Thursday, August 3, 2017

Do you have a moment?

For those who do not know me, I am Fr. John, an Old Roman Catholic cleric, ultraconservative, traditionalist, twitter curmudgeon. I have been a reactionary for virtually my entire life, but I have been involved with the twitter incarnation of the Alt-Right, far-right, or what have you for the last couple of years or so. I operate a weekly study group for Alt-Right/Traditionalist Catholics through twitter wherein we read and discuss the Bible, Catechism of St. Pius X, the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the like (Hello to each of you reading this), and I also keep my "DMs" open to anyone who has questions about faith or just needs to talk (Hello to each of you reading this). I absolutely love doing it and have met some wonderful, faithful people. From time to time, I can also be seen verbally sparring with liberals and such who misrepresent the faith or history. As an ORC cleric, I was allowed to marry my high school sweetheart and better half going on 19 years, and we have three beautiful children. If you listen to the gentlemen over at The Godcast (@thegodcasttjc), then you likely know that our youngest is but a few months old. You also likely know a bit about the fact that I have fallen somewhat on hard times; since Arthur of The Godcast was kind enough to discuss my situation on-air after my plight was brought to his attention. Thankfully, the Lord smiled on my family, and some donations did arrive due to Arthur's most kind and greatly appreciated efforts.

Still, my problems have persisted, and, though I am normally loathe to discuss such matters, some people dear to me have reminded me (repeatedly and forcefully) that even the Apostles had to look to the faithful to support their endeavors (1 Corinthians 9:3-11). That is why, today, I would ask that you look deep into your hearts and wallets to help me buy a $65 million personal jet (Source). Of course, that is just a bit of humor. What I really need your help for is to buy a $10.5 million mansion with six bedrooms, six bathrooms, three elevators, five fireplaces, a guest house, and pool house (Source). Again, just a little humor. In truth, I normally take on side work to augment my ministerial work so as to provide for my family, but, sadly, that has dried up right as doctor bills for the new baby have come due and insurance costs have gone up yet again. My family has been struggling to stay afloat after draining our savings and such, and, so rather than a private jet or a mansion, I come to you, dear faithful reader, in the hope that I and this little ministry have helped you in some way, pointed you in the right direction, or simply helped inform you on some topic of theology or history. I do not need $65 million, $10.5 million, or anything quite so luxurious. Rather, I need to find a way to raise an additional $600-$1,000 per month to make up for my lost income so that I can put food on the table, diapers on our wee one's behind, keep the electricity on, and continue "Bringing the faith to the AltRight" as one friend once put it. Seems like so little next to a private jet or mansion, no?

Now, you may be thinking that sounds like so much to ask of you, and it would be if I had sent this only to you individually and stared at you while you read it. Thankfully, however, my hope is that enough people will feel moved to donate just $5, $10, or $20 per month either through Patreon or PayPal,* either through these links or the buttons at the top right of this page, so that I do not have to select any one person to stare at while they re-read this. As a thank-you for your generosity, I would like to offer you my heartfelt thanks, my prayers, my appreciation, my family's appreciation, prayers said by tiny, adorable people for you, and more of my prayers including any personal prayer requests that you may have. I also commit to continue providing my services to any who require them, to continue (often inadvertently) kicking liberal hornets nests often with comical results, and to continue trying to build a better future my children and yours. Even if you do not decide to donate, thank you for taking the time to read it, and may God bless you and yours.

* Patreon charges on the First of every month. PayPal can be paid recurring or whenever.

If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Monday, July 31, 2017

There is a Cancer in the Church

There is a cancer in the Church, and it has been allowed to grow unabated for decades. In 2008, Fr. Geoffrey Farrow, pastor of St. Paul's Newman Center in Fresno, California, was suspended when he publicly spoke in favor of "gay marriage" in the state, and he subsequently admitted to being a homosexual himself (Source). In 2014, Fr. Bill Dickinson, who had been a priest for 25 years, came out as homosexual and left the Church, and he has since stated that 10-60% of Catholic priests are homosexuals (Source). In 2015, Fr. Warren Hall, an open homosexual, was removed from the campus ministry at Seton Hall University over pro-gay activities, but he was simply reassigned to Saints Peter and Paul Church in Hoboken, New Jersey (Source). Within a few months, however, Hall was stripped of those duties as well due to continued LGBT advocacy (Source). In 2015, Msgr. Krzysztof Charamsa (seen above)—secretary of the International Theological Commission of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [Inquisition] and professor of theology at pontifical universities—announced that he was a homosexual in an active relationship (Source). In response to his subsequent dismissal, Charamsa accused Francis of hypocrisy because the priesthood is "full of homosexuals" (Source). Msgr. Charamsa would prove to be just the tip of the iceberg in the Inquisition, however, as Msgr. Luigi Capozzi was recently arrested while hosting a cocaine-fueled gay orgy in the Palace of the Holy Office [of the Inquisition] (Source). Capozzi is the secretary to Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, one of Francis's closest advisers, and the Monsignor has actually been put forth for elevation to bishop by his superior (Source).

This cancer is also certainly not limited to those who have either "come out" of their own accord or were caught in the midst of gay orgies. For example, Martin Currie, Archbishop of St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, has said that the Church must "find a way to avoid alienating same sex couples" and should "find some accommodation where [same-sex] unions are accepted and respected" (Source). John Stowe, a Conventual Franciscan and Bishop of Lexington, Kentucky, has actually attended the annual symposium of the heretical pro-gay New Ways Ministry where he said that the Church "has always opposed discrimination of any sort" and "that human flourishing is a primary goal" (Source). Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit and appointee of Francis to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications, has said that some Catholic saints "were probably gay" (Source), and he has also said, "That’s the way God created [homosexuals]. I think almost every psychologist and biologist and scientist would agree on that; and certainly LGBT people will tell you that’s the way they always felt – that they had been created that way" (Source). Martin has also sympathetically cited various estimates of gay clergy in the United States that "range from 23 percent to 58 percent, with even higher percentages for younger priests," stating that "the church needs to consider both the challenges and the gifts offered by this group" (Source). Regarding the existence of homosexuals in the priesthood, even Francis has asked, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" (Source)

It must be said that this is not simply an issue of homosexual acts being sinful, which they are. Nor is it just the natural conflict of interest between the religious duty of clerics and their personal desires to normalize homosexuality. While such a conflict of interest is certainly harmful, the cancer runs much, much deeper and darker. Consider that, from 1950-2002, some 81% of the victims of clerical molestation cases were male and 77% were actually pubescent, between the ages of 11-17, at the first instance of abuse (Source, 69-70). This is important as pedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, aged 10 or below. In other words, despite all of the claims of "pedophile priests" in popular culture, the reality is that the vast majority of those committing the abuse were simply homosexuals, not actual pedophiles, who abused their positions to take advantage of pubescent minors. Indeed, more than half of the victims of abuse were already teenagers when they were first abused, and 27% of them were aged 15-17. Such cases are better defined as homosexual rape rather than child molestation, and one must naturally connect the dots between those crimes tainting Holy Mother Church and the priesthood being permeated with gays. In light of Msgrs. Charamsa and Capozzi, one must also wonder if the hierarchy worked so hard to cover up such cases and to shield the homosexuals because the foxes are guarding the proverbial hen house. After all, it is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where both men worked, that reviews appeals in cases involving sexual abuse (Source). Rather than inquisitors hunting down heretics, do we instead have homosexuals covering for what they see as their fellow homosexuals simply engaging in consensual pederastic relationships with young lovers?

This is yet another example of what faces Catholic traditionalists today. Holy Mother Church is infested with vipers, but most Catholics cannot even bring themselves to agree with sedevantists and sedeprivationists who openly condemn the current hierarchy. Instead, most Catholics are actually being led astray into believing that homosexuality is normal, natural, and a trait bestowed by God. When you attend Mass and tithe each week, to what exactly are you lending your support? A cleansing fire is needed to save the faith, but how many Catholics are, wittingly or not, instead providing material support to the Enemy? It is no coincidence that the Church is mired in liberalism and heresy. It is no coincidence that it is hardly shocking anymore to see a priest on national television espousing sin as a lifestyle. This is not a war being fought with conventional battle lines, between Catholics and "Other." The enemy is already inside of our camp wearing our uniforms and wielding our weapons against us. The only question is whether the remaining faithful soldiers will wake up in time or be slaughtered in their sleep by foes they have not only embraced but fed and clothed as well.


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

No, Mike Stuchbery did not "school" @PrisonPlanet

On Tuesday, Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) questioned the historical accuracy of the BBC's "Life in Roman Britain" video series, which claimed to provide an "exploration of life in Roman Britain shown through the eyes of a typical family." The problem is that the "typical family" depicted is a Sub-Saharan African Roman, a seemingly European wife, and mixed-race children. Naturally, Watson questioned whether or not such a depiction was actually representative of a "typical family" in, again, Roman Britain, not Roman Africa. A number of liberals did what they always do, which was to accuse Watson of racism, because even daring to think that a "typical family" in Europe more than 1,500 years ago would have been European is bigoted. Of the liberals, one stood above the crowd—Mike Stuchbery (@MikeStuchbery_), a grade school teacher famously known for leaving his job after causing disruptions at Lynn Grove High School, in Gorleston, Norfolk, because he thinks people have a right to "feel safe" (Source). The reason Mr. Stuchbery stood above the rest is that he engaged in his own little "tweet storm" that began with accusations of head injuries and mouth-breathing, ended with "Get f---ed" and accusations of fascism, and had claims supporting the BBC's depiction in between. This led to The Telegraph declaring, "Alt-right commentator gets 'schooled' by historian" (Source), Teen Vogue claiming that "British historian gives Alt-Right commentator a history lesson" (Source), and Metro regurgitating, "Alt-right commentator gets shut down by historian" (Source).

Based on the reaction, one would have to assume that Mr. Stuchbery is an academically trained historian par excellence and that he pelted Mr. Watson with academic source after academic source, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that a "typical family" in Roman Britain is indeed represented by a Sub-Saharan African, Romano-British wife, and biracial children. Of course, this is the echo chamber of liberal social media and liberal media (a bit redundant these days), so the truth is quite different. For example, per LinkedIn, this premiere British historian only has an undergraduate education with his primary focus being in English, having received a Bachelor of Arts with a dual major in History and English Literature and a Bachelor of Teaching in Secondary Humanities and English, both from the University of Melbourne (Source). To really highlight his actual specialty, over the 14-year period from 2003-2017, Mr. Stuchbery spent 6 years, 8 months, teaching English at the grade school level with an additional 1 year, 7 months, teaching English and geography as a substitute teacher (Ibid.). Missing from his record is any trace of him teaching history at even a middle school level, and his academic qualifications would not even allow him to teach a remedial history class at the university level. That has not stopped him, however, from serving as an "occasional columnist" for a few outlets, writing on both education and history. On Twitter, he also lists himself as "Historian, Educator" without qualification. It seems "historian" is a title easily doled out and accepted amongst leftists.

Now, to the substance of the disagreement, Mr. Stuchbery made a total of six primary claims:
  1. Roman Britain was ethnically diverse, almost by design.
  2. There are accounts of North African and Middle Eastern soldiers on Hadrian's Wall.
  3. Every major camp in the province would have a 'vicus', a settlement where wives, children, slaves, and tradesmen lived, many having traveled with the legion.
  4. Provincial governors posted to Britannia took slaves with them, and some of those slaves would have been gifted freedom.
  5. London, as the capital of the province, was especially diverse.
  6. Archaeological evidence has repeatedly shown that Roman Britain was diverse.
As evidence for his claims, he offered an article about a blue-eyed Mediterranean girl who died in Roman London and whose maternal ancestry pointed to Southeast Europe and the Near East (Source), another on a Roman woman who died in Britannia (Source), another on a woman where the assessment "suggests a mixture of 'black' and 'white' ancestral traits" and that she "may have migrated to York from somewhere warmer, possibly the Mediterranean" (Source), and a 1984 book by a Marxist with no academic qualifications in the field of history or any other field (Source). It should not need to be said that these sources are beyond lacking, but neither the liberal media nor the liberal masses seem to care. After all, two Roman women from the Mediterranean are hardly examples of "diversity" in the sense that liberals mean, and the third woman might have been biracial, may have migrated from somewhere else, possibly the Mediterranean, and may have been North African. One wonders how many qualifiers can be applied to one subject before any conclusion must be questioned on its face. Firm conclusions such as the article itself, and, subsequently, Mr. Stuchbery, claiming "evidence of 'upper class' Africans living in Roman York." Noticeably absent from the provided sources is clear and decisive evidence that Roman Britain was diverse, by design or otherwise, that every major Roman outpost would have seen "diversity" brought with the legions, that governors of Britannia were importing and releasing Africans, that archaeological evidence has shown diversity, and so on.

