman with the wonderful name of Antoine Louis Claude Destutt, Comte de Tracy used it. Marx and Engels in 1846 wrote a manuscript called The German Ideology that never found a publisher till 1932 at the German-English Institute in Moscow.

The word itself circles around the issue of whether our minds have any contact with the world that is. Much is at stake here. If no connection exists between what is out there and our minds, then all we know or can know is our own thoughts. And since our minds have no connection with things, we can formulate whatever world that we would like to have. Everybody lives in his own separate world. Our minds have no reality check.

Revelation is often said to be an “ideology”; that is, an arbitrary system of ideas that have no relation to reality. Ideology and fantasy, however, are not necessarily the same things. Fairy tales and fantasy usually have some grounding in a reality that once was or is yet to be. Ideology is rather a set of ideas imposed on or taken to be reality whereby what is seen and done takes place exclusively within the mind.

Revelation contains an account of actual events with their ultimate explanation rooted in an existing transcendent order. Revelation can be treated as a fantasy, as Tolkien did. But it cannot be considered an ideology. For those who insist that our minds have no relation to things, however, their only option, on hearing it, is to claim that revelation must be just fantasy or another ideology.Revelation does not profess to be skeptical about the existence of an ordered world.

Why bring up any reconsideration of ideology? The world that most people now live in is an ideological world. It is a world whose limits and configuration are assembled from their desires of what they would like to be, not to what is.

A reason for this preference of ideology can be proposed. To be a consistent ideologue, we must first figure out a way to disconnect our minds from things. Much of modern thought from Descartes on has assisted us in this doubt that we can really know things that are. The trouble with existing things, including especially human things, is that, left to themselves, they are already definite kinds of things. They do not themselves configure what they are, but something did.

It is to this latter reality of what things are to which our minds are normally directed and which they know once they have encountered and identified them. Today those who hold revelation to be true are told that they must bring their “ideology” up-to-date. What is meant is that the revelation that is directed to things must be replaced by the ideology that sees no relation between things and mind.

The reason why ideology has come to be legislated into the political reality of most so-called modern democratic states is that this ideology does not conform to reality. What has been rejected is reality. What has taken its place is a construct of the mind. In former times, we spoke of people who rejected a proper way of living as “sinners.” Today, we insist that no sin exists except the claim that “reality” contains an intelligible order that is given to us for our own good, an order that we can discover with our own minds.

We are, as a consequence, forced to lie to ourselves about reality. We have to insist that abortion is not the killing of an actual human life even though every bit of evidence shows that it is. We have to insist that two members of the same sex can “marry,” which is the one thing they cannot possibly do. The list goes on. One denial of an order in things leads to another. We now find it necessary to prevent people from even talking about some radical error that we have made in our understanding of things.

The logical consequence of replacing reality with ideology is that no one has grounds left to correct us in what we do or say. When we evaporate meaning from things, we are in effect insisting that things are not “created,” that they do not find their source in a Creator who is not part of this world, a Creator who, in creating the world, did so with the Logos, the Word, in mind,

It is from the fear of finding this “word” in things that forces modern men and women to fall back on themselves, to deny that anything but themselves exists. The ideological world does not conform to reality. It dare not. It must conform only to itself and strive with all its might to prevent anyone from even hinting that something objective is really out there, something we choose not to know in order that we can, without worry, do what we want.

James V. Schall, S.J.

James V. Schall, S.J.

James V. Schall, S.J., who served as a professor at Georgetown University for thirty-five years, is one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. Among his recent books are The Mind That Is Catholic, The Modern Age, Political Philosophy and Revelation: A Catholic Reading, Reasonable Pleasures, Docilitas: On Teaching and Being Taught, and Catholicism and Intelligence.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

HERE ARE A FEW FACTS ABOUT THE CHILDREN SEPARATED FROM ‘PARENTS’ AT THE BORDER THAT THE CROCODILES DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW

Now reading: When children are separated from their parents at the border, here is where they go next
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment