Illusions Die Hard

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There is no need to write again, especially shortly after Midnight on the Vigil of the Ascension, on the fraudulent nature of our Judeo-Masonic electoral system that conditions well-meaning Americans to accept ever increasingly higher doses of a so-called "lesser evil" to get rid of a supposedly "greater" evil. I have dealt with this matter at great length in When Lesser is Greater fifty-two months ago now. This is how evil advances incrementally over the course of time in pluralistic nations such as the United States of America as the devil without his tail is harder to recognize and reject than the devil with his tail even both both devils have the same goal of advancing evils under cover of the civil law.

Suffice it for present purposes to note that the supposedly "greater evil" since 2008, Barack Hussein Obama, has convinced the usual array of clueless "conservatives" that they just have to "live" with the supposedly "lesser evil," Willard Mitt Romney, the former one-term Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, even though Romney shares many views in common with Obama, starting, of course, with the belief that the Incarnation, which, as a Mormon, he does not accept (Mormons believe that Our Lord was the embodiment of a preexisting created spirit-being), and the Redemptive Act of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is a matter of complete indifference to personal and social order.

It is this common rejection of the Incarnation and Redemptive Act of the God-Man, Christ the King, that unites the false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left" despite their differences on the edges of various matters, principally concerning who gets to control the money, money, money.

Thus it is that Willard Mitt Romney, though opposing "marriage" between persons of the same gender, really, really believes that "gay couples" should be able to "adopt" children.

This is what he said on the Fox News Channel's Your World With Neil Cavuto on Thursday, May 10, 2012:

Cavuto: “The president in an attack ad that’s already out now governor, maybe in response to and a quick follow up from this decision yesterday that you’ve been all over the map on this issue – that you are against civil unions, you have said that this is a state issue, then you said that maybe it’s the federal government that should handle it through a constitutional amendment protecting marriage between a man and a woman. What is your firm position?”

Romney: “Well, thank you for any confusion that’s there. Let me make it very clear, which is that my preference would be to have a national standard that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. That would then allow states to determine what rights would be provided for people of the same gender that wanted to have a relationship. There could be domestic partnership benefits, for instance, where one state might decide to provide hospital visitation rights. Another state might decide to provide that as well as benefits of other kinds. States could have their own decisions with regards to the domestic partnership rights. But my preference would be to have a national standard for marriage and that marriage be defined as being between a man and a woman.”

Cavuto: “Gays quickly interpret that governor as being discriminatory to them and that a President Romney would etch in the Constitution something that discriminates against a large swath of people in this country, gays. What do you say?”

Romney: “You know, we as a society take action which we believe strengthens the nation. I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where there’s the opportunity for a mom and a dad to be in the home. I know there are many circumstances where that’s not possible, through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children -- that’s fine. But my preference is that we encourage the marriage of a man and a woman. And that we continue to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.” (

Cavuto: Some have likened this to, sort of like the civil rights movement all over again. And that gay’s push for rights is very analogous. What do you say?

Romney: I don’t see it in that light. I believe my record as a person who has supported civil rights is strong and powerful.

At the same time, I believe that marriage has been defined the same way for literally thousands of years, by virtually every civilization in history, and that marriage is literally by its definition a relationship between a man and a woman. And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, and even want to adopt a child in my state -- individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something which people have the right to do. But to call that marriage, is, in my view, a departure from the real meaning of that word. (From Your World With Neil Cavuto, Transcript, Wednesday, May 10, 2012.)

 

"That's fine," Willard? (Let me append a oft-repeated summary of why this not "fine.")

"Something which people have the right to do," Willard?

Not according to true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity.

Ah, you see, Willard Mitt Romney, a member of the Americanist sect that goes by the name of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" or, more commonly, the Mormons, does not believe in the Most Blessed Trinity. He is a polytheist. He believes that there are three "gods," not Three Persons in the Divine Godhead. The Mormon cult, born of a confidence man in Palmyra, New York, Joseph Smith, who was a Freemason, is not even a generically Christian religion as it is a total man-made concoction that produces human beings who believe that Our Lord and the devil are "spirit brothers."

Here is but a brief description of this cult as found on the Tradition in Action website:

What, exactly, therefore, is the doctrine of the Mormon religion, vis-à-vis what the Mormons themselves have become? (3) One example of their doctrines is the one that declares war on Catholics, stating that the Roman Catholic Church is the "most abominable above all other churches" (4).

According to Mormon teaching (5), in New York in the early 19th century, Moroni, the son of a Nephite general turned angel, paid a visit to a young illiterate treasure hunter named Joseph Smith. Moroni gave his permission for Smith to dig up some hidden golden plates, hitherto guarded by a "white salamander"(6), an occult figure. One Mormon historian, Michael Quinn, in fact was excommunicated for his "painstaking work (documenting) Smith's involvement with the occult" (7). Moroni presented Smith with some magic spectacles to read the hieroglyphics written on the plates, which was in "Reformed Egyptian." Since Smith couldn't write, he hired others to do the job. Among them was Oliver Cowdery, an unemployed school teacher.

Cowdery sat under a blanket and dictated from the plates The Book of Mormon, believed by Mormons to be the true history of our continent from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. We are informed by their teaching "that Christ preached to the American Indians after His ascension and founded a church among them for the Western hemisphere... That (Smith) re-established the church of Christ which had been wiped out in the Americas and had apostatized elsewhere... (and) that the Mormon church is the only true Christian religion." Moroni further states that, pari passu, "all existing churches were in error, corrupt and apostate."

From the golden tablets we learn that North and South America were peopled by Jews, who came by ship from Palestine. Eventually they split into two nations, the Lamanites and the Nephites. Christ appeared to the Nephites, chose 12 Indian apostles and set up a church which was a counterpart of the Church he had established in Jerusalem. The Lamanites killed off the Nephites, and Moroni buried the plates which recounted the history of his race.

According to Bringham Young, Jesus was a polygamist and Mary and Martha were two of his wives. Mormon theology also teaches that the god of this world is a man (probably Adam), a physical being, a polygamist. Further, God did not create matter, which existed eternally (he 'organized' it.) There is not one God but many gods, and Mormons can become gods of other planets when they die.

The Book of Mormon contains verbatim, lengthy statements from the New Testament. In his study on it, Whalen observes:

"It abounds in anachronisms, contradictions, and stock Campbellite answers to the theological questions of the early 19th century. At times its hindsight prophecy becomes entangled in such statements as `the son of God shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem.' Shakespearean students will be surprised to find the phrase ‘the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns’ appearing in a passage written 2200 years before the Bard (8).

It will be interesting to observe how American voters react to Mitt Romney. His religion seems impossibly at odds with the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology, history and philology, to mention a few. If a person is willing to buy into the magic glasses and golden plates story (they seem to have disappeared) and all that came from it, what else is he willing to believe? But one of the most disturbing things about Mormonism is the bold claim that "all" other churches are in apostasy.

It seems Mormons may have a secret knowledge. The same kind of exclusive knowledge exists in Gnosticism, which affirms that "unless carefully interpreted according to this secret wisdom, everything the Bible says is wrong" (9).  (Mormon enigmas.)

 

Yes, it appears that Catholics are "just fine" with this because Willard Mitt Romney is not Barack Hussein Obama. In many ways, of course, he is worse as Obama is up front and in our faces with his Marxism and relativism. Romney is the creature of focus group polling who wants to take certain stands to "excite" his "conservative" base of support while at the same time taking more "moderate," "nuanced" stances in order not to alienate voters in "swing" states.

There are times when Romney's true views, such as those he expressed to Neil Cavuto about "domestic partnerships" and "gay adoptions." These are usually followed by some kind of "clarification" when the natives on the "conservative" reservations across the land start beating the war drums to protest his "move to the center" in this farce of an electoral system. This is what Romney did just a day after he very clearly stated that he was "fine" with "domestic partnership" provisions for those living in sinful relationships and that it's the "right" of those engaged in perverse actions against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to adopt children"

 

CBS News) Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Friday backed away from his support of adoptions by same-sex couples, saying that he simply "acknowledges" the legality of such adoptions in many states.

A day earlier, Romney, in an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, had indicated that while he does not support same-sex marriage, he considers the adoption of children by same-sex couples a "right."

He said on Thursday: "And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child -- in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that's something that people have a right to do. But to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word."

But then on Friday, he was asked, in an interview with CBS' WBTV in Charlotte, N.C., how his opposition to same-sex marriage "squared" with his support for gay adoptions. Romney told anchor Paul Cameron, "Well actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

Romney did remain consistent on one point: He said he does not intend to use President Obama's flip flop of same-sex marriage against him in the campaign. Obama, who opposed same-sex marriage when he ran for president in 2008, said this week he now supports it. Romney said, "I think the issue of marriage and gay marriage is a very tender and sensitive topic. People come out in different places on this. The president has changed course in regards to this topic. I think that's his right to do that. I have a different view than he does. I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, but I just don't think that this becomes a hot political issue dividing our nation." (Romney backs away from same-gender adoptions.)

It's the "right" of those committing perverse sins against nature that offend God and defile their bodies and, more importantly, their ow immortal souls, because state legislatures have 'granted" it to them? If this is what Romney is contending on Friday, May 11, 2012, then he was engaged in an act of pure legal positivism as the mere passage of a piece of legislation (or the mere rendering of a judicial decision) that is contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law is unjust and has no binding force on either God or man. Such a law must be denounced and opposed.

However, it is clear that Romney's "clarification," which could have been issued by "Father" Federico Lombardi, the spokesflack for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, does not reflect his true position, which is the one he stated on Your World With Neil Cavuto on Thursday, May 10, 2012. Why do I assert this as true. Well, because Willard Mitt Romney told us in 2008 that he supported "gay adoptions," that's why:

During a July 16, 2008 interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Romney expressed a similar view on adoption by same sex couples, and deferred to the judgment of the courts.

“We recognize that the ideal setting for raising a child is where there’s a mom and a dad, and the great majority of states recognize that as well,”

Romney told Blitzer. “But typically states have said, we’re going to encourage adoptions where there’s a mom and a dad but we’re not going to make it illegal for other circumstances for adoption to occur as well, and we’re going to let the courts decide what’s in the best interest of the child.”

“And so you don’t make illegal necessarily a national policy that says you can’t have gay adoption,” said Romney. “You let the states decide what’s in the best interest of the child ….”

When asked by Blitzer whether that was okay with him, Romney said, “I didn’t oppose that here in Massachusetts. My view was that the best setting for a child to be raised is where there’s a mom and a dad. But I did not say let’s put in place a law that would prevent a court from deciding that a child, instead of being in an orphanage, should be with a same-sex couple or with a single mom or a single dad. You leave that up to the court and let them make the decision.” (Romney Opposes Perverted Marriages But Says Adoption is All Right.)

 

Just up to a court or a state legislature, Willard? What a weasel.

This is the same man, of course, who had said consistently in his campaigns for public office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that he supported the "right" of women to assassinate their preborn children surgically under cover of the civil law, saying that he supported "choice." (See Appendix B for a little review of how consistent Willard Mitt Romney had been prior to his first presidential run in 2007 and 2008.)

This is the same man who said on Saturday, January 7, 2012, that "contraception is working very well" (see Midget Apostates Endorsing Midget Naturalists) and who supports "surrogate parenthood," which is immoral in and of its very nature as children must be conceived in the normal manner ordained by God for the perpetuation of the human species and involves the destruction of countless numbers of fertilized human beings to produce one "conception" outside of a woman's womb.

Yet its that the Mormon "royalty," Willard Mitt and Ann Romney, support this evil as it has been employed in their own family:

When the news broke that Mitt and Ann Romney welcomed grandchildren numbers 17 and 18 this past Friday via “gestational surrogacy,” those of us here at CBC central—who oppose commercialized conception—wondered where the bottom is in these murky waters of assisted reproduction.

Tagg Romney posted this on his facebook page after the twins were born:

Jen and I are happy to announce the birth of twin boys, David Mitt and William Ryder. Everyone is healthy and happy. They weighed in at 5 lbs 13 oz and 19-3/4 inches and 6 lbs. 13 oz and 19 inches. A special thanks to our gestational surrogate who made this possible for us. Life truly is a miracle, and we feel so blessed to be able to celebrate the arrival of these precious boys into our family. For those keeping score at home, these are grandchildren numbers 17 and 18 for my parents.

 

Those who are regular readers know I have mentioned in the past the list in Time magazine:

“The Ten Best Chores to Outsource.” Expecting to see housecleaning, landscaping, pool cleaning—you know, actual chores—I was shocked to see the number one best chore to outsource was pregnancy. As the Time article put it:

Outsourcing brings to mind big factories and call centers. But entrepreneurs around the globe now offer services—from tutoring to sculpting a bust of your grandpa—to regular folks for a fraction of the cost in the West. Thought the world was flat before? Well, now you can hire someone in India to carry your child.

 

Outsourcing pregnancy has become big business, transforming having a child into a “bits and pieces” brokered industry: sperm from a handsome Scandinavian stud; eggs from a smart, beautiful Ivy League woman; a womb-for-rent from a poor woman in India trying to provide food and education for her children; and brokers in the middle helping set up the legal transactions to build a better baby the 21st century way. Just this past week, London’s Daily Mail ran a story titled, “The Designer baby factory: Eggs from beautiful Eastern Europeans, sperm from wealthy Westerners and embryos implanted in desperate women.”

Sadly, the “gestational surrogates”—truly desperate women—in these stories are identified as “uneducated, bare-footed, dirt-poor Indian women from outlying villages.” The surrogacy consultants who run the WYZAX surrogacy clinic assure intended parents that the surrogates will not get attached to the babies.

The Romneys didn’t have to exploit a poor woman in India. They chose to exploit a woman, probably much less poor, right here in the U.S. And their surrogate might not have felt so exploited. She was just “helping a couple have a baby”—and being compensated for her help. Because of little regulation in the U.S., commercial surrogacy is legal and couples like the Romneys don’t have to outsource their pregnancies to India. Our Canadian neighbors got it right when the Supreme Court of Canada wrote, “allowing the purchase of human gametes and surrogacy services devalues human life and degrades those who choose to participate in such a commercial transaction” (emphasis mine).

Many of the news stories I’ve read over the weekend about Tagg and Jen Romney using a “gestational surrogate” state that this means the child is biologically theirs. I’m not sure how the press came to that conclusion because a gestational surrogate only provides the womb. Gestational surrogacy is just the derogatory term for the woman who carries and gives birth to the baby. They could have used an egg donor, which would mean the egg donor would be the genetic mother. They could have used a sperm donor too, meaning Tagg wouldn’t be the genetic father of the boys, if that was the case. And all this, apparently ignoring the Latter Day Saints’ position on surrogacy (the LDS church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood). Tagg and Jen have used this same surrogate in the past to give birth to their first son.

Outsourcing pregnancy. Wombs for rent. Commercialized Conception. Call me shocked and disgusted. (Money Changes Everything.)

 

No, no. Never mind the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

No, no. Never mind the simple fact that "contraception has worked" so well to robbed people of an understanding or even realization of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage that it the artificial conception of children is considered by so many as just as acceptable of the artificial contraception of them.

No, no. Willard Mitt Romney is "better" than Barack Hussein Obama.

Illusions die hard.

Both men are cut from the same anti-Incarnational cloth of Modernity.

Although I have been contending that Willard Mitt Romney will lose to Barack Hussein Obama, the polls seem to indicate right now that Romney may have something of a decent chance to defeat the incumbent caesar. Anything is possible in this fraudulent system. Romney could beat Obama. If he does so, however, it will be by trying to "nuance" "delicate" issues such as "gay adoption" as he has done in the past and is doing now so as to appear, as he has always appeared, all things to all people.

When all is said and done, though, I still believe that Obama will defeat Romney, noting that I have criticized the reigning caesar endlessly and know that his second term will be even worse than his first. A Romney administration would be different from Obama's only around the edges. The same set of power elites in banking and commerce and entertainment, will control domestic policy and the State of Israel will get to call most of the shots on Middle Eastern policy. Firm stands against moral evil? Not on your life. Sadly, not on the lives of the innocent preborn or on the souls of those who believe that it is their "right" to act sinfully because it is "legal" to do so.

If Obama believes he has to have a "game changer" come the Democratic Party National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, during the first week of September in three and one-half months now, then look for him to ditch Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., with whom caesar is displeased right now, and replace him with a person who is, incredibly enough, one of the most popular and "admired" persons in the United States of America, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yes, illusions die hard. Very hard.

You may believe in whatever you want. I will simply keep reminding you that we do not live in a "civilized nation," which is what Willard Mitt Romney referred to the United States of America as in an address at Texas A and M University in December of 2007.

A civilized nation? The butchery of the preborn? The promotion of pornography and usury and contraception and wretched motion pictures and television programming and "music" in the name of freedom of speech and of the press? The unjust, immoral invasion of Catholic countries and the introduction of Protestant "churches" and Masonic lodges therein as a result? The support the government of the United States of America gave to the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico as they were killing nearly a quarter of a million Catholics in the first decades of the Twentieth Century? The use of methods of torture upon suspected terrorists as a regular tool of American jurisprudence? A civilized nation? Not really. There can be no true civilization without the true Faith, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

 

Care to argue with Pope Saint Pius X? Americanists of all denominations, including that of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, do. I do not, thank you very much. A nation cannot be truly "civilized" unless it is converted to the Catholic Faith and submits itself to the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church.

We must, as always, therefore, have recourse to Mary Immaculate, who was preserved from all stain of Original and Actual Sin at the moment of her Immaculate Conception in the womb of her mother, Good Saint Anne. Our Lady is the patroness of the United States of America under the title of her Immaculate Conception. May we, never ceasing to use whatever time we can given the duties of our states-in-life to pray as many Rosaries as we can each day, ask her to help us to be so detached from sin and to be ever more ready to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world so that the seeds we attempt to plant for the restoration of the Social Reign of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whom she conceived in her Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, will bear much fruit. That fruit might be manifest only in the hearts and the homes of those who are consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Nevertheless, you see, the conversion of nations starts with the conversion of just one soul.

Concentrating first and foremost on our own souls and getting ourselves to Sacrament of Penance on a weekly basis, if possible, may we call upon Our Lady, Mary Immaculate, to recover by penance what we have lost by sin, seeking freely to lift high the Cross, which is the one and only standard of true human liberty, inviting all men to keep her company at the unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of that same Cross in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered by true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds who have made their "reconciliation" with the false principles of 1787 and 1789.

May we make this prayer of Saint Germanus, a Sixth Century Bishop of Auxerre, France, our own in this month of May as we seek to serve Christ the King through Mary our Immaculate Queen:

 

Hail Mary, full of grace, more holy than the Saints,
more elevated than the heavens,
more glorious than the Angels,
and more venerable than every creature.

Hail heavenly paradise,
all fragrant and a lily
that gives off the sweetest scent,
a perfumed rose that opens up for the health of mortals.

Hail immaculate temple of the Lord,
constructed in a holy fashion,
ornament of Divine magnificence,
open to everyone,
and oasis of mystical delicacies.

Hail Mary, full of grace,
more holy than the Saints,
more elevated than the heavens,
more glorious than the Angels,
and more venerable than every creature.  

Hail mountain of shade,
grazing ground for the holy Lamb
who takes upon himself
the miseries and sins of all.

Hail sacred throne of God,
blessed dwelling,
sublime ornaments,
precious jewel,
and splendiferous heavens.

Hail urn of purest gold,
who contained the manna Christ,
the gentle sweetness of our souls.

Hail most pure Virgin Mother,
worthy of praise and veneration,
fount of gushing waters,
treasure of innocence,
and splendor of sanctity.

O Mary, lead us to the port of peace and salvation,
to the glory of Christ
who lives in eternity
with the Father and with the Holy Spirit.

Viva Cristo Rey!

 

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Gregory Naziaznen, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

A Review of What We Should Say To Those Steeped in Sins of Perversity

1) God's love for us is an act of His divine will, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of our immortal souls.

2) Our love for others must be premised on willing for them what God wills for us: their salvation as members of the Catholic Church.

3) We love no one authentically if we do or say anything, either by omission or commission, which reaffirms him in a life of unrepentant sin.

4) Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hates sin. He wills the sinner to repent of his sins by cooperating with the graces He won for them on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into his heart and soul through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

5) One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to admonish the sinner. We have an obligation to admonish those who are in lives on unrepentant sin to turn away from their lives of sin and to strive to pursue the heights of sanctity.

6) God has compassion on all erring sinners, meaning each one of us. He understands our weakness. He exhorts us, as He exhorted the woman caught in adultery, to "Go, and commit this sin no more."

7) It is not an act of "love" for people to persist in unrepentant sins with others.

8) It is not an act of "judgmentalness" or "intolerance" to exhort people who are living lives of unrepentant sin to reform their lives lest their souls wind up in Hell for eternity.

9) Mortal Sins cast out Sanctifying Grace from the soul. Those steeped in unrepentant mortal sin are the captives of the devil until they make a good and sincere Confession to a true priest.

9) Certain sins cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Sodomy is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

10) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments do not "love" the individuals with whom they are sinning. Authentic love cannot exist in a soul committed to a life against the Commandments of God and the eternal welfare of one's own soul, no less the souls of others.