First, let us address the issue of "Moors" on Hadrian's Wall. It is true that an inscription dated to the fourth century AD refers to a "numerus of Aurelian Moors" along Hadrian's Wall in the far north of England, and it is also true that liberals with an agenda have said that they "[believe] many would have settled [in England] and raised families" and that the Moors "would probably have wanted more permanent relationships [with local women]" in addition to visiting brothels (Source). In other words, we are to believe that the Roman Legions marched into England with Sub-Saharan African soldiers, and those soldiers then took English brides and remained in England. Of course, we must note the use of words such as "believe" and "probably" because they expose that liberals are reading their desires into history. For example, the term "numerus" referred to an irregular unit drawn from foreigners that was used "on the frontiers... to patrol less populated regions and to protect convoys" (Source), and they could include anywhere from 100 to 1,000 men (Source). Additionally, the so-called "Moors" would have been Mauri tribesmen from Roman Mauretania, modern-day Morocco (Source), not Sub-Saharan Africans or the Arabs who would come centuries later with the spread of Islam. It is not known how many Mauri tribesmen were present at Aballava in the far north of England, but the fort could have held no more than 500 men, hardly a grand horde of Africans changing England forever.

Secondly, let's consider the idea put forth by Mr. Stuchbery that the Roman Legions brought with them not only non-European soldiers but also wives, children, and tradesmen. For example, it is known that Legio II Augusta, Legio IX Hispana, Legio XIV Gemina, and Legio XX Valeria Victrix were used in the initial invasion of Britain in the first century AD. The Second Legion would remain until the third century, having served from Gloucester to Hadrian's Wall. The Fourteenth Legion would only remain for a relatively short time before returning to the continent. The Twentieth Legion was perhaps still in Britain as late as the early 5th century, albeit not consistently having likely taken part in campaigns on the continent. The Ninth Legion was stationed at York until AD 108 when it was relieved by the additional Legio VI Victrix, which would also serve on Hadrian's Wall. What stands out about the Second, Sixth, Ninth, Fourteenth, and Twentieth Legions is that they were all formed in Europe, all but the Spanish Ninth being Italian in origin. Additionally, these legions had previously served in Europe, not North Africa or the Near East, which raises an obvious question: namely, Where would Italian and Spanish soldiers who had been serving in Italy, Spain, and Germany have acquired a slew of African or Middle Eastern wives, children, and slaves? Simply asserting that it might have or could have maybe happened possibly is not evidence of anything despite what liberals seem to think.

To further reiterate the point of how trivial the alleged influx of Africans and Asians was, let us look beyond the guesses, estimates, and assumptions of the liberals and instead look to modern genetic evidence. For example, AncestryDNA looked at the genomes of two million people worldwide to see the percentage of their ethnic makeup, and, in the Northeast and Northwest of England (where Hadrian's Wall was located), the average person today is at least 98% and 97% European [only ethnicities of 1% or more are shown], respectively (Source). We can also see the average person from Yorkshire and Humber—home of Roman York—is at least 96% European. Compare this with the East of England (94%), East Midlands (96%), West Midlands (96%), Southeast (95%), and Southwest (95%), as well as Northern Ireland (95%), Scotland (97%), and Wales (96%). In other words, the parts of England that supposedly were "ethnically diverse" are no more diverse than the rest of the British Isles today. Are we to believe that the entirety of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales was home to Africans and Asians in the past? Indeed, the only non-European result that even warrants mention in the AncestryDNA study is Jewish, and that only rises to 1.51% in England and 1% in Wales. These numbers are despite modern mass immigration that is known to have occurred within the last century or so. Indeed, it is worth noting that not only are the British lacking in non-European DNA but they are also what we'd expect—Celtic and Anglo-Saxon—according to a study that appeared in Nature (Source):
Romans, Vikings and Normans all invaded Britain, but left surprisingly little genetic trace. The influence of the Anglo-Saxons, however, shows up across England... Given the cultural significance of the Roman, Viking and Norman invasions, it’s surprising they didn’t leave greater genetic legacy. For the Romans and Normans, that may be because they were ruling elites who didn’t intermarry with the natives.
Were the Romans themselves somehow less prevalent than whatever supposed Africans and Asians that they maybe possibly could have brought with them? Were Roman soldiers less likely to settle down and marry locally than supposed Africans and Asians that they maybe possibly could have brought with them? If not, then why did the Africans and Asians leave virtually no genetic trace while the Romans left "surprisingly little"? Where is the evidence that even remotely suggests that we should assume that Roman Britain was "diverse" wherein a "typical family" was non-European? The obvious truth—despite what liberals such as Mr. Stuchbery claim—is that Britain was not "diverse" unless one counts Celtic, Germanic, and Italic as "diversity." The genetic findings regarding Roman Britain fit with the fact that England was only home to 15,000 blacks in 1770 (Source), which represented only 0.21% of the population of England and Wales in 1771 (Source). Another obvious truth is that neither the BBC nor Mr. Stuchbery care about these realities because they are motivated by political ideology, not a search for truth. That is why the BBC can depict Scottish Picts as Sub-Saharan Africans and present the signing of the Magna Carta as a meeting of the United Nations, and that is why Mr. Stuchbery has been attacking people who question it, even if they themselves are not white (Source). History is only important insofar as it can be used to further their agenda including immigration.

Scottish Picts according to the BBC
King John of England meets with his English, Asian, and African nobles to sign the Magna Carta

In this day and age, genetic studies have shown that one's "population of origin," which naturally includes race, can be determined with near 100% accuracy by analyzing less than 0.1% of 650,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (Source). In turn, we also now know that it is a myth that two individuals of different populations can be more genetically similar than two individuals of the same population, which can only be claimed when purposely looking at relatively few loci (Source). All of this confirms precisely what our own eyes and minds tell us considering that genetic clustering matches self-identified race/ethnicity virtually 100% of the time (Source). Mr. Stuchbery can make vague claims about "diversity" in defense of BBC presenting Britain as an African nation, but the DNA tells a very different story. If a typical British family was once Afro-Roman, the Celts were once Afro-British, and the nobility were once Afro-Norman, then Mr. Stuchbery and his ilk need to explain why their DNA has vanished without a trace, as if by Merlin's voodoo.


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Monday, July 24, 2017

The Uneasiest Alliance of the Far Right

In far-right political circles, there is an uneasy alliance between a number of discordant factions that can only seem to agree on one thing: namely, that European peoples and cultures must be preserved, which means that mass immigration into the West must end. There are perhaps no two factions more divided than traditionalist Christians and heathens, pagans, or whatever other term one might prefer to use. Naturally, one might expect Christians and pagans to not get along very well and with good reason, but both should be able to agree that Europe should not be reduced to being the Afro-Asian Islamic State of Europe. Christians may be seeking to preserve Christendom while pagans think Europe will eventually become pagan again, but both scenarios equally require that Europe remain in the hands of native peoples, not Third World imports. Despite common ground, however, these two factions are consistently at odds with each other.

It would be all too easy to assume that the two sides are equally responsible for any animosity, incessantly poking and prodding each other, but that is usually not the case at all. Instead, one regularly finds that it is pagans leveling accusations that Christians are "basically Jews" who "worship a kike on a stick." Indeed, in the name of their "foreign Jew god," Christians and their religion, "Judaism 2: Crucifixion Boogaloo,"  are directly or indirectly responsible for every ill that plagues modern Europe, or so their accusations go. Traditionalist Christians are regularly told that they need to convert because paganism is strong while their faith is weak, and such comments need not be prompted by anything other than a Christian mentioning Christianity.

There are some obvious problems with such allegations. Firstly, Jesus referred to the Pharisees as the offspring of Satan who knew neither Him nor the Father (John 8:42-47), and it was the Pharisees that would become what we know as Jews and Rabbinic Judaism today. Secondly, by the time of Jesus, at least some portion of the Hebrews were not Hebrews at all but were instead Edomites who had converted to one of the Hebraic sects. For example, the Herodian Dynasty descended from Antipater the Idumaean, Idumaea being home of the Edomites. This is important because Revelation 3:9 references members of the "synagogue of Satan" who say they are Judaeans but are not. Third, it was the Pharisaic Jews who killed Jesus, and the Church traditionally recognized them as Christ-killers. That is why the "list of 109 places that have kicked out Jews" is example after example of Christian kingdoms and cities forcing Jews from their domains. It was Pope Paul IV who taxed Jews in Rome to build a ghetto in which they were forced to live, who made them wear yellow so they were recognizable to everyone, and limited what occupations they could hold within the confines of Rome. Finally, it is Catholics who have a heritage of battling Jews and Muslims, not pagans.

Beyond these and other holes in the anti-Christian argument, there is the simple fact of the matter that allies have to actually be allied for any alliance to work. Why should traditionalist Christians care about working with pagans if the latter cannot stop "punching right"? If pagans use every opportunity to attack traditionalist Christians and engage in their own form of proselytizing, why should anyone waste the breath trying to claim they are allies in the fight to save Europe? Allies obviously need not agree on everything, but they most certainly do not spend more time attacking their own side than attacking the enemy. Allies do not speak of a need to "purge" their alliance of Christians lest they "subvert the movement." If pagans wish to invade nearly every thread of traditionalist Christians within the Alt-Right to regurgitate the same tired fighting words, then they should not be surprised when they are indeed taken as fighting words. Before going down that rabbit hole any further, however, they should remember that the West is overwhelmingly Christian, and it is far easier to lead a liberal Christian to traditional Christianity than to convince them to LARP as a viking. If pagans want to rely on an Atheist-Pagan alliance to save the West, so be it. But they need to admit to everyone and to themselves then that they have no intention of actually fixing anything.


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Apologia: Jesus did not Dismiss Gentiles as Dogs

Behold a woman of Canaan who came out of those coasts, crying out, said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is grieviously troubled by the devil. Who answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying: Send her away, for she crieth after us: And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. But she came and adored him, saying: Lord, help me. Who answering, said: It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs.—Matthew 15:22-26
Enemies of Christianity often use the above passage as evidence that Jesus was a "Jew," in the worst sense of the word, and that He did not care about gentiles. Some conspiracy theories run so deep as to suggest that Jesus only ever preached a "Jew only" religion and that it was St. Paul, who never knew Jesus, that fabricated a religion that could be sold to the Romans for some nefarious reasons. In turn, it is argued that Christianity itself is "basically Jewish" and has been a subversive and detrimental force against European civilization. The problem is that such theories demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what Jesus was actually saying, why He said it, and the circumstances in which He said it. Context is very important.

To begin with, the background of the above passage is that the Pharisees were confronting and challenging Jesus, so He had gone into the Roman province of Phoenice with His disciples (Matthew 15:1-21). This is important because it frames what follows in clear terms where the Hebrews were not hearing Jesus's message and were instead consistently pushing back against Him. This is in accordance with Jesus telling the Pharisees that they did not know Him because they did not know God and that they were instead the children of Satan (John 8:41-47). The setting of the event is also important because Roman Phoenice was gentile land, and Jesus had purposely gone there despite His assertion that He was "not sent but to the sheep of the house of Israel." If Jesus had truly intended to only reach out to the Hebrews, why would He go into gentile lands at all?

The answer is found in the carefully worded responses of the Lord, which taught an important lesson. As we can see from the passage above, the Apostles went to Jesus and asked that He send the woman away because she was chasing after them. The implication clearly being that they were annoyed with her rather than seeking to help her. Jesus did initially refer to the woman metaphorically as a dog, but the word He used was "κυνάριον," which carried only a literal meaning, rather than "κύων," which was commonly used by Hebrews to refer to gentiles, comparing them to dogs in the sense of lowly animals. The woman still sought the Lord's help, and He praised her faith and healed her daughter (Matthew 15:27-28). Thus, Jesus was not actually insulting the woman, but He was instead showing the Apostles that they were wrong to have wanted to send her away without helping her. She was not a "dog" unworthy of the Lord's help, but she was instead faithful to Him even as the Hebrews were not. As if to put a finer point on the lesson, Jesus then immediately returned to Galilee, allowing the lesson of the gentile woman and her daughter to stand on its own (Matthew 15:29).

The lesson was obviously not lost on the Apostles considering that St. Peter established the heart of the Church in Rome, as well as other apostles establishing apostolic sees in Italy, Greece, Spain, &c.


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

On St Augustine's "Confessiones" Book II and Modern Life

In Book II of "Confessiones," St. Augustine remembers his teenage years and the sins committed therein. He had taken a break from his studies in his sixteenth year due to his family's financial situation and fell into sins that seem common to all young men throughout human history. His lamentations about this period included attempting to discern why he had enjoyed sinning for the sake of sinning, as he could not justify an act of transgression he committed in any other way.

The first of the sins that St. Augustine discusses in Book II is that of his youthful lust and his willingness to give in to it. His mother, who had been a Christian for a number of years, attempted to warn him about the consequences of lust, but his father, who was but a catechumen at the time, encouraged him to engage in the behavior and saw it as his son becoming a man. This is mirrored in today's age in the Church teaching of the consequences of unrestrained lust and secular culture reveling in all manner of sexual deviancy. The youth of today are inundated with messages suggesting that giving in to lust not only feels good but also brings the rewards of self-confidence and the respect of one's peers. No mention is made in the media's message of the myriad of physical and psychological consequences for engaging in sexual activity outside of the marriage bed, and parents seem to be fine with this, especially since most people with adolescent children today were themselves inundated with the same message of immorality bringing societal reward instead of personal ruin. The Church, on the other hand, is still teaching the same message it has since the beginning, which is that sexual sin will bring ruin upon your psyche, body, and soul. As it was in St. Augustine's lifetime though, the advice of the Church is readily ignored by adolescents of today. So the world sees rising teen pregnancy rates, STD transmission, depression, divorce (which can be tied to the marriage act being reduced from an act of love and faith in your partner to a merely physical release), and other myriad detriments.

St. Augustine's lamentation and regret continues with a story about a theft he committed with friends. They stole some pears from an orchard near their vineyard without need, for they already had more and better. "To shake and rob this [pear tree] some of us wanton young fellows went, late one night (having, according to our disgraceful habit, prolonged our games in the streets until then), and carried away great loads, not to eat ourselves, but to fling to the very swine, having only eaten some of them; and to do this pleased us all the more because it was not permitted" (St. Augustine, "Confessions" II.4.9). They committed theft not for ill gain or to sate hunger, but simply for the sake of sin. This pleasure in sin for its own sake is nothing foreign to the modern age. Modernity seems to encourage everyone to partake in sinful activities for no reason other than to revel in the pleasure of the sin. The media makes tales of degeneracy and decadence into seemingly positive things.  People are told repeatedly that they can do as they please, as long as nobody else is harmed.  The destructiveness of reveling in sin for sin's sake is never mentioned.  Tales of hollow lives and dead souls are swept under the rug, and the populace is presented with images of smiling people conducting themselves in all manner of immoral ways.

There is hope for those who would turn from youthful decadence and hollow existence. If people would turn from their lives and to the Lord, they might experience the kind of joy and love of life that St. Augustine acquired after his conversion and dedication of his life to the Lord. Throughout his "Confessions", St. Augustine praises the Lord and attributes everything of worth to Him. St. Augustine also saw, looking back, that the Lord had used even the misery of his youth to impart valuable lessons about how to live life and achieve fulfillment. If people would just open their hearts to the Lord, they would find that, through the regret of hindsight, their lives would improve and have newfound meaning and fullness.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Suffer Not a Woman to Teach

