FINAL WORLD EVENTS IN PROPHECY FORESHADOWED 2020
2020 GENERAL REPORTS UPDATES TITLES
Home Page
That prophecy is a part of God's revelation to man; that it is included in that Scripture which is profitable for instruction (2 Tim. 3:16); that it is designed for us and our children (Deut. 29:29); that so far from being enshrouded in impenetrable mystery, it is that which especially constitutes the word of God as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. (Ps. 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19); that a blessing is pronounced upon those who study it (Rev. 1:1-3); and that, consequently, it is to be understood by the people of God sufficiently to show them their position in the world's history and the special duties required at their hands. (1914 Yearbook, p. 293)
THE SURE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY:
"A Message Whose Time Has Come"
MAJOR ESCHATOLOGICAL PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE
SPECIAL UPDATING REPORTS
A MENACING CRISIS AND A VERY SIGNIFICANT PROPHETIC SIGN:
DISTRESS OF NATIONS WITH PERPLEXITY - A Sign of the last remnant of time
CONTINUING COVERAGE OF THE GEOLOGICAL AND CLIMATOLOGICAL SIGNS WHICH MULTIPLY - “the sea and the waves roaring” Luke 21:25; “Calamities, earthquakes, floods, disasters by land and by sea, will increase. . . ." - (R&H, December 11, 1900):
Natural disasters and extreme weather
The Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System
SPECIAL REPORTS
SUBSIDIARITY: THE PRINCIPLE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
A Major Path For Rome Among Many Converging through Jerusalem to Global Domination By Satan in Person - the Ultimate Antichrist
The insight of A. T. Jones that needs to be kept in mind as Roman Catholic legislation proliferates throughout America - "The papacy is very impatient of any restraining bonds" more . . .
Ellen G. White: "When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result." (GC 445.1)
"When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with Spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan, and that the end is near." (5T 451.)
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6
We do not go deep enough in our search for truth. Every soul who believes present truth will be brought where he will be required to give a reason of the hope that is in him. The people of God will be called upon to stand before kings, princes, rulers, and great men of the earth, and they must know that they do know what is truth. (Review and Herald, February 18, 1890; TM 119)
Spirit of Prophecy Policy on Family Planning (For full context cf. Adventists and Birth Control; Adventists and Birth Control (Concluded)
A quotation to be kept in mind and applied to current events:
"What the Jesuit Order is for the left wing of the Roman Catholic Church, Opus Dei is for its right wing. (Hegelian politics at its finest, for the Roman Catholic Church cannot lose if it has strong ties with both ends of the political spectrum!)" (From Opus Dei in the USA)
Certain of the popular positions mentioned approvingly in some hyperlinked reports, essays, and blogs on this web page will of necessity cause reactions of strong disagreement, or at the very least discomfort, on the part of many readers. Regrettably, these positions cannot be separated from the core issues in the reports which prove the fulfillment of major end-times prophecies, and may of themselves be fulfillment of the prophecy of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-5.
2020 GENERAL REPORTS UPDATES:
"CYRUS" "THE ONE CHOSEN BY GOD" IS DETHRONED BUT CAESAR
IS STILL ON HIS THRONE
AND FULL OF GUILE
(A temporary interruption of the rapid movement towards the tyranny of the Image to the Beast - Revelation 13:15-17)
THE ROMULUS AND REMUS LEGEND AND THE PAPACY
CULTURE WAR WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ROME
"AMERICANISM" AND ITS CURRENT IMPACT
THE POWERS REVEALED IN REVELATION 13
ARE PROPHETIC EVENTS IN PALESTINE ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD?
THE ROMULUS AND REMUS LEGEND AND THE PAPACY
With the dethronement of "Cyrus" "the Chosen One" the Evangelicals are about to be swept out of the White House, ceding influence to the papal Caesar whose benign Vatican II Council countenance masks the spirit of Romulus and Remus:-
In his book The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection A. T. Jones demonstrated from the annals of history the reality that the papacy is but a continuation of the Roman Empire:
The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection
CHAPTER XIII THE TRANSGRESSION AND ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
And all this is confirmed by latter Rome herself. For Leo the Great was pope A.D. 440 to A.D. 461, in the very time when the former Rome was in its very last days, when it was falling rapidly to ruin. And Leo the Great declared in a sermon that the former Rome was but the promise of the latter Rome; that the glories of the former were to be reproduced in Catholic Rome; that Romulus and Remus were but the forerunners of Peter and Paul; that the successors of Romulus therefore were the precursors of the successors of Peter; and that, as the former Rome had ruled the world, so the latter Rome, by the see of the holy blessed Peter as head of the world, would dominate the earth. This conception of Leo's was never lost from the Papacy. And when, only fifteen years afterward, the Roman Empire had, as such, perished, and only the Papacy survived the ruin and firmly held place and power in Rome, this conception of Leo's was only the more strongly and with the more certitude held and asserted. . . .
Taking the ground that she is the only true continuation of original Rome, upon that the Papacy took the ground that wherever the New Testament cites or refers to the authority of original Rome, she is now meant, because she is the only true continuation of original Rome. Accordingly, where the New Testament enjoins submission to "the powers that be," or obedience to "governors," it means the Papacy, because the only power and the only governors that then were, were Roman, and the papal power was the true continuation of the Roman.
"Every passage was seized on where submission to the powers that be is enjoined, every instance cited where obedience had actually been rendered to the imperial officials; special emphasis being laid on the sanction which Christ Himself had given to Roman dominion by pacifying the world through Augustus, by being born at the time of the taxing, by paying tribute to Caesar, by saying to Pilate, 'Thou couldst have no power at all against Me except it were given thee from above'"—Bryce. And since Christ had recognized the authority of Pilate, who was but the representative of Rome, who should dare to disregard the authority of the Papacy, the true continuation of that authority, to which even the Lord from heaven had submitted.
And it was only the logical culmination of this assumption when Pope Boniface VIII presented himself in the sight of the multitude, clothed in a cuirass, with a helmet on his head and a sword in his hand held aloft, and proclaimed: "There is no other Caesar, nor king, nor emperor than I, the Sovereign Pontiff and Successor of the Apostles;" and, when further he declared, ex cathedra: "We therefore assert, define, and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome."
This is proof enough that the little horn of the seventh chapter of Daniel is Papal Rome and that it is in spirit and purpose intentionally the continuation of original Rome. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Ellen G. White also wrote from the historical record in copious detail about this sinister perversion and subversion of the Christian Church. It is a fascinating account, and only a small portion is quoted here:
CHAPTER XIII - RESTORATION OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE
IT is evident that as the papacy had hitherto claimed, and had actually acquired, absolute dominion over all things spiritual, henceforth she would claim, and, if crafty policy and unscrupulous procedure were of any avail, would actually acquire, absolute dominion over all things temporal as well as spiritual. Indeed, as we have seen, this was already claimed, and the history of Europe for more than a thousand of the following years abundantly proves that the claim was finally and fully established. . .
90. The conferring of the dignity of patrician, as well as that of consul, was a prerogative that pertained to the Roman emperor alone. For the pope then to confer such a dignity was in itself first to assert that the pope occupied the place of emperor, and possessed an authority that included that of emperor. This is exactly what was claimed. We have seen that even while the Roman Empire yet remained, Pope Leo the Great, 440-461, declared that the former Rome was but the promise of the latter Rome; that the glories of the former were to be reproduced in Catholic Rome; that Romulus and Remus were but the precursors of Peter and Paul, and the successors of Romulus therefore the precursors of the successors of Peter; and that as the former Rome had ruled the world, so the latter by the see of the holy blessed Peter as head of the world would dominate the earth. This conception was never lost by the papacy. And when the Roman Empire had in itself perished, and only the papacy survived the ruin and firmly held place and power in Rome, the capital, how much stronger and with the more certitude would that conception be held and asserted. . .(Underscored emphasis added.)
From the Roman Catholic publication Crisis Magazine comes the following commentary in 2013:
St. Peter and St. Paul, the Fathers of Great Rome
Peter and Paul, the Fathers of great Rome,
Now sitting in the Senate of the skies,
One by the cross, the other by the sword,
Sent to their thrones on high, to Life’s eternal prize.
Elpis, the wife of Boethius, sings the praises of St. Peter and St. Paul in her Latin poem, Decora lux aeternitatis. In another translation of this hymn, these two apostles are referred to as the “twin founders of Rome.” This historical allusion recalls the legend of the founding of the city of Rome by the twin brothers, Romulus and Remus. Their city matured into an Empire that was one of the most powerful civilizations in human history. Yet over 800 years from the founding of the city of Rome, another set of brothers, Peter and Paul, not natural brothers, but united by the bonds of the Spirit in Christ, laid a foundation of a new civilization which would outlast and outshine the Roman Empire.
Early Christian writers often contrasted Peter and Paul with Rome’s founders, Romulus and Remus. According to the ancient Roman myth, Rome was violently established when Romulus killed his brother as they laid the city’s walls. In comparison, Peter and Paul built up the civilization of love found in the Church with brotherly affection. The Roman Empire, in nascent form at the time of the twin founders, would rule the world through fear and violence under the shroud of the pax romana. Peter and Paul would set the example for the Church to serve the world through faith and charity under the mantle of the pax Christi. The spiritual kingdom of the Church would far surpass the boundaries of time and space to which the Roman Empire had aspired. As noted by Pope St. Leo the Great, the Roman Empire which was the great teacher of error became the disciple of Truth under the guidance of the two great apostles, Peter and Paul.
Through preaching truth in word and practicing charity in deed, Peter and Paul re-founded the city of Rome for Christ. . .
Since the first Rome was founded on fratricide, Rome needed to be re-founded as a Christian city in fraternal love. Elpis continues her hymn in praise of the great apostles Peter and Paul by extolling the great city of Rome.
O happy Rome! Who in thy martyr princes’ blood,
A twofold stream, art washed and doubly sanctified.
All earthly beauty thou alone outshinest far,
Empurpled by their outpoured life-blood’s glorious tide.
The blood of the brothers united in Christ serves as the seed of the Church which will grow in time. We sing their praises together, according to Tertullian, because they “poured forth all their teaching along with their blood.” Their witness in teaching and blood is what truly makes Rome the urbs sacra and urbs aeterna. It was their martyrdom in Rome that at last led to the unending reunion between Peter and Paul in the true Holy and Eternal City, the Heavenly Jerusalem. For eternity, they are united with one another and with their Redeemer who called them both to the great mission of bringing the gospel to the entire world. (Underscored emphasis added; italics in the original.)
Further the magazine published the following commentary in 2016:
Saints Peter and Paul and the “Catholicizing” Principle
This Wednesday, June 29, is the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. It’s the patronal feast of the city of Rome and a high feast day throughout the Church.
Obviously, it honors the two great apostles of the Christian faith.
Each apostle, however, has other feast days that are only associated with them. For example, on February 22 we honor the Chair of St. Peter, a symbol of the authority given to the papal office by Jesus Christ, and on January 25 we honor the Conversion of St. Paul.
Why then does the Church have a joint feast day for both apostles? What lessons could be drawn from the feast day today that could help the Church in its dealings with the world?
Traditionally, the joint feast day was celebrated because it was believed that both apostles died on June 29 in the year 64 AD. While the historicity of that assertion is debated today, the belief of a shared day of martyrdom reflected a strong “Catholicizing” principle within the Church and in her engagement with the Roman culture at that time.
A little history can clarify things.
Ancient Rome prided itself in the story of its foundation. The city rallied around the mythic story of Romulus and Remus, the twin brothers who were born from the union between their human mother, who was a Vestal Virgin and either Mars, the Roman god of war, or the great hero Hercules (depending on the source of the myth).
From their mother’s side, the twins were related to the Trojan prince Aeneas, one of the most iconic figures of the ancient world. After a rebellion against their grandfather’s rule, the young twins were left in the wilderness to die. The two, however, were nurtured by Lupa, a She-Wolf and eventually founded Rome.
The pride and importance of such myths cannot be underestimated since ancient cities and peoples developed their identities around them. No city would just exist. It needed a narrative. Rome especially needed a narrative as it grew and conquered vast portions of the known world at its time.
Romulus and Remus, therefore, were hailed as princes of Rome and their story and lineage were used as sources of credibility and prominence. Incidentally, even today the image of the twins and the she-wolf are on the shield of Rome.
The early Christians of Rome were also heavily influenced by the myth of the city’s foundation. And so, they saw Saints Peter and Paul as a new and improved Romulus and Remus, and looked for ways in which the apostles fulfilled the ancient myth and could be the true founders of Rome.
In particular, and in reference to the coming feast day, since the apostles were not twins and not even brothers in the flesh, the early Christians accepted a shared day of martyrdom for the apostles since it made them twins by being born into eternal life on the same day.
The apostles would be twins in eternity. For the Roman mind at that time, this was enough evidence to prove that the two apostles were the new princes of the city or, in Christian terms, the patronal saints of the city.
While the lack of clarity between myth and history might make the contemporary believer uneasy, the principle at work is very much needed in today’s Church. . .
The early Christians could have fought the idolatry of Rome, they could have declared a culture war with the world around them, but they did not.
Instead, they chose to follow a Catholicizing principle explained by St. Paul, who taught: “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” (Philippians 4:8)
The early Christians understood their responsibility to be leaven within culture and salt and light within the world. Being a Christian was known to be principally about sharing Good News, and not just about zealously engaging in battles over bad news.
Why is this history important? Can it provide an invaluable lesson to the Church today?
The Catholicizing principle of the early Church in Rome can be a great help to the Church today. In the midst of Western state of affairs, it seems that some within the Christian faith are very eager to engage in culture wars before even attempting a Catholicizing principle.
The witness of the early Christians reminds believers today to focus on what is shared with culture, and to discern what is true and admirable, and to baptize whatever can be into a shared and universal worldview. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Consistent with the inherent contradictions of Roman Catholicism, the above commentary of 2016 appears to denigrate the culture war, which flows naturally from the legend of Romulus and Remus, while extolling the virtues of the "Catholicizing principle of the early Church in Rome" by corrupting Philippians 4:8. The fiction that "the early Christians accepted a shared day of martyrdom for the apostles since it made them twins by being born into eternal life on the same day" is biblically false and an unholy libel of the early Christian Church which was corrupted by the proud and blasphemous boasts of the Popes Leo the Great and Boniface VIII.
There is not the slightest indication in the above commentaries of any reservations about the validity the Roman Church's vision of her mission and destiny. In fact the declared organizational purpose of Crisis Magazine is precisely that of realizing the vision of "Great Rome." Note the following information about the purpose and the intellectual heft of the founders of the publication in which the essay appeared:
The word “crisis” comes from the ancient Greek krisis—“decision”.
The West has arrived at a crisis point. We must decide: Do we serve the City of God or the City of Man? Does our first allegiance lie with the Church or with the State? Do we profess the ancient and immutable Faith or the latest fashionable secular dogmas?
Not since the Cold War have we experienced such violent political, cultural, and spiritual unrest. Not since the Civil War has our country been divided so bitterly against itself. Our civilization is under attack from the far-left within and radical Islam without.
Most thought-leaders downplay the gravity of the crisis at hand. The rest promise fresh perspectives and new solutions. Ideologies and ideologues rise and fall with the tides, carrying us further and further out to sea. Night draws in on the West.
Yet the solutions we need are anything but new. In fact, they’re as old as time itself. They’re written on man’s hearts and wired into his brain. They were handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai and taught by Our Lord on the Sea of Galilee.
Every generation has its moment of crisis—the moment when it must decide. And each generation is tasked with articulating these timeless truths of the Faith to guide its decisions.
In 1982, America’s leading Catholic intellectuals founded Crisis for just that purpose.
To this day, Crisis remains America’s most trusted source for authentic Catholic perspectives on Church and State, arts and culture, science and faith. We have one purpose, and one only: to proclaim Christ’s Kingship over all things, at all times, to all nations.
So long as the present crisis endures, we’ll be on the front lines. We can do no other, and we say with St. Peter: “Lord, to whom shall we go?” (Underscored emphasis added.)
The purpose of proclaiming "Christ’s Kingship over all things, at all times, to all nations" declared by the Crisis Magazine editors must be understood in the context of the paean of praise to Romulus and Remus and the scandalous misappropriation of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul. The vision is of the papal "Caesars" reigning over the whole world.
The spirit of Romulus and Remus already hovers over the American
nation, and looms large in the future.
In keeping with the spirit of Romulus and Remus the Church of
Rome has been violently
militant in her past history. Pope
Francis is doing his best to soften this image of the papal
Institution:
Pope asks Protestants for forgiveness for persecution
Pope Francis asked Protestants and other Christian Churches for forgiveness for past persecution by Catholics as the Vatican announced on Monday he would visit Sweden later in the year to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.
Speaking at an annual vespers service in St. Paul’s Basilica in Rome attended by representatives of other religions, he asked “forgiveness for the un-gospel like behaviour by Catholics towards Christians of other Churches”. He also asked Catholics to forgive those who had persecuted them. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
Note the last sentence. No persecution of Roman Catholics by Protestants could ever legitimately be compared to the vast scope and ferocity of papal Rome's wars against Protestants who simply wanted the freedom to worship God in peace.
Given the Machiavellian character of Rome, there is every reason to doubt the sincerity of the Pope's apology. The reality is that papal Rome's wars against Protestants were completely consistent with her roots in the imperial Rome of Romulus and Remus. This analogy which originates with papal Rome herself fits her history of cruel persecutions perfectly.
What is of even greater significance to the Bible student is the identification of papal Rome as a continuation of the persecuting power of Imperial Rome:
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
NOTE: - The fourth universal power to rule the world from Daniel's day was Rome. It was so different from any beast that Daniel knew, he was unable to name it. It is non-descript. The ten horns are noted in Daniel 7:24 as "ten kings that shall arise." It is a fact that the Roman Empire was split into ten smaller kingdoms between the years 351 and 476 A.D. The following are their ancient and modern names:1. Alemanni - Germany; 2. Franks - France; 3. Anglo-Saxons England; 4. Burgundians ‑ Switzerland; 5. Visigoths - Spain; 6. Suevi - Portugal; 7. Lombards - Italy; 8. Heruli; 9. Vandals; 10. Ostrogoths.
8. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
NOTE:- In this verse there are two identifying marks to locate "the little horn" in history. It came up "among" the ten horns, and "three" of the original ten were overthrown in its rise to power. In Daniel 7:24 another identifying mark is given. The "little horn" would come up "after" the ten horns. There is only ONE power in history that answers to this description. At Rome itself, at the very center of the fractured Empire, there arose after 476 A.D., the Papacy - the one man government of the Catholic Church. In its rise to power, three of the Gothic tribes - the Heruli, the Vandals and the Ostrogoths - were uprooted and disappeared from history. The reigning power of these kings passed to the pope, and thus figuratively, the crowns, the symbols of power, were placed on the head of the Pope. This gives the significance of the triple crown worn by the pontiffs. See II Samuel 12:30. The power of the Papacy was established by the decree of Justinian in 533 A.D. and was carried out by force of arms in 538 A.D. in the overthrow of the Ostrogoths by Justinian's general, Belesarius. He came up "after" them.
The Book of Revelation amplifies the exposure of papal Rome's true character:-
Rev. 12:3, 9
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. . .
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world . . .
The following is from exegesis by Wm. H. Grotheer:
"There is an overall picture conveyed by Revelation 12. In each period, whether in regard to "the Man-Child", or the period of the woman in the wilderness, or in the war against the "remnant," it is the "dragon" operating. This dragon or serpent is specifically called "the Devil, and Satan." In the following chapters, other symbols are used designating powers under the control and authority of the dragon doing the work which the 12th Chapter attributes to the dragon. This chapter is the outline which the following chapters detail and enlarge" (EXEGESIS OF REVELATION The Woman, The Dragon, The Man-Child, and the Remnant of Her Seed Part 1.)
Rev. 13:1-4
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Excerpted from relevant exegesis by Wm. H. Grotheer:
EXEGESIS OF REVELATION The Beast and the False Prophet (Part 2
In the Twelfth Chapter of Revelation, John heard a "Woe" pronounced on "the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea." In the Thirteenth Chapter, two "beasts" are seen, one rising "up out of the sea," and the other "coming up out of the earth." (vs. 1, 11) These two beasts are related in the text to the dragon. One receives "his power, and his seat, and great authority" directly from the dragon (v. 2). The other, "spake as a dragon" and exercised "all the authority of the first beast," which authority had been given it by the dragon. (vs. 11-12).
The commonality between the first beast and the dragon is further heightened in the imagery. Both have seven heads and ten horns (12:3; 13:1) However, there is a movement of one item in the symbols; the crowns are placed on the "horns" of the first beast, rather than remaining on the "heads." It must also be kept in mind that the book of Revelation presents a third beast with seven heads and ten horns. (17:3) No crowns are seen on this symbolism either on the "heads" or the "horns."
What is this telling us? If a "crown" is symbolic of reigning, then the "dragon" is portrayed as functioning through its seven heads from the time of the first gospel promise to the time of, and including the war with the "remnant of her seed." The first beast of Revelation 13 would then be operating at the time of the reigning of "the ten horns."
To further identify this beast, the description is closely associated with the vision given to Daniel (Chap. 7). The lion, the bear, and the leopard are followed by a nondescript beast. In Revelation 13, the nondescript beast is a composite, "like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion" (v. 2). This is the exact order as found in Daniel 7, only reversed. In the vision to Daniel, he saw that the dominion of the three beasts was "taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." (7:12). The symbolic representation in Revelation 13, tells us that the lives of the three beasts of Daniel 7 lived on in the first beast.
We must next turn our attention to the seven heads. What do they represent? The span of Revelation 12 covers the time from the first gospel promise made in Eden till the war against the "remnant of her seed." Genesis gives the beginning of the first nation or peoples through whom this promised "seed" would be realized. (Gen. 12:3; 21:12) They were to go into bondage. (Gen. 15:13-15) This defiant power - Egypt - was the first power to seek to "devour" the people of God. Pharaoh was the "son of Ra," one of the sun gods of Egypt. The symbolisms of Egypt used to represent their sun gods, as noted in the previous study of Revelation 12, was the "serpent of fire" around a sun disc. (See WWN - 5(95), pp. 3-4)
From the first attempt to destroy the people of God through whom the Promised Seed would come, there were five powers to John's day - Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Grecia. The power of John's day was Rome, another was yet to come. (Rev. 17:10) At this point, we need to determine how we are to understand prophecy. Do we place the count, "five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come," as beginning in our day, or do we understand it to be in the time frame of John to whom the statement was made?
There is another problem however; the seventh head was "to continue a short space." If the sixth head is pagan Rome, and the seventh, papal Rome, we have the seventh head continuing for a longer period than any of the previous six heads which the wording of the definitive statement will not permit.
The book of Daniel in the visions as recorded in Chapters 7 & 8, present both pagan and papal Rome as one continuous power. The "little horn" of Daniel 7, ever remains in and is nourished by the nondescript beast (7:8). Further this beast is pictured as continuing "till ... slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." (7:11) The problem then is to interrelate all of this data to the first beast of Revelation 13, for it is this beast along with the second which are consigned to "the burning flame" (Rev. 19:20)" (Underscored emphasis added.)
The Bible lays bare the true ferocious character of the papacy. There is no excuse for any Bible student to be deluded into believing that this is a Christian Church, or that it has ever in its history been the Christian Church. So what has happened to the Seventh-day Adventist Church?!!
THE SPIRIT OF ROMULUS AND REMUS IN THE CULTURE WAR
The ferocious character of the papacy is impossible to suppress. Physical warfare has been suspended, but the papal Caesar's fierce countenance is still visible in the culture war, as illustrated in the following Roman Catholic essay:
The Mission Field and the culture war
Are we witnessing the ugly end of culture-war Catholicism? The
conservative Catholic media landscape—born out of a battle with
social liberalism that goes back at least to Pat Buchanan’s
popularization of the term “culture war”—seems to have entered a
decisive new phase of its decline.
As Pope Francis makes call after call for peace and global
solidarity among all people, the culture war troops continue to
find new ways to generate enmity through agitprop. Formerly
middle-of-the-road Catholic conservative magazines and
personalities have become dispensers of crude arguments that are
meant to end reasoned debate and inspire outrage. It really is
far worse than it ever was. A recent (non-satirical!) article by
David Carlin, published in The Catholic Thing, captures
perfectly this devolved culture-war mentality:
I FIND HOMOSEXUALITY DISGUSTING. I FIND DRUNKENNESS DISGUSTING. I FIND PROSTITUTION DISGUSTING. I FIND DRUG ADDICTION DISGUSTING. I FIND ABORTION DISGUSTING.
AS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON’T FIND THESE THINGS DISGUSTING—I FIND THEM DISGUSTING.
Liberalism (and I am using that term in a deliberately blurry way, to encompass all that the culture warriors oppose, even if it tends to center around post-World War II secularism, social progressivism, and the heritage of the sexual revolution) has become so profoundly other in the mind of the culture-war Catholic that it can no longer be examined dispassionately, let alone be engaged with respectfully. It is simply “disgusting.”
At one time, I saw liberalism as a titanic ideological and technological force that could only be resisted, and perhaps one day overcome, by a reactionary politics devoted to restoring a pre-liberal social order. But alas, I can’t abide the increasing tendency of the Catholic right to portray their opponents as either imbeciles or demons. The culture war has turned our moral reflexes into automatic expressions of disgust, leading us to engage in a never-ending caricature of debate. The political allegiances and machinations demanded by the culture war drain us of charity, numb our consciences, and deform our faith.
Having said that, I must admit that I agree with those more high-minded culture warriors, the Catholic “Integralists,” about one thing: liberalism functions like a religion and should be treated as such. But liberalism is not all abortion-as-sacrament extremists and Drag Queen Story Hours. It binds people together in a shared system of belief in universal values (however vaguely defined these may be), with the goal of creating a global order in which humanity can flourish. It is more than merely political, but that is why we should engage with liberalism according to the principles of the new evangelization, or even those of inter-religious dialogue. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
Here we have a clear representation of both the culture war, which reflect the spirit of the Beast acknowledged in the legend of Romulus and Remus, and the new face of the papal Caesar initiated by Vatican II. But there is more to the culture war. The following are examples of the darker hidden culture war which has accomplished the erosion of democracy in America:
Breaking The Opus Dei Code (Dated May, 2006)
Opus Dei, Latin for “work of God,” has, according to media reports, at least 3,000 members in the United States but its influence, critics say, has been more substantial than its numbers would indicate. In 2002, an Opus Dei priest, the Rev. C. John McCloskey III, former director of the Catholic Information Center, converted U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism. Brown\xadback’s [sic] conversion was shepherded by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a conservative Catholic and Opus Dei booster.
Long the scourge of progressive Catholics, Opus Dei, with an estimated 80,000 members worldwide, has enjoyed a close relationship with the church’s conservative hierarchy, serving, as one writer put it in the mid 1980s, as a “holy mafia” to promote far-right views on “culture war” issues. . .
In Washington, Opus Dei relies on influential senators like Santorum and Brownback [both no longer in any public office] to advance its agenda. The two are known for frequently pushing “culture war” issues, in\xadcluding [including] ardent opposition to abortion and gay rights and the promotion of “intelligent de\xadsign” [design] in public school science classes. . .
In the nation’s capital, the Catholic Information Center, now directed by the Rev. William H. Stetson, an Opus Dei priest ordained in 1962, serves as a clearinghouse for the Catholic far right and a bridge to the mostly fundamentalist Protestant Religious Right. Prominent Catholic thinkers often appear at the center. It has recently hosted Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, a journal that frequently attacks church-state separation. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Critically important information has been published that among the Roman Catholic secret societies Opus Dei is in the ascendancy at the Vatican under Pope Francis. Also, according to the report Opus dei is "at the top is a secret society of international bankers, financiers, businessmen and their supporters." This would explain much about the wide influence exercised by the society over the body politic. The following report is very significant. Lengthy passages are therefore quoted:
Opus Dei Influence Rises to the Top in the Vatican
Opus Dei, an official institution of the Catholic Church, at the top is a secret society of international bankers, financiers, businessmen and their supporters. Their goal is the same as other plutocrats – unbridled power – except they use the influence of the Catholic Church and its worldwide network of institutions exempt from both taxes and financial reporting requirements to advance rightwing parties and governments.
A year after Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s elevation as head of the Church and his many appointments, the dust has settled. Three cardinals have emerged as the most powerful in this papacy; all have close ties to Opus Dei. Two now control all Vatican finance.
Still the most exhaustively researched book written about “The Work” as it is referred to by its members, Their Kingdom Come (1997, 2006) by Robert Hutchison, a Canadian financial journalist, traces the growth of Opus Dei financial power “by all available means” – deception, dirty tricks, even “physical muscle” like poisonings which mimic heart attacks. “What gives Opus Dei its importance is the influence it wields and also that it deploys its immense financial resources…Opus Dei knows very well that money rules the world,” Javier Sainz Moreno, professor of Law at Madrid University, told Hutchison. One of their goals was to control the Vatican’s wealth, now closer than ever to being realized.
Like many religious cults, the members at the bottom are sincere believers that Opus Dei is the path for personal holiness. Many are “numeraries,” men and women vowed to celibacy who live in communal residences and hand over their earnings to the organization. This creates workers totally dedicated to their assigned tasks, assures a steady stream of revenue and makes it difficult for members to leave. “Supernumeraries” are married and live independently but are still required to make large contributions and send their children to Opus Dei schools if available. At all levels, the names of the lay members are secret unless self-disclosed. Opus Dei also has an order of publicly identified priests and prelates.
Opus Dei’s only “charity” is founding schools, mostly business schools and student centers at the world’s leading universities to train and recruit a continuous supply of professionals dedicated to Opus Dei/Catholic goals. Opus Dei is “significantly connected to 479 universities and high schools,” according to journalist Michael Walsh based on a confidential report submitted to the Vatican in 1979. . .
Probably Opus Dei’s largest financial institution is Banco Santander S.A., “the largest bank in the Eurozone by market value and one of the largest banks in the world in terms of market capitalization.” Santander funds Opus Dei schools. “Santander’s interest in higher education is a deep interest, long term, because we understand that at the university are studying the leaders who will run the country in the future,” explained a company official.
“Opus Dei pursues the Vatican’s agenda through the presence of its members in secular governments and institutions and through a vast array of academic, medical, and grassroots pursuits. Its constant effort to increase its presence in civil institutions of power is supported by growth in the organization as a whole….Their work in the public sphere breaches the church-state division that is fundamental to modern democracy,” wrote Gordon Urquhart author of The Pope’s Armada: Unlocking the Secrets of Mysterious and Powerful New Sects in the Church (1995).
“It’s widely known that Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas belong to Opus Dei – and that Chief Justice John Roberts may also be a member,” stated Matthew Fox, a former priest, progressive theologian and author of more than 23 books.
“They’re in the CIA, the FBI,” said Fox. “Daniel Ellsberg recently told me that some of the ranking commanders of our military are also Opus Dei,” Fox stated in another interview. Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh made a similar observation. “Hersh stated that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Vice Admiral William McRaven and others in the Joint Special Operations Command (the group responsible for the assassination of Osama Bin Laden) were members of the Knights of Malta and Opus Dei. ‘They see themselves as protecting [Christians] from the Muslims….And this is their function.’ Hersh added that members of these societies have developed a secret set of insignias that represent ‘the whole notion that this is a culture war between religions.’” . . .
Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor closely associated with Opus Dei, changed the landscape of U.S. politics. Neocon politico Deal Hudson stated that “If there really is a vast, right-wing conspiracy, its leaders probably meet in George’s basement.” Referred to by the New York Times as “the country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker,” it was George’s study conducted in the late 1990s showing that allegiance to the Republican Party depended not so much on religious affiliation as the frequency of church attendance which Karl Rove used to direct support for George W. Bush into pulpits, church bulletins, parking lot pamphlets and mailing lists taken from parish rosters. . .
After a year of concentrated activity to make sure his assets are better managed and under his control, including the creation of four commissions, the hiring of six international consulting firms which service the plutocracy together with appointments of trusted allies, Pope Francis established the Secretariat of the Economy this past Feb. 24.
He appointed Australian Cardinal George Pell as its head reporting directly to him. With “authority over all economic and administrative activities within the Holy See and the Vatican City State,” this makes Pell de facto manager of the entire Roman Curia since he holds the purse strings.
After becoming an archbishop, Pell invited Opus Dei to establish themselves in Melbourne and then Sydney. Under Pell’s patronage, “Opus Dei’s star is on the rise, it is said, and that of others – including other more established groups within the Church – is sinking,” Sydney Morning Herald’s religious affairs columnist wrote in January 2002. This reporter saw “signs of a new elitism….a clerical culture is being encouraged in which there is a highly select ‘in’ crowd around Pell.”
Pell has maintained a close relationship with Australia’s conservative PM, Tony Abbott, and his party for decades. Days before Pope Bergoglio appointed Pell on April 13, 2013, to his “G8” group of cardinals who would advise the pope on “governing the Church,” Pell attended a “Gala Dinner” celebrating the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) an “ultraconservative think tank.” Rupert Murdoch was guest of honor and Abbott the keynote speaker. (Murdoch was awarded a papal knighthood by Pope John Paul II for “promoting the interests of society, the Church and the Holy See.”) . . .
Along with the Secretariat of the Economy, the pope also created a new Council for the Economy which “will consider policies and practices and to prepare and analyze reports on the economic-administrative activities of the Holy See.” This council is comprised of eight prelates and seven laymen “reflecting various parts of the world.” As we have seen a year after the pope named his G8 “from the five continents of the world” only those close to Opus Dei have advanced in power; the rest have hardly been heard from since. Tokenism is becoming evident in all of Bergoglio’s group appointments. By all accounts, all power rests firmly in the pope and those close to him.
The Council for the Economy will be coordinated by Cardinal Reinhard Marx, another member of Bergoglio’s G8. Marx was the invited speaker for 300 guests of Opus Dei at a meeting held in the Deutsche Bank, Germany’s central bank. He has presided at Masses celebrating Opus Dei’s founder, Josemaria Escrivá, and visits the Opus Dei center for university students in Munich.
The Work is said to be very powerful in Germany’s financial capital of Frankfurt. Der Speigel observed that “There is hardly a German bishop who does not regard the organization with favor.” . . .
Pope Bergoglio has verbally attacked the global economic system as based on a “god called money,” and has urged international financiers to break down “the barriers of individualism and the slavery of profit at all cost.” Yet again and again, Bergoglio has appointed those who labor for the plutocracy to manage his own wealth. Widely reported as “cleaning up” Vatican finances, the pope has never appointed any forensic accountants or other specialists from any law enforcement or government regulatory agency whose expertise is curbing unethical/illegal finance to advise him about the notoriously dishonest Vatican finances. The seven laymen on the Council for the Economy reflect this. . .
Kudos to former Fox News correspondent and member of Opus Dei, Gregory Burke, Vatican senior communications adviser for brilliantly manipulating the news. Burke said during an interview with the Washington Post, “I would love to bring some Roger Ailes into this job,” but Burke has been doing just fine. What was the most prominent headline about the Church in the past two weeks after Obama meeting the pope and the formation of a sex abuse commission? “Pope Francis Removes German ‘Bishop of Bling” (Underscored emphasis added.)
It always stretched credulity to believe that the current Roman Pontiff is a liberal opposed to, or even divorced from, the right-wing Bishops in America who are in alliance with the Evangelicals in the theocratic grab for power. The above report gives the lie to the image of a kind and compassionate Pope, deeply committed to the relief of poverty and suffering. If he harbors Opus Dei at the highest levels of the Vatican government, he must also support the work of the society in America. It is inconceivable that he spurns the power wielded by Opus Dei in the United States:
Opus Dei’s Influence Is Felt in All of Washington’s Corridors of Power
The Opus Dei Catholic Information Center’s “members and leaders continue to have an outsize impact on policy and politics. It is the conservative spiritual and intellectual center … and its influence is felt in all of Washington’s corridors of power,” stated the Washington Post. . .
Opus Dei’s influence is enormous in the U.S. judiciary.
“The center’s board includes Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society, which helped shepherd the Supreme Court nominations of Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch. White House counsel Pat Cipollone is a former board member, as is William P. Barr, who served as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush and is now President Trump’s nominee for the same position.” Barr, a “committed Catholic,” was highly recommended by Leonard Leo.
The U.S. judiciary has been shaped not only through Leo’s control over Trump’s judicial appointments but also by the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) directed by Leo and run by Carrie Severino, a former law clerk for supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.
The JCN is a 501(c)(4) organization, meaning its donors are secret. “It has spent millions across the country to influence the elections of judges and attorneys general as well as judicial appointment and confirmation processes.”
“Leo’s efforts to ensure that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were confirmed engaged the dark money spending power of JCN. In 2005 and 2006, Leo and the Federalist Society worked with JCN to coordinate radio and online ads as well as on grassroots efforts to support the confirmation of the right-wing justices.
To block the appointment of Barack Obama’s choice, Merrick Garland, and support the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch, Leo helped coordinate the JCN’s expenditure of $17 million. The campaign was highly effective in allowing Gorsuch, the Federalist Society’s pick, to take the place many thought rightly belonged to Merrick Garland.” . . .
“Opus Dei pursues the Vatican’s agenda through the presence of its members in secular governments and institutions and through a vast array of academic, medical, and grassroots pursuits. Its constant effort [is] to increase its presence in civil institutions of power. [T]heir work in the public sphere breaches the church-state division that is fundamental to modern democracy,” noted Gordon Urquhart, author of The Pope’s Armada: Unlocking the Secrets of Mysterious and Powerful New Sects in the Church (1995).
“Opus Dei uses the Catholic Church for its own ends which are money and power …. Its members form a transnational elite. They seek to colonize the summits of power. They work with stealth – ‘holy discretion’ – and practice ‘divine deception,’” Robert Hutchison wrote in the introduction to his book, Their Kingdom Come: Inside the Secret World of Opus Dei. . .
Vatican Connection
That Newt Gingrich is close to Opus Dei helps explain Trump’s appointment of Callista Gingrich as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. (Newt’s three marriages would have raised eyebrows in the Vatican diplomatic corps even though the first two were annulled when he became Catholic and married Callista.)
Newt was an early and constant supporter of Trump. He provides Pope Francis with direct access to Trump. For Trump, he has trusted emissary in a diplomatic corps described as a “prime listening post” in global affairs.
Trump attended Callista’s swearing in ceremony in October 2017. . .
The necessity for “economic” officers is less obvious. The pope is also head of a global network that can act as a conduit for “dark money” thanks to “religious” exemptions granting the Church monetary secrecy in the world’s financial centers. That is a magnate for Opus Dei to maintain power inside the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis has made sure that the Vatican retains its expertise and capacity in this regard. He has hired and appointed vulture capitalists and Opus Dei members and associates to manage his assets. And now he has an American ambassador and embassy staff as allies. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Again Pope Francis' connection to Opus Dei is readily apparent. He has successfully hidden behind "plausible deniability, and the Roman Catholic propaganda machine has shielded him by promoting a genial and kind portrait of the man. However, as Pope he is very much "the man of sin" and "the lawless one." The Word of God does not lie! The expressions of disapproval of the culture war cannot be trusted. The innocuous face of the papacy in Vatican II should not have been trusted: sad to say that this statement must be couched in the past tense. The Ecumenical Council was the siren song of the mother of all harlots, and the Protestant world was enticed into harlotry by her seduction (cf. What Constitutes Babylon, which was published before apostasy had overwhelmed sound prophetic interpretation in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.)
The following is a revealing and cautionary analysis of the present threat to democracy, which prophetically will finally end in totalitarian government by the papal Caesar. The author is Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University. His most recent book is The Liminal Papacy of Pope Francis: Moving Toward Global Catholicity. He is obviously no enemy of papal Rome, and favors the new face of Rome presented by Vatican II. The essay is so illuminating and educational that it is quoted in full:
The Return of Catholic Anti-Liberalism
One of the most troubling developments in the current debate on religion and politics is the renewed characterization of liberal democracy as a bigger threat to Christian morality than any other political system. This is not just a return of the old legitimist doctrine that nondemocratic systems and monarchies are more Christian than democracies; rather, it’s a general crisis of the theological-political alignments of the twentieth century. Catholic anti-liberalism is trying once again to cast serious doubts on the idea that democracy and Christianity are even compatible. This is a sign that what Ross Douthat has called “the John Paul II synthesis” is in crisis, while demonstrating as well that John Paul II was not a neo-conservative pope.
In Tertio millennio adveniente (1994), his apostolic letter introducing the church to the third millennium, John Paul II wrote that “the Second Vatican Council is often considered as the beginning of a new era in the life of the Church. This is true, but at the same time it is difficult to overlook the fact that the Council drew much from the experiences and reflections of the immediate past, especially from the intellectual legacy left by Pius XII” (italics in the original).
In that legacy there is also Pope Pius XII’s radio message of December 1944, what French historian Jean-Dominique Durand has called the pontiff’s “baptism of democracy.” Delivering it on the eve of the last Christmas during World War II, Pius XII said:
[U]nder the sinister glow of the war that surrounds them, in the burning heat of the furnace in which they are imprisoned, the peoples have awakened from a long torpor. They confronted the state and faced their rulers with a new, questioning, critical, wary attitude. Tempered by a bitter experience, they oppose with greater impetus to the monopolies of a dictatorial power, unquestionable and intangible, and demand a system of government, which is more compatible with the dignity and freedom of citizens.
Pius XII quoted Leo XIII’s encyclical Libertas (1888), which affirmed that “it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only—and this nature itself requires—that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.”
Less than four months after the death of Pius XII, his successor, John XXIII, announced the Second Vatican Council—whose teachings on the social and political message of the church are often ignored or avoided by Catholics who talk about the church’s disposition towards the political question, even though Vatican II is integral part of the Catholic tradition and of the official teaching of the church. For neo-traditionalists, the problem is that Vatican II substantially redefined “the rights of the church.” It elaborated a theology of the secular world and founded on the Catholic “baptism of democracy” celebrated towards the end of World War II—while adding significant new elements to it, especially freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and a post-Hiroshima theology of war and peace. Building on John XXIII’s last encyclical, Pacem in terris (April 11, 1963), Vatican II ushered in a new understanding of the Catholic view of the secular nation-state, democracy, and individual rights, especially in the pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes and the declaration on religious liberty Dignitatis humanae. It was a theology growing out the defeat of totalitarianism and authoritarianism (which, until the war, many Catholics supported) in Western Europe and the rejection of communism dominating Eastern Europe, Russia, and China. The Catholic Church came to terms with the new international, post-colonial, liberal-democratic order: it was officially post-fascist and anti-communist, despite the institutional church’s support for some fascist regimes (Spain, Portugal, Latin America) even long after the end of Vatican II, and despite the fact that millions of Catholics in Western Europe voted for communist parties.
The post-Vatican II period saw a development of this theological and magisterial shift. There was, for example, Paul VI’s apostolic letter Octogesima adveniens (1971), which acknowledged the pluralism of political options for Catholics: “While recognizing the autonomy of the reality of politics, Christians who are invited to take up political activity should try to make their choices consistent with the Gospel and, in the framework of a legitimate plurality, to give both personal collective witness to the seriousness of their faith by effective and disinterested service of men.”
Today, almost sixty years after the announcement of Vatican II in 1959, Catholics are left to wonder how their church can guide them in understanding their political options in this new world “dis-order” shaped by, among other things: 9/11 and the insufficiency of military action in establishing a more secure, peaceful, and just world; the decline of American world leadership and the emergence of new authoritarian regimes (especially China and Russia); the paralysis of the European project; the inability to address widening gaps in social and economic equality both globally and within individual countries; and the rise of populism and ethno-nationalism in response to a new oligarchy of technocrats-without-borders. All of this is influencing how younger people think about democracy; polls show that millennials are not simply less interested in it, but also losing faith in it as a viable system.
Are younger Catholics just as pessimistic? How is the return of anti-liberalism affecting them specifically? It’s important to note that today’s version of Catholic anti-liberalism is not the same as that which prompted Catholics to vote for the Fascists in Italy or the Nazis in Germany. Until the mid-twentieth century, Catholic anti-liberalism assumed that anti-republicanism and opposition to democracy and popular sovereignty—and, of course, to communism—were the only possible Catholic positions. Today’s version stems from the disappointments of the last few decades, and has challenged assumptions typical of the period between Vatican II and the beginning of the twenty-first century.
One important element in contemporary Catholic anti-liberalism has to do with the legacy of the “culture wars”—the linking of liberal and secular democracy with attacks against the sanctity of life. Now, there is no question that secular progressive governments have become more dismissive of the sensibility of citizens who have religious convictions, as demonstrated by the recent furor over the Canadian government’s summer jobs program and a pitched debate about rights, beliefs, freedoms and the power of the state.
Yet this also seems to be a forgetting of history. I am not referring to well-known liberal causes like opposition to racism, militarism, and anti-Semitism (the causes that fascist regimes are known to support). What I find disturbing is the assumption that liberal democracy simply by virtue of liberalism is to blame, say, for the legalization of abortion. In his Moscow Diary, for example (December 1926-January 1927), Walter Benjamin wrote of the disruption of traditional marriage in early Soviet Russia as a relic of the bourgeois epoch. In 1936, Soviet Russia under Stalin also passed one of the strictest anti-abortion policies in the world in order to stimulate the birth rate.
On the other side of the ideological spectrum, authoritarian and anti-communist regimes sought the support of Catholic hierarchies by legislating according to doctrines of Catholic sexual morality. One of the reasons for criticism of Paul VI’s Humanae vitae (1968) was the consonance between pre-Vatican II prohibition of contraception and the legislation of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes on the matter. Humanae vitae was compared to the fascist-era legal prohibition of contraception and the corresponding censorship of information on birth control. Catholic rejection of modern medical technology had to contend with the legacy of the secular and anti-fascist rejection of the sexual and abortion politics of Mussolini’s pro-natalist regime, where the prohibition of contraception was justified by the need for nation-building.
Younger Catholics who are drawn to anti-liberalism and who have developed a sensibility for life issues different from that of their parents and grandparents may be seeking an alternative system that enshrines pro-life values. But they may also be failing to note the tragedies that have occurred at the hands of non-democratic leaders and movements, including those related to life issues. The assault on the sanctity of life, as expressed in support for abortion and contraception, did not begin with liberal democracy.
Catholic social teaching gives Catholics the ability to assess the moral and political crisis of a nation (and of a democracy) without rejecting the idea of the nation-state and of the legitimacy of a political authority that is pluralistic, non-confessional, and respectful of secular and non-Christian or post-Christian identities. What Tony Judt said in his last public lecture in October 2009 about our necessity to “think the state” is also an urgent need for Catholics today—particularly in the West, given the contribution of the Catholic intellectual and magisterial tradition to the constitutional and political questions of the last hundred years. It is worth remembering that the failure of Catholics to make the case for democracy, and their dream for a return to the “golden age” of medieval Christendom, were key factors in the rise of authoritarian regimes in the twentieth century. (Underscored emphasis added.)
The following is one more recognition of the culture war continuing to rage in America, the ultimate objective of which is the destruction of the American experiment in constitutional liberal democracy:
The post-Christian culture wars
The Trump administration’s two most revealing speeches weren’t given by Trump.
Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. They have 27 governorships and governing trifectas in 21 states. But many conservatives — particularly Christian conservatives — believe they’re being routed in the war that matters most: the post-Christian culture war. They see a diverse, secular left winning the future and preparing to eviscerate both Christian practice and traditional mores. And they see themselves as woefully unprepared to respond with the ruthlessness that the moment requires.
Enter Donald Trump. Whatever Trump’s moral failings, he’s a street fighter suited for an era of political combat. Christian conservatives believe — rightly or wrongly — that they’ve been held back by their sense of righteousness, grace, and gentility, with disastrous results. Trump operates without restraint. He is the enemy they believe the secular deserve, and perhaps unfortunately, the champion they need. Understanding this dynamic is crucial to understanding the psychology that attracts establishment Republicans to Trump, and convinces them that his offense is their best defense.
If this sound exaggerated, consider two recent speeches given by Attorney General William Barr. Barr is a particularly important kind of figure in the Trump world. He previously served as attorney general under George H.W. Bush, and had settled into a comfortable twilight as a respected member of the Republican legal establishment. It’s the support of establishment Republicans like Barr that gives Trump his political power and protects him from impeachment. But why would someone like Barr spend the end of his career serving a man like Trump?
Speaking at Notre Dame in October, Barr offered his answer. He argued that the conflict of the 20th century pitted democracy against fascism and communism — a struggle democracy won, and handily. “But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge,” he warned. America was built atop the insight that “free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people.” But “over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack,” driven from the public square by “the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism.”
This is a war Barr thinks progressives have been winning, and that conservatives fight in the face of long institutional odds.
Today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on the pendulum swinging back. First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.
Whatever political power conservatives hold, progressives occupy the cultural high ground, and they strike without mercy. “Those who defy the [secular] creed risk a figurative burning at the stake,” says Barr, “social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.”
In a November speech before the Federalist Society, Barr expanded on the advantage progressives hold. It’s worth quoting his argument at length:
The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.
In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursuing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.
Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized — that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?
For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy war, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
The foregoing quotations from William Barr's speech to The Federalist Society reveal a twisted, delusional state of mind. To unbiased observers the last thing that Progressives (Liberals) have on their minds is a "holy war." To the contrary, all of the evidence points to Barr's conservatives, and Barr himself, engaged in the "holy" "post-Christian culture war," with all of the intensity attributed to "the Left." Barr is exhibiting insane psychological "projection." He is a prominent representative of the culture war and proudly Roman Catholic. He has brazenly exposed himself to public scrutiny; but there is a multiplicity of other influential personalities, working under deep cover in America, who are culture warriors subverting democracy.
CULTURE WAR WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ROME
Statements have been quoted in earlier passages of this paper which indicate antipathy on the part of Pope 'Francis to the culture war against non-Catholics; and yet his coddling of Opus Dei suggests that he does approve of the culture war concealed in the activism of secret societies. He is a Jesuit, and quite possibly disapproves of the open culture war which hampers his world evangelization program, while he encourages the subtle, sophisticated work of the secret societies which have penetrated the Legislatures and the Supreme Court. Thus, discord has been created within the Catholic world because of the open culture war, and Francis has been the primary target of the open warriors, both lay members and members of the hierarchy. These genuinely dislike and oppose Pope Francis. The following are examples of this papal aberration, and also of the role of billionaires in the opposition to Francis:
Don't like that pope? Read what he wrote
The whole world now knows that Pope Francis is more or less fed up with some of his critics. His comment about it being an "honor" to be attacked by conservative Catholics in the U.S. made that clear for all to see. Francis had just been presented with a copy of a new book by French author Nicolas Seneze, which catalogues conservative Catholic efforts, largely American, to influence this pope or to limit his influence and undermine his efforts. The fallout from the pope's comment is kind of fun to watch. Last week, EWTN host Raymond Arroyo began his hour-long show with an eight minute "commentary" that pronounced the pope's comment "troubling." I actually found the pope's candor refreshing.
Arroyo referred to a "string of lazy articles." He went on: "This is tired, and, frankly, a fact-free narrative." He complained that it had been peddled mostly by "Europeans and progressive Americans" and claimed these critics "make the mistake of casting orthodox Catholics in America as right-wingers, players in a political plot to undo the agenda of Francis." He countered this portrayal, saying, "The truth is much more simple. American Catholics actually believe what the church has always taught, and they're loud enough and have big enough platforms to broadcast that belief." Arroyo insisted that "all traditional Catholics have done is ask questions."
Arroyo unwittingly confirmed the thesis he was trying to debunk when he concluded: "The truth is this is all a craven attempt to demonize and purge voices form the church who dare to question the radical changes that are under way and the brutal tactics used to enact them." Radical changes? Brutal tactics?
To prove his claim to editorial balance, Arroyo played a tape of him of the night a year ago when he reported about Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in which he said, "I am a little squeamish about a pope resigning again." Huh? Had a former nuncio publicly demand that Pope Benedict XVI resign? Why add the word "again"? He did, to his credit, acknowledge there had been criticism of Viganò, but one year later, on a show just two weeks ago, Arroyo and his papal posse, Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray, spent more than half the show defending Viganò and arguing that most of his claims had been proven true, when in fact, most of them had been proven false. . .
There is, indeed, a cabal among right-wing Catholics to undermine or minimize this pope and his teachings, and you could discover it merely by watching EWTN or reading its auxiliary media outlets. No one would have Cardinal Raymond Burke or German Cardinal Gerhard Müller on their show as an authoritative guest unless such undermining was the goal. No one would have Phil Lawler, who was the first guest on Arroyo's show last week, on their show as an expert unless undermining the pope was the objective. The two men enjoyed themselves complaining about all the damage they think Francis is doing to the church.
I wish to send Arroyo and other conservative Catholics an invitation, one that I received a long time ago and from which I derived enormous benefit. During the more conservative pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVII, friends encouraged me to read their writings with an open mind, not to dismiss them because they were so conservative. Of course, in the area of Catholic social teaching, there has been enormous continuity, not only across the last three pontificates but stretching all the way back to Pope Leo XIII. But, when I read some of the writings of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from his early work Introduction to Christianity to the trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth that he wrote while pope, I not only learned a great deal, I had my faith strengthened by the insights he discerned. Here is the column I wrote the day after his resignation. I was not yet a writer when Pope John Paul II issued Novo Millennio Ineunte, but I remember thinking it was a magnificent document that made me stretch in ways I would not have done if I had simply stuck to my more liberal Catholic texts.
So, instead of painting Francis in such a harsh and negative light, rather than poking fun at synods, or highlighting and even championing a score-settling text like Viganò's "testimony," I invite conservative Catholics to come to Francis and his teachings with an open heart and an open mind. I hope they might find, as I did with his conservative predecessors, an opportunity to stretch their faith, which always leads to an expansion and a deepening of that faith as well. It is a big church, and there is room for everybody. The alternative is the emergence of a sectarian, para-schismatic church in the United States. And, if a full-blown schism were to occur, its source would largely be found on EWTN. (Underscored emphasis added.)
The assertion of continuity in the area of Catholic social teaching stretching all the way back to Pope Leo XIII should be noted. The implication is that Pope Francis is no exception. There is clear evidence that the problem is not disagreement on the social teaching but the timing and application of it to the best advantage of Rome politically. Also involved are two ecumenical unions, one completed and the other far advanced but yet to be fully consummated. The one completed has characteristics which are in conflict with the ecumenical agenda of Pope Francis. The papacy is a world-wide religioo-political institution. As such it is open to political disagreements and rifts. There is also in the Church of Rome a practice known as Hegelian politics which is explained in the following essay, and applied to the Jesuit Pope Francis:
That deafening silence which hung over the Synod, a quiet that drowned out even the discordant clamor of some 200 Catholic prelates, was that of absent voice of Peter. Over the past two weeks, as we have observed the arguably prophetic contest of cardinals opposing cardinals. The figure most noticeably removed from the fray has, ironically, been the man sitting at the very center of it all. Indeed, even as we saw the Sacrament of Matrimony attacked and deeply profaned, watched closely as carefully crafted plans unfolded, and listened intently as a modern-day Paul rebuked Peter for his dereliction of duty, even then, in what might rightly have been called a supreme moment of need for the Church, the one who should have spoken remained silent.
But no longer.
As the Synod came to a close, the Holy Father at last stepped
forward to offer what Catholics hoped would be the words of
clarity so sorely needed by a Church seemingly awash in of
confusion. Yet rather than placing a firm hand on the rudder of
a barque that had truly begun to reel, the pope instead decided
to assure the faithful that the spectacle of watching a ship
tossed about by every wind of doctrine, was actually for “the
good of the Church, of families, and the supreme law, the good
of souls.”
How can we make sense of this? Precisely what good is done to
souls by a synod that leads the faithful — invoking the pope as
their authority — to hector their priests about permitting the
impossible? To believe, as if it were possible, that the Church
has changed her immutable teaching?
No good can come of such widely-sewn misconceptions, nor from the notion that fidelity to those same immutable teachings is nothing more than
a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – ‘traditionalists’
What conclusions can we draw from such language, and how does a Roman Pontiff apply the epithet “traditionalist”, not just to those he has allegedly chastised for their addiction to the “fashion” of the Tridentine Mass, but even to those who adhere to the papal teaching of St. John Paul II? How can adhering to the Church’s timeless teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the family be construed as “hostile inflexibility” rather than faithful docility?
Why would the pope do such thing? Perplexing as it may seem, for those who have been following this pontificate closely, the most obvious answer is also the most unsettling: Pope Francis gives every appearance that he wants to change the understanding and practice of Church teaching, and to this end he has already altered the discussion around his stated intentions with respect to the deposit of faith. (Could any of us imagine such a headline being written about any other pope?) . . .
For those unfamiliar with the work G.W.F. Hegel, scholars at the University of Chicago explain his philosophy of dialectic this way:
Hegel’s dialectic involves the reconciliation of ostensible paradoxes to arrive at absolute truth. The general formulation of Hegel’s dialectic is a three-step process comprising the movement from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. One begins with a static, clearly delineated concept (or thesis), then moves to its opposite (or antithesis), which represents any contradictions derived from a consideration of the rigidly defined thesis. The thesis and antithesis are yoked and resolved to form the embracing resolution, or synthesis.
Pope Francis’ final address provides us with a textbook example of the Hegelian dialectic at work. First, we have the thesis — namely, that on matters regarding marriage, sexuality, and the family, the Church should simply capitulate to the world and, in the name of mercy, adopt an attitude of pure permissiveness:
The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfill the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God… The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”
Thus, with the thesis on the table representing one extreme, we move instead to the contrasting anti-thesis: the position that, with respect to marriage, sexuality, and the family, the Church should simply adhere to her time-honored Tradition, both in teaching and pastoral praxis. No changes or updating are necessary. As we have already seen, Francis rejects this position as:
[A] temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists.”
The danger of these formulations is immediately clear. While the thesis actually represents an absurd fringe position — essentially, that the Church should adopt the wisdom of the world — the anti-thesis, rather than representing an equally absurd position (such as stoning adulterers and homosexuals) instead tries to suggest that the status quo in the Church — her immutable teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the family — is somehow the appropriate ideological foil to a call for complete moral compromise. As such, in an effort to achieve a sensible reconciliation between these two ostensibly ridiculous extremes, the Holy Father is now poised to offer a synthesis. . . (Expanded font in original; Underscored emphasis added.)
It seems logical to conclude that the synthesis is Rome at the pinnacle of world power. Thus we have unwitting clarification from a conservative Roman Catholic source of the puzzling, contradictory aspects of Francis' papacy. He is a Jesuit, and comfortable in the practice of Hegelian politics. He accommodates both the "left-wing" of apparent liberalization of Rome's posture on the world stage since Vatican II, (thesis) and the anti-democratic, secretive right-wing activism of Opus Dei (antithesis,) the extreme right-wing "ecumenism of hate" being a premature exposure of threatening tyranny. The objective of both thesis and antithesis is world power:
OPUS DEI IN THE USA [N.B. To the reader of the full article: Adventistlaymen.com vigorously disagrees with the statement in Para. 2 that "Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a wicked secular humanist organization."]:
What the Jesuit Order is for the left wing of the Roman Catholic Church, Opus Dei is for its right wing. (Hegelian politics at its finest, the Roman Catholic Church cannot lose if it has strong ties with both ends of the political spectrum! Of course, to work it requires Protestants to be duped into political alliances with heretics.) (Underscored emphasis added.)
An essay written by Antonio Spadaro SJ, and Marcelo Figueroa, a Protestant pastor, illustrates this fact and throws down the gauntlet against the Religious Right in America in no uncertain terms. The passages quoted below do not completely present the tightly reasoned attack on the right-wing culture warriors:
EVANGELICAL FUNDAMENTALISM AND CATHOLIC INTEGRALISM: A SURPRISING ECUMENISM
In God We Trust. This phrase is printed on the banknotes of the United States of America and is the current national motto. It appeared for the first time on a coin in 1864 but did not become official until Congress passed a motion in 1956. A motto is important for a nation whose foundation was rooted in religious motivations. For many it is a simple declaration of faith. For others, it is the synthesis of a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy.
Religion, political Manichaeism and a cult of the apocalypse
Religion has had a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions over recent decades, especially in some US governments. It offers a moral role for identifying what is good and what is bad.
At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil. In fact, after President George W. Bush spoke in his day about challenging the “axis of evil” and stated it was the USA’s duty to “free the world from evil” following the events of September 11, 2001. Today President Trump steers the fight against a wider, generic collective entity of the “bad” or even the “very bad.” Sometimes the tones used by his supporters in some campaigns take on meanings that we could define as “epic.” . . .
The term “evangelical fundamentalist” can today be assimilated to the “evangelical right” or “theoconservatism” and has its origins in the years 1910-1915. In that period a South Californian millionaire, Lyman Stewart, published the 12-volume work The Fundamentals. The author wanted to respond to the threat of modernist ideas of the time. He summarized the thought of authors whose doctrinal support he appreciated. He exemplified the moral, social, collective and individual aspects of the evangelical faith. His admirers include many politicians and even two recent presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Another interesting aspect is the relationship with creation of these religious groups that are composed mainly of whites from the deep American South. . .
Theirs is a prophetic formula: fight the threats to American Christian values and prepare for the imminent justice of an Armageddon, a final showdown between Good and Evil, between God and Satan. In this sense, every process (be it of peace, dialogue, etc.) collapses before the needs of the end, the final battle against the enemy. And the community of believers (faith) becomes a community of combatants (fight). Such a unidirectional reading of the biblical texts can anesthetize consciences or actively support the most atrocious and dramatic portrayals of a world that is living beyond the frontiers of its own “promised land.” . . .
Theology of prosperity and the rhetoric of religious liberty
Pastor Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) is an important figure who inspired US Presidents such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. . .
A third element, together with Manichaeism and the prosperity gospel, is a particular form of proclamation of the defense of “religious liberty.” The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism. But we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a “religion in total freedom,” perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.
Fundamentalist ecumenism
Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.
Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.
However, the most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations. The word “ecumenism” transforms into a paradox, into an “ecumenism of hate.” Intolerance is a celestial mark of purism. Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key
Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”
The temptation of “spiritual war”
The religious element should never be confused with the political one. Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other. An evident aspect of Pope Francis’ geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends. Francis empties from within the narrative of sectarian millenarianism and dominionism that is preparing the apocalypse and the “final clash.”[2] Underlining mercy as a fundamental attribute of God expresses this radically Christian need.
Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church. Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes. Yet it is this very dynamic with a spurious theological flavor that tries to impose its own law and logic in the political sphere.
There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself. This abuse is called “authentic Christianity.” And to show its own preferences, it has created a close analogy between Donald Trump and Emperor Constantine, and between Hillary Clinton and Diocletian. The American elections in this perspective were seen as a “spiritual war.”[3]
This warlike and militant approach seems most attractive and evocative to a certain public, especially given that the victory of Constantine – it was presumed impossible for him to beat Maxentius and the Roman establishment – had to be attributed to a divine intervention: in hoc signo vinces.
Church Militant asks if Trump’s victory can be attributed to the prayers of Americans. The response suggested is affirmative. The indirect missioning for President Trump is clear: he has to follow through on the consequences. This is a very direct message that then wants to condition the presidency by framing it as a divine election. In hoc signo vinces. Indeed.
Today, more than ever, power needs to be removed from its faded confessional dress, from its armor, its rusty breastplate. The fundamentalist theopolitical plan is to set up a kingdom of the divinity here and now. And that divinity is obviously the projection of the power that has been built. This vision generates the ideology of conquest.
The theopolitical plan that is truly Christian would be eschatological, that is it applies to the future and orients current history toward the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of justice and peace. This vision generates a process of integration that unfolds with a diplomacy that crowns no one as a “man of Providence.”
And this is why the diplomacy of the Holy See wants to establish direct and fluid relations with the superpowers, without entering into pre-constituted networks of alliances and influence. In this sphere, the pope does not want to say who is right or who is wrong for he knows that at the root of conflicts there is always a fight for power. So, there is no need to imagine a taking of sides for moral reasons, much worse for spiritual ones.
Francis radically rejects the idea of activating a Kingdom of God on earth as was at the basis of the Holy Roman Empire and similar political and institutional forms, including at the level of a “party.” Understood this way, the “elected people” would enter a complicated political and religious web that would make them forget they are at the service of the world, placing them in opposition to those who are different, those who do not belong, that is the “enemy.”
So, then the Christian roots of a people are never to be understood in an ethnic way. The notions of roots and identity do not have the same content for a Catholic as for a neo-Pagan. Triumphalist, arrogant and vindictive ethnicism is actually the opposite of Christianity. The pope on May 9 in an interview with the French daily La Croix, said: “Yes Europe has Christian roots. Christianity has the duty of watering them, but in a spirit of service as in the washing of feet. The duty of Christianity for Europe is that of service.” And again: “The contribution of Christianity to a culture is that of Christ washing the feet, or the service and the gift of life. There is no room for colonialism.”
Against fear
Which feeling underlies the persuasive temptation for a spurious alliance between politics and religious fundamentalism? It is fear of the breakup of a constructed order and the fear of chaos. Indeed, it functions that way thanks to the chaos perceived. The political strategy for success becomes that of raising the tones of the conflictual, exaggerating disorder, agitating the souls of the people by painting worrying scenarios beyond any realism.
Religion at this point becomes a guarantor of order and a political part would incarnate its needs. The appeal to the apocalypse justifies the power desired by a god or colluded in with a god. And fundamentalism thereby shows itself not to be the product of a religious experience but a poor and abusive perversion of it.
This is why Francis is carrying forward a systematic counter-narration with respect to the narrative of fear. There is a need to fight against the manipulation of this season of anxiety and insecurity. Again, Francis is courageous here and gives no theological-political legitimacy to terrorists, avoiding any reduction of Islam to Islamic terrorism. Nor does he give it to those who postulate and want a “holy war” or to build barrier-fences crowned with barbed wire. The only crown that counts for the Christian is the one with thorns that Christ wore on high.[4] (Underscored emphasis added.)
The authors of this essay are described in Two associates of Pope Francis accuse right-wing American Christians of practising 'apocalyptic' politics, as "close associates" of the Pope, and Figueroa as "a Protestant pastor who worked closely with Francis in Buenos Aires." The link is quite clear.
An array of Roman Catholic publications in America have supported the essay, including the following: The Civilta article: FINALLY!; Vatican article on ‘ecumenism of hate’ in U.S. was long overdue; Manichean-style hatred must be resisted on both left and right.
As much as some of the essay is worthy of commendation, the attempt to divorce this current papacy from its roots in Imperial Rome is not credible. The Holy See cannot be severed from its connection with Romulus and Remus and the warrior history of papal Rome.
Paradoxically it was the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) who launched the “ecumenism of hate” in the culture war by the publication of their "Pastoral Plan" in 1975, followed by their blessing of the "Moral Majority" alliance with the Evangelicals.
The two authors published a follow-up article in 2018:
Spadaro and Figueroa rile the Christian right again in new essay
Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro and Rev. Marcelo Figueroa are at it again. Last year, their provocative essay, "Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism," caused all manner of discomfort to religious Americans by forcing us to confront the reduction of religion to ethics and thence to politics that had become so dominant in our culture. Now, with the publication of "The Prosperity Gospel: Dangerous and Different," they are stirring up trouble again. Happily.
Right out of the box, they level their indictment against the prosperity gospel's theology: "The risk of this form of religious anthropocentrism, which puts humans and their well-being at the center, is that it transforms God into a power at our service, the Church into a supermarket of faith, and religion into a utilitarian phenomenon that is eminently sensationalist and pragmatic," they write. Indeed, it is almost a category mistake to call this theology. It is a projection of our most crass and materialistic desires onto the Godhead.
One of the reasons that Spadaro and Figueroa rile so many on the right is that they eschew the false politeness that regrettably characterizes too much writing on the Catholic left. So, when they catalogue the many and varied sources of the prosperity gospel and they come to Norman Vincent Peale, they write straightforwardly that he "gained an enormous following with his books whose titles speak for themselves: The Power of Positive Thinking, You Can If You Think You Can, A Guide to Confident Living. Peale was a successful preacher and managed to mix marketing and preaching." Speak for themselves, indeed.
Interestingly, while they earlier cite President Trump and how his invocation of "the American Dream" dovetails with the prosperity gospel in significant ways, the authors fail to note that the Trump family began attending Peale's Marble Collegiate Church in the 1950s precisely because they warmed to his preaching. Peale presided at Trump's first wedding and his successor did the honors at Trump's second wedding. Now, as then, I render the same verdict that Adlai Stevenson rendered on Rev. Peale after the preacher warned against voting for John Kennedy because of his Catholicism. "Speaking as a Christian," said Stevenson, "I find Paul appealing and Peale appalling."
The authors, nonetheless, have done an admirable job collecting the observations of other theologians on the subject. My favorite comes from James Goff in Christianity Today who said the prosperity gospel reduces God the Father to "a sort of 'cosmic bellhop' that responds to the needs and desires of his creatures." Ouch.
Among the theological anchors of the prosperity gospel is a consequentialism rooted in an essentially Pelagian understanding of salvation. Their proof text for this line of thinking is Galatians 6:7 "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow." But, as Spadaro and Figueroa point out, if the prosperity preachers and their flocks would just keep reading, they would encounter this — in the very next verse — in Galatians: "If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit." Not for the first, nor the last, is preaching confused with cherry picking by some of our Protestant brethren. Thank God for the lectionary, which makes such proof texting more difficult.
Prosperity preachers also like to cite Deuteronomy 28:1-14, which lists the blessings God will bestow upon those who follow his commandments. This is the ground from which springs the prosperity gospel's understanding of covenant. Interestingly, Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, for whom the concept of covenant was also central, likewise turned to the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy as a critical text for his theology, but he focused on the verses that follow, in which God details the curses he will visit upon his people for their disobedience. Ratzinger, also, brought immense theological sophistication to his reading of these Hebrew Scriptures.
The part of this essay that will cause the most agita in certain circles is the linkage between "the American Dream" and the prosperity gospel, a linkage that the authors portray as essential — that is, it is hard to imagine the prosperity gospel getting its start in any other country — but in no way pre-determined. (Perhaps it is better to say in this context, predestined.) The authors do not mock the desire for a better life that has brought millions of people to America's shores. Catholic social teaching enshrines the belief in a living wage as well as the right of people to migrate when violence, including the violence of poverty, requires them to leave their homeland. Besides, the aspiration to "come to America" was always about "yearning to breathe free" and not just about wages; there was a spiritual component, a commitment to human dignity that was not in addition to the hope for a decent livelihood, but of which that concern for a decent livelihood was a part.
But the authors recognize that materialism creates its own appetites, and the acquisitiveness of American culture is the factual rock upon which the ideology of neo-liberalism is built. Further, the authors note that it is just a small step from seeing America as a providential nation to seeing God's providence in one's getting a bigger bank account. Indeed, you could say the prosperity gospellers are the ones who mock the spiritual yearnings that were also part of the American Dream with their materialistic reductionism and their sense that it is not enough to be working class, earning a living wage. Nonetheless, I predict that Spadaro's critics, and they are many, will exaggerate what he and Figueroa say here to paint them as anti-American, which they are not. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
As informative as the above partial quotation from the analysis of the authors' essay is, the rest of the analysis is also worth reading. Expressions of concern for the poor and marginalized is characteristic of the Jesuits.
As to the first essay's identification of billionaires with the "ecumenism of hate," and the exposure of their opposition to Pope Francis, the following illustrates this aspect:
The Rise of the Catholic Right
How right-wing billionaires are attempting a hostile takeover of the U.S. Catholic Church.
TTIMOTHY BUSCH IS A WEALTHY MAN with big ambitions. His version of the prosperity gospel, Catholic in content and on steroids, is a hybrid of traditionalist pieties wrapped in American-style excess and positioned most conspicuously in service of free market capitalism
Busch’s organization, the Napa Institute, and its corresponding foundation are among the most prominent of a growing number of right-wing Catholic nonprofits with political motivations. Such groups, some more extreme than others and all on the right to far-right side of the political and ecclesial spectrum, have in recent years muscled in on territory that previously was the largely unchallenged domain of the nation’s powerful Catholic bishops.
What Busch calls “in-your-face Catholicism” is often expressed amid multicourse meals followed by wine and cigar receptions, private cocktail parties for the especially privileged, traditional Catholic devotionals, Mass said in Latin for those so inclined, “patriotic rosary” sessions that include readings from George Washington and Robert E. Lee, and the occasional break for a round of golf.
Busch’s Catholic Right brand of American libertarianism aligns with some far-right leaders based in Italy who oppose Pope Francis and appear interested in joining forces to fashion an alternative to official Catholic leadership structures, which in this country means the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). . .
Money, politics, and religion
Paralleling the ascendancy of the Religious Right out of 1980s evangelicalism, today’s Catholic Right is rising and well-financed. While pendulum swings are common between conservative and progressive tendencies in Catholicism, the 35-year traditionalist reign of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI allowed the Far Right to flourish. In the United States, Catholics constitute the largest and most organized Christian denomination and include Catholic parishes, schools and universities, and hospitals. . .
For Christianity, money and power have been corrupting influences since Judas Iscariot accepted the silver in exchange for a betrayal. In Roman Catholicism, from the times of the Medicis and Borgias up to more recent scandals—such as when the Legionaries of Christ used large sums of money to buy influence (and a temporary buffer from scrutiny) in the Vatican—the mix has produced high art, toxic papacies, and distortions of the gospel and of church teaching. . .
In the United States today, influence is not peddled through royal families and palace intrigues, but often through a peculiarly American construct—the nonprofit sector, which has exploded in recent decades with a particular emphasis on politics. Traditional groups such as the Knights of Columbus continue to make substantial charitable contributions, but its capacity for funding has given the Knights an inordinately loud voice, unmatched by other lay groups. It has millions to send to dioceses in need, or to clean the façade of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome—or for other purposes.
With that kind of financial power, no one in the hierarchy is likely to object when the Knights appropriate funds for politically conservative think tanks, news agencies, and even the Federalist Society, an organization that advocates for conservative justices, with no connection to anything religious or charitable. Nor did any bishops question a communiqué supporting Judge Brett Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court.
Newer groups—including the Napa Institute, Legatus (launched by Domino’s Pizza founder Thomas Monaghan), and the Acton Institute—use the nonprofit designation to push an extreme libertarian economic agenda. Their devotion to individualism, unrestricted capitalism, and diminishment of government services, especially to the poor and marginalized, runs counter to the central tenets of Catholic social teaching.
“I think we’re in a kind of brave new world where these groups really are setting themselves up as authorities above the authorities,” said Stephen Schneck, former director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at the Catholic University of America (and a Sojourners board member). “I don’t know how else to say that. They’re challenging the legitimacy of existing structures of authority and trying to fill that space with their own agenda and their own people.” . . .
The decline of the bishops
The eruption of independent groups may not have been that surprising in the Protestant world where evangelical leaders and their movements, taking up issues on the margins of society and church, often exercised a degree of suspicion about mainline denominations.
In the rigidly hierarchical Catholic world, on the other hand, dissent was often smothered beneath the rubric of Catholic unity. Since its founding in 1917 (as the National Catholic War Council) to ensure Catholic support for World War I, the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference has been one of the most powerful religious organizations in the country. Until recently, the Catholic clerical culture, particularly at the bishops’ level, was able to present a united and authoritative front when speaking on social and political issues.
The phenomenon of independent organizations challenging the established Catholic authority emerged in the 1980s, just as the U.S. bishops were at the apex of their power as a teaching body, addressing major issues of the day. In 1983, the bishops released a far-reaching pastoral on modern warfare, the result of broad consultation with lay experts. They followed in 1986 with a pastoral letter titled “Economic Justice for All,” a document anchored in a century of Catholic social teaching and highly critical of President Ronald Reagan’s economic policies—and completely unwelcome to the 1980 vice-presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, David H. Koch.
The ascendancy of the Catholic Right, Schneck said, is rooted in the bishops’ letter on economics. Countering the pastoral letter, he said, marked “the beginning of the conservative efforts to create their own magisterium [teaching authority] on the side.”
Well before the pastoral letter was published, Michael Novak, a leading conservative Catholic scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, another nonprofit that has become an influential voice in the religion conversation, and William E. Simon, treasury secretary under Richard Nixon, began attacking the document and its support for government policies that aid the poor. Novak and Simon presented an 80-page rebuttal arguing that church teaching supported free enterprise. The paper appeared before the first draft of the pastoral was even released.
The USCCB’s diminished role is due in part, said Schneck, to a “tremendous turnover of staff in recent decades” that “undercut the organization’s ability to do staff-level work. And frankly, for all sorts of reasons, some of the bishops themselves are less supportive of the USCCB’s public and policy applications ... the role the USCCB might play in American public life and politics has been dramatically pulled in for all sorts of reasons.”
Among those reasons was a document by Pope John Paul II in 1998 that dramatically reduced the authority of national bishops’ conferences and their ability to address major social issues. John Paul’s appointments to the episcopacy also tended to be men less inclined to take on cultural issues other than abortion and, more recently, gay marriage and religious liberty. Another reason for the diminished role of the U.S. conference these days is the bishops’ preoccupation with a disaster of their own making, the clergy sex abuse crisis. . .
Attacking Pope Francis
During previous pontificates, Busch was all-in on loyalty to the pope and the teaching authorities of the church. In the era of Pope Francis, however, he has associated himself with right-wing Catholic efforts to discredit the pope using the largely debunked accusations of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal ambassador to the United States. In one of several letters criticizing the pope, Viganò urged Francis to step down. . .
A right-wing phenomenon
Since their emergence in the 1980s, right-wing Catholic groups, with their deep alliances among the bishops themselves, have achieved a prominence that essentially makes them an alternative to the U.S. bishops’ conference. Schneck said that it has become “increasingly difficult to identify the line between this conservative Catholic deployment of organizations and the official institutions of the church in America.”
In a bizarre turn, we now have Catholic groups accusing the pope of betraying the church and calling for him to resign, as well as initiating what amounts to hate group activity against gays and others in church settings. Money, and the power of U.S. nonprofits, has given extreme-right Catholics new means of communicating to the wider world what they think the Catholic narrative should be. That generally, but not always, is confined to sexual issues—abortion, gay rights, the rights of divorced and remarried people within the church. . .
If the bishops allow the extreme-right groups to continue unchallenged, Schneck said, their influence will only increase, and they’ll be able to “claim legitimacy and their own authority in making their pronouncements. Because they have the money and because the church always needs money at every level, the doors will continue to be open to them to interact with the church.”
And the money, he said, resides mostly on the right of the ecclesial and political spectrums. He sees nothing of similar ideological heft or funding on the left. “Maybe,” he said, “it’s because progressives have just given up on the church and aren’t willing to contribute a dime to anything that might go toward it.” (Underscored emphasis added.)
Assuming that they are in decline as asserted above, the Bishops of the USCCB have been "hoisted on their own petard" (blown up by their own bomb,) although they will undoubtedly survive.
The following essay addresses how divorced from true Christianity the unbridled pursuit of wealth is, although the use of the word "trope" in the first sentence downgrades the categorical warnings in the Bible against the love of money, and in the second sentence the writer confuses the Apostle Paul with Jesus Christ:
My Turn: The Catholic right, the religious right and the corruptions of wealth
One of the unmistakable, yet slighted, tropes in the Bible is the warning against the perils of money and affluence.
Jesus himself cautioned that the love of money is the root of all evil and that a rich person has about as much chance gaining entry into the kingdom of heaven as a camel successfully negotiating the aperture of a needle.
I wonder how many sermons over the centuries have been devoted to scaling back those declarations, explaining them away so that the affluent in the pews would not feel uncomfortable – and would not suspend their contributions. More to the point, I’d love to know how many such sermons have been preached (or the texts avoided altogether) in the past several decades.
I recall many sermons about camels and the eyes of needles during my evangelical childhood. I haven’t heard such a sermon in years. Since 1980, to be exact.
Now, finally, the bills are coming due. Two of the largest and most influential religious movements in American history – the Roman Catholic Church and evangelicalism – are facing their own crises over the corrosive effects of money.
The cover story in the current issue of Sojourners magazine is entitled “How Right-Wing Billionaires are Attempting a Hostile Takeover of the Catholic Church.” Reported and written by my longtime friend and former colleague Tom Roberts, the story explores the intricate tangle of money, politics, organizations and billionaires seeking to push Catholicism away from its venerable tradition of Catholic social teaching, with its concern for the poor and the rights of workers, toward a fulsome embrace of free-market capitalism.
Such views contradict Catholic doctrine. “God blesses those who come to the aid of the poor and rebukes those who turn away from them,” according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable; the disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects.”
A growing number of Catholic individuals, however, don’t see it that way.
Timothy Busch, founder of the Napa Institute, which aspires to “equip Catholic leaders to defend and advance the Catholic faith in the next America,” favors libertarian economics and has endowed the Busch School of Business at Catholic University of America. The Napa Institute in turn sponsored an event at the school called “Good Profit,” honoring a book by the same name written by Charles Koch, who may represent the embodiment of what the Catechism calls “disordered desire for money.”
The monied web of right-wing influence in the Catholic Church extends to Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino’s Pizza; Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former adviser; and the “supreme knight” of the Knights of Columbus, Carl Anderson, who began his career working for the late Jesse Helms, the far-right senator from North Carolina. [Jesse Helms died in 2008.]