11) Those engaged in natural  or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children.

12) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children because their very sinful lives put into jeopardy the eternal of the souls of the children they seek to adopt. It is not possible for people who are sinning unrepentantly to teach children to hate sin as God hates sin. They are immersed in sin. Pope Pius XI put it this way in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household, that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)   

                

13) Those engaged in unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are further unfit to adopt children because they have no right in the Divine Positive Law or the natural law to live together as a "couple."  Once again, Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii:

 

Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

14) Those engaged in unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandment have no right in the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law to present a "model" of parenthood that is from the devil himself. The words that Saint Paul wrote about perversity in Rome in his own day are quite apropos of our own:

 

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

15) Matrimony was elevated to a Sacrament by Our Lord at the wedding feast in Cana. The Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is entered into by one man and by one woman to achieve these ends: the procreation and education of children, the mutual good of the spouses, a remedy for concupiscence. Pope Pius XI noted this in Casti Connubii:

 

This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by St. Augustine the "faith of chastity" blooms more freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church," that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse. The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets." For all men of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God's grace to arrive at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many saints.

This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

16) It is never permissible to put even one child into spiritual, if not physical, jeopardy by claiming that so many others would be helped if the Church did not cooperate with an unjust law. Our Lord said that it would be better for one to have a millstone thrown around his neck and thrown into a lake than to lead one of his little ones astray. He was not joking.

17) The civil state has no authority from God to sanction illicit relationships, whether between a man or a woman (such as Andrew Cuomo's relationship with his current girlfriend, which he is publicly flaunting) or between those of the same gender who are committing sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. What Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii about "civil unions" between unmarried men and women applies just as equally to those who are committed the sin of Sodom:

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

 

Appendix B

Willard Mitt Romney's Anti-Life Record

Take a look at this "staunch defender of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and protected by law from conception to natural death" as he debated then United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts, see Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions):

 

 

 

 

Q. Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?

ROMNEY One of the great things about our nation, Sally [ Sally Jacobs of The Boston Globe ] , is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.

I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign. Too much has been written about religion in this race. I'm proud of my religious heritage; I am proud of the values that it's taught me. But if you want to know my position on issues, ask me and I'll tell you. I think the low point of this race was when my opponent and their family decided to make religion an issue in this campaign -- brought it out, attacked me for it. I think that's a mistake. I think the time has passed for that. John Kennedy was the one who fought that battle; let that battle live for all of us of all faiths.

KENNEDY I would agree with Mr. Romney that religion has no place in this campaign. And the best way to make sure that it doesn't is not to talk any further about it, and I don't intend to do so.

On the question of the choice issue, I have supported Roe v. Wade. I am pro-choice; my opponent is multiple choice.

I have not only introduced the freedom-of-choice legislation but I have fought -- wrote and saw successfully passed -- the clinic access bill that will permit women to be able to practice their constitutional rights in selection of abortion. And I have also led the fight against judges in the Supreme Court of the United States that refuse to permit a woman's right to choose. (THE 1994 CAMPAIGN; Excerpt From Debate By Kennedy And Romney; The Real Romney, a video clip of this exchange.)

Take a look also at comments Romney made eight years later when running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

How did this "man of principle" this " staunch defender of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law," arrive at his pro-death position in 1994 and 2002? By pure political expediency, that's how:

 

In 1993, Mitt Romney was a successful businessman with an urge to enter public life and a plan to challenge Ted Kennedy for a Senate seat from Massachusetts.

Romney was also a high-ranking official in the Mormon church -- in charge of all church affairs in the Boston area -- with a dilemma over abortion. Romney was personally pro-life, and the church was pro-life, but a majority of the Massachusetts electorate was decidedly pro-choice.

How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics," by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.

Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem.

According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.

In November 1993, according to Scott, Romney said he and Wirthlin, a Mormon whose brother and father were high-ranking church officials, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."

By Scott's account, Romney wasn't seeking approval or permission; he was telling the officials what he was going to do. Scott quotes a "senior church leader" saying Romney "didn't ask what his position should be, nor did he ask the brethren to endorse his position. He came to explain, and his explanation was consistent with church teachings and policies."

According to Scott, some of the leaders were unhappy with Romney's plan and let him know it. "I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking," Romney told Scott in a phone conversation.