A blog post by Carrie Surbaugh (seen above) entitled "An Open Letter to My Parents’ Pastor" has gone viral in leftist circles, and, as the title suggests, it is essentially a rant aimed at Bill Killough, the new senior pastor of Alliance United Methodist Church in Fort Worth, Texas (Source). The grievance being that Killough had delivered a sermon in which he called out the sin of homosexuality and allegedly said that people's feelings over the matter are irrelevant. While Ms. Surbaugh was not in attendance, her parents were and apparently took great offense because their daughter is a lesbian, having first "come out" as bisexual in 2016 because she "couldn’t come to the table to receive Christ’s body and blood as anyone other than [her]self" (Source). The gist of Ms. Surbaugh's rant is that her parents, Greg and Kathy Surbaugh, are amazing people who give so much to the church yet were reduced to tears by their pastor preaching what the Bible says. In other words, the feelings of "LGBTQ" people and their families should come before the Bible, and she concluded her rant by listing statistics about homeless "LGBTQ" youth, suicide rates, and such to conclude that the Bible's "theology literally kills people." This is particularly interesting considering that Ms. Surbaugh had already issued a "Dear John letter" to the United Methodist Church earlier in the year because the Rio Texas Conference of the UMC would not ordain her as an "out" lesbian (Source). Indeed, she now lists herself on social media as a "youth pastor" with the Episcopal Service Corps in Seattle, Washington.

Ms. Surbaugh is a "youth pastor" and seemingly still seeks to be "ordained," but for what purpose? In her now viral post, she clearly shows that she cares little for sound theology, and she instead puts the focus entirely on how she and people like her feel about their sins. Since they embrace their sinful ways and actually build an entire identity around them, she thinks it is wrong and against God's will for their sins to be called out in church. Indeed, she uses her blog to suggest that "all are welcome at the Lord's table," meaning their sins are irrelevant, going so far as to say she has to be openly and unabashedly homosexual to receive Christ's body and blood. All of this is, of course, heretical to say the least as homosexuality is expressly condemned as unnatural (Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27) as is cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5), which Ms. Surbaugh also defends. She clearly does not care to spread the Lord's Word, but she is more than happy to spread justifications for sin while she and others like her tell themselves that they know better than the Bible and 2,000 years of clergy. After all, as she said, "theology literally kills people" by condemning their sins. Never mind that Christians are expressly told that correcting sins in others saves their souls (James 5:19-20). Feelings trump God in the mind of Ms. Surbaugh and those like her. In fact, she said in the comments section that she thinks "that all theology is driven by our worldview, including how we interpret scripture."

Perhaps even more disturbing than Ms. Surbaugh's blatant and self-serving heresy is the fact that other supposed Christian pastors are flocking to support her. For example, Lauren Robinson, a Presbyterian seminarian (Source), said, "I think we always pick and choose what we adhere to from the Bible and what we do not. Always. So I choose to believe that Love is Love!" Another, Valerie Ohle, a UMC youth coordinator (Source), declared that she is "aspiring to be the kind of pastor that never allows this to happen on her watch and that teaches her congregation what open hearts, open doors, open minds really means and requires." Brittany Rusk, a coordinator with Greater New Jersey UMC (Source), said, "Preaching Hate is never okay" and that she has preached "about black lives," "that Jesus tells us to welcome refugees," and that "ALL LOVE should be welcome in the church." Ada Williams, Minister of Social Justice & Civic Engagement with an African Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore (Source), said that "the community of love and faith and compassion and true acceptance—is wide." On and on the comments go, but the "female pastors" are united in their message of feelings and acceptance being more important than God's will being done.

This brings us to a relevant passage from the Bible, 1 Timothy 2:11-14:
Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
This is one of the most hated passages in the New Testament as far as modernists are concerned because it expressly goes against the very notion of female ordination, and we can see why St. Paul took such a position when we look at the liberalization of churches that have embraced the heresy of female clergy. Ms. Surbaugh wallows in her sin by declaring that it is not even a sin, but she is somehow entrusted to serve as a pastor for children and may one day be "ordained" in the Episcopal Church. No shortage of other women in similar positions within several different Protestant denominations have voiced their support for her and other wanton sinners. There simply is no concept of right and wrong, moral and immoral, for these women, and their "religion of feelings" has shown itself to be a cancer everywhere it has been embraced. Indeed, this topic has been covered twice before, showing that denominations that embrace female ordination inevitably liberalize and begin losing the truly faithful membership (Feminism and Female Ordination: A Gateway to the Church's Destruction; Why the Episcopal Church is Dying). St. Paul was right when he condemned the idea of women teaching in the Church, and, as Matthew 7:15-20 tells us, we shall know the false prophets by the fruits of their efforts. It seems painfully obvious that the fruit of female ordination is degeneracy and hedonism not only being tolerated but actively embraced in the name of never hurting anyone's feelings.


If you support this ministry, please consider donating using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.