In Scott's account, Romney displayed plenty of independence from church influence. But why did he feel the need to brief church leaders in the first place? The Romney campaign declined to comment on that or any other aspect of Scott's book. A Mormon church spokesman said only, "I do not know of the meeting, but it is our policy not to comment on private meetings anyway."

Scott has his own view. "[Romney] was not obliged to brief them," Scott said in an interview. "He probably was obliged to let them know as a matter of courtesy before he would take some stands on various issues that would raise eyebrows, because he was a fairly important officer of the church."

In any event, the episode points to a brief period in Romney's life in which his role as a church official and as an emerging political figure overlapped. (Romney declared his candidacy for the Senate on Feb. 2, 1994, and stepped down as a Mormon leader on March 20.)

Romney went on to lose in a campaign that featured Kennedy attacking Romney's religion. Romney pointed out the irony of Kennedy -- whose brother John F. Kennedy faced attacks on his Catholicism in the 1960 presidential campaign -- launching religion-based attacks, but to no avail.

If Romney is the 2012 Republican nominee, he will surely face similar stuff. Much of it will undoubtedly be ugly and unjustified. But there will also be simple questions about Romney's role as a church official at the start of his political career. (Mitt Romney Used Polls to Determine Campaign Position on Abortion.)

This "staunch defender" of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law has boasted that he vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts General Court, the state legislature, that would have permitted the sale of the so-called Plan B emergency abortifacient to minor girls. That is not the whole story, nor does it say anything about his RomneyCare prototype of ObamaCare specifically included a provision for the appointment of a representative from Planned Parenthood on the state panel overseeing implementation of Romney's version of socialized medicine that has skyrocketed medical and insurance costs in the Bay State:

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current ‘pro-life’ position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was.”

What was one of those actions?

Two months after his pro-life conversion, Mitt Romney appointed Matthew Nestor to the bench in Massachusetts. Romney seeming bowed to political pressure making Nestor a judge even after Nestor, according to the Boston Globe as far back as 1994, had campaigned for political office championing his pro-abortion views.

One year after his pro-life conversion, in July of 2005, Mitt Romney vetoed legislation that would expand the use of the morning after pill arguing that it would contribute to abortions. But just three months later Mitt Romney slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.

Writing in the Boston Globe on October 15, 2005, Stephanie Ebbert noted:

 

Governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill, confusing some abortion and contraception foes who had been heartened by his earlier veto of an emergency contraception bill. … The services include the distribution of condoms, abortion counseling, and the distribution of emergency contraception, or morning after pills, by prescription …

But that’s nothing. Two whole years after the pro-life view had settled into Mitt Romney’s conscience and a year after Mitt Romney had vetoed legislation expanding access to the morning after pill, he expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law. Yes, that Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney is really proud of Romneycare. He champions it as a great healthcare reform for Massachusetts. At one point he claimed it could be a model for the nation, though he now denies that.

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,

 

“The following information was released by the Massachusetts Office of the Governor: Governor Mitt Romney today officially launched Commonwealth Care, an innovative health insurance product that will allow thousands of uninsured Massachusetts residents to purchase private health insurance products at affordable rates. Commonwealth Care is a key component of the state’s landmark healthcare reform law approved by the Governor in April. ‘We are now on the road to getting everyone health insurance in Massachusetts,’ said Governor Romney. … ‘Today, we celebrate a great beginning.’

 

Romney loves to take credit for it.

The law, in addition to providing healthcare coverage for the uninsured and forcing everyone to have insurance, expanded abortion services in the State of Massachusetts. It also required that one member of the MassHealth Payment Policy Board be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections: . . . Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: … 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts … (Massachusetts General Court Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

 

In 2007, Mitt Romney was still denying his healthcare plan did this.

 

QUESTION: “I noticed some of the conservative groups back in Massachusetts, they complain about there’s a Planned Parenthood rep mandate to be on the planning board for the health care plan. Is that something you just had to deal with in negotiating with the legislature?”

ROMNEY: “It’s certainly not something that was in my bill.”

(Eric Krol, “Full Text Of Romney Interview,” [Arlington Heights, IL] Daily Herald, 6/17/07)

Except it was. Apparently, like with Obamacare, you had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, but once passed, Romney never read it. (Mitt Romney Not Only Gave Money to Planned Parenthood, He Gave It Power; for a very comprehensive review of Willard Mitt Romney's supposed "conversion" on the issue on abortion, please see How Pro-Life Is Mitt Romney?)