The Knights of Columbus expends millions of dollars on charity, but it also funds such hard-right organizations as the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Federalist Society and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which battled the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act, even though most Catholic entities, including the Catholic Health Association, said the accommodations offered by the Obama administration were sufficient.
This Catholic right network extends into the College of Cardinals, especially James Harvey and Raymond Burke, and to Carlo Maria Viganò, the archbishop who was removed by Francis as the papal ambassador to the United States. Viganò, with the support of Busch and other conservatives, has called on Francis to resign, essentially because he’s too “liberal” on matters like poverty, sexuality and climate change.
As Roberts writes in the Sojourners article, “While pendulum swings are common between conservative and progressive tendencies in Catholicism, the 35-year traditionalist reign of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI allowed the Far Right to flourish.” . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
There is yet another cause of dissension in American Roman Catholicism that is related to the culture war, but separate from it. It has existed for well over a century, and it has a profound bearing on the result of the presidential election. The pendulum has temporarily swung away from the "ecumenism of hate" towards the Hegelian "left-wing" Pope Francis.
"AMERICANISM" AND ITS CURRENT IMPACT
The election result has again focused attention on Americanism:
‘Americanism’: Phantom Heresy or Fact?
On Jan. 22, 1899, Pope Leo XIII sent Cardinal James Gibbons of Baltimore, leader of the American hierarchy, a document in the form of a letter whose opening words in Latin were Testem Benevolentiae (In Witness to Good Will). “It is clear, our beloved son,” Pope Leo wrote, “that those opinions that, taken as a whole, some designate as ‘Americanism’ cannot have our approval.”
Appalled, Cardinal Gibbons held up the document’s release in the United States for a week, until the publication of excerpts originating overseas forced his hand and moved him to give it to The Baltimore Sun. In a letter to a friend, the cardinal called it “very discouraging … that the American Church is not understood abroad.”
But the bishops of the Milwaukee province, a center of German-American Catholicism, said the errors condemned by Pope Leo were real.
The story of the condemnation of “Americanism” is notably tangled. Even today, accounts of this crucial episode in Church history are often incomplete and biased. As the Americanization of U.S. Catholics becomes a matter of increasing contemporary concern, we need to get this story right.
Troubling reports drifted to Rome from the United States during the 1890s, and concern grew at the Vatican regarding conditions in the Church in America as well as American Catholicism’s influence on Catholics in Europe, especially in France. As the 19th century was drawing to a close, this anxiety hardened into suspicion of the Americanists and their French admirers.
In January 1895, Leo XIII fired a warning shot across the Americanist bow in the form of a letter to the Church in America. Lavishing praise on America and American Catholicism, the Pope nevertheless cautioned against things like divorce and secret societies and against presenting American-style separation of church and state as the ideal arrangement everywhere. The message to Americanists: Don’t push too hard.
Infighting intensified in the next several years. So did the Pope’s concern.
The immediate occasion for Testem Benevolentiae appears to have been the publication in 1896 of a French translation of a shortened version of a biography of Father Isaac Hecker, the American founder of the Paulist order, who had died in 1888. The book carried a long, provocative preface by a liberal French priest named Felix Klein. It went through six printings in a matter of months and touched off heated controversy.
Hailing Father Hecker as a world-class innovator, Father Klein ranked him among history’s “great religious figures” while setting out his thinking with what a later biographer calls “considerable exaggeration.” That included the notion that individuals could count on having the direct, personal inspiration of the Holy Spirit and spiritual directors should encourage them to do so. Father Klein called it an “American idea … God’s will for all civilized people of our time.
It’s an interesting question whether the views singled out for criticism in Testem Benevolentiae were those of Father Hecker, his biographer, Father Klein or all three. Taking them together, Pope Leo called them “Americanism,” and he condemned them. . .
But Leo XIII’s critique is more substantial than apologists for Americanism care to admit. Much of it, in fact, is pertinent to conditions in American Catholicism today.
One set of condemned ideas concerns ranking natural virtues above supernatural ones, along with a division of virtues into “passive” and “active” that gives preference to the latter as more suited to modern times. The Pope says this fosters “contempt … for the religious life” and the disparagement of religious vows. Here, one might say, is a Victorian anticipation of the crisis that has afflicted religious life in the United States over the last half century.
Turning to the origins of Americanism, Leo XIII says it reflects a desire to attract to the Church “those who dissent.” Central to it, he adds, is the idea that the Church — “relaxing its old severity” — must “show indulgence” to new opinions, including even those that downplay “the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained.”
Leo XIII’s reply is that how flexible the Church can and should be is not up to individuals but rests with “the judgment of the Church.” Opposing this orthodox view, he notes, is the modern error that everyone could decide for himself, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit today gives individuals “more and richer gifts than in times past” — no less than “a kind of hidden instinct” in religious matters.
All this and more was the Americanism condemned by the Pope
On March 17, 1899, Cardinal Gibbons sent Leo XIII a letter thanking him for his document but insisting that no one in America held the views it condemned.
In truth, it is unlikely that men like the cardinal of Baltimore, Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minn., and other prominent Americanists had much interest in such ideas. These men were builders and doers, not theorists, and they wanted to be loyal to the Church and to the Pope.
But there’s more to the story than that. Better than Leo XIII or anyone else could have known at the time, the opinions condemned in the papal letter have turned out to be widely held among American Catholics today.
That is the case with the notion that each individual member of the Church can decide religious questions for himself or herself and that this remarkable ability comes directly to each one from the Holy Spirit. This opens the door to “cafeteria Catholicism” — a name given to the pick-and-choose selectivity regarding Church teaching on faith and morals now found among many Catholics.
All of which is simply to say it looks very much as if Pope Leo XIII wasn’t wrong to condemn Americanism — he was just ahead of his time. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Americanism undoubtedly continues to be a thorn in the side of the papacy. It is a deadly challenge to the central autocratic principle on which the Church of Rome is founded. Note in particular Pope Leo XIII's letter dated January, 1895, which exposes the papacy's opposition to the separation of Church and State. This is the constitutional guarantee of religious and secular freedom within the constraints of the civil law. (Hence the importance of Opus Dei which has a dominant influence on the Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.) The following article underscores the Americanism problem of the Church:
The Vatican spoke out authoritatively almost a century ago, but the lessons drawn from the American experience remain crucial for the Church today.
One hardly expects the 95th anniversary of a Church document to command a great deal of attention around the world-or even within the Church, for that matter-when almost no one reads the document in question these days. Still, when the 95th anniversary of rolled around early last year, it probably deserved better than the near total silence it received.
An apostolic letter addressed by Pope Leo XIII to Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore and dated January 22, 1899, is the papal document that condemned "Americanism." Today the Americanist impulse reigns supreme in American Catholicism. That is not a bad career record for what has been called a "phantom heresy."
To be fair, the Americanists of the 19th century-men like Father Isaac Hecker, founder of the Paulists; Orestes Brownson, the convert journalist and social critic who lies buried in the chapel crypt at the University of Notre Dame; and Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota-had no inkling of what would happen. They dreamed of evangelizing American culture, even as they faced the challenge of defending their Church against the slur that Catholicism could only be an alien force in a democratic, pluralistic society. . .
What is Americanism?
"There's not a dime's worth of difference between Catholics and their fellow Americans now in moral outlook or religious practice. We fornicate at the same rate. We divorce at the same rate. We abort our children at the same rate. We are materially rich and so, in true chauvinistic fashion, we claim favored-nation status before the Lord." That unflattering judgment appears in a recent article on Americanism by Father Rory Conley, a Washington, DC priest and student of Church history. Writing in (winter 1993), he calls what has happened "the triumph of Americanism over the Roman Catholic Church in this country." . . .
A case study
Consider the Knights of Columbus. . . . With 1.2 million members in the United States, this organization of American origin occupies a position of great importance in Catholic life. More than any other Church institution (with the possible exception of the parochial school), it is a distinctive expression of American Catholicism-one that tells much about the Church in this country. The Knights of Columbus were founded in 1882 in New Haven, Connecticut, by a young Irish-American priest, Father Michael J. McGivney, and a group of Irish-American laymen. Their choice of Columbus as patron was a true indicator of their intentions: a conscious symbolic affirmation of the compatibility of Catholicism and Americanism. Hadn't the Catholic Columbus arrived here in America first, well over a century before the (Protestant) Puritans reached Plymouth Rock? By putting the focus on the symbol of Columbus, argues historian Christopher J. Kauffman in his history of the K of C, Faith and Fraternalism, "this small group of New Haven Irish-American Catholics displayed their pride in America's Catholic heritage. The name Columbus evoked the aura of Catholicity and affirmed the discovery of America as a Catholic event."
In the years that followed, the Knights not only remained true to their original inspiration-the vision of their Church and their country forever linked-but the organization also functioned, practically speaking, as a powerful engine for the assimilation of several generations of Catholic immigrants into American culture. Irishmen, Germans, Poles, Italians, Slovaks-all became American as well as Catholic partly through the good offices of the K of C. Writes Kauffman:
From its origins to World War I, the Order's goals were most visibly expressed in its assertion of the social legitimacy and patriotic loyalty of Catholic immigrants [a striking instance of that is the Knights' "patriotic" Fourth Degree]. By accepting-indeed, extolling-the religious and ethnic pluralism of American society, by portraying Catholic citizenship as the highest form of American citizenship, by promoting American- Catholic culture...and by expressing a firm belief that the American Catholic experience has had a transforming effect upon Catholicism and upon American society, the Knights generally reflected the optimism characteristic of several ecclesiastical leaders associated with the "Americanist" posture in American Catholicism."
If the Knights' role in fostering the assimilation of Catholic immigrants diminished after the First World War, that was because Catholic immigration also diminished, thanks to changes in immigration law inspired (at least in part) by the nativist sentiment of the times. The basic affirmation-Catholicism and America are compatible- remained strong, so that in 1960 the Knights of Columbus took rich satisfaction from the fact that John E. Kennedy was a Fourth-Degree Knight.
A shift toward the counterculture
As the cultural revolution of the 1960s set in and progressed, however, the Knights' situation began to change. The change can be traced to-among other sources-the rhetoric of John W. McDevitt, Supreme Knight of the K of C in those years. McDevitt, who died last December at the age of 87, headed the organization from 1964 to 1977-by anyone's standards a stressful period in secular and ecclesiastical history. One measure of the times can be found in the increasingly negative tone of McDevitt's public comments about the Church's enemies within and without.
Responding in 1968 to the question, "Are the Knights progressive or conservative?" McDevitt argued that they were both: progressive on matters of social policy, "conservative in our reaction to those who lobby for causes which would rob our country of its ties to Judeo-Christian morality."
The inroads of secular humanism became a frequent McDevitt theme. In 1976, in one of his last major addresses as Supreme Knight, he lashed out at the Supreme Court as a source of much of the trouble. "Contrary to the original intent of a benign tolerance of all religions," he said, "the current court philosophy has forced government to take a position of negative neutrality on all religion." As a result, "we do have an established religion...the religion of irreligion-secular humanism, established and decreed by the courts." We have come a long way here from John Ireland's "glorious future... beneath the starry banner." . . .
The end of assimilation
Not all individual Knights of Columbus share the convictions and commitments of the organization's leadership; no group the size of the K of C enjoys uniformity like that. But these are the policies, the programs, and the principles of the Knights as a collective entity. Born in the late 19th century as a grassroots expression of the American Catholicism of that day, the K of C now is arguably the most strongly Roman Catholic institution of its size in the Church in the United States. Kauffman concludes his history with the observation: "Still grounded in a strong pride in the Catholic heritage of North America, Columbianism developed into a conscious cultivation of traditional Catholic loyalties to authority and of Catholic social and moral values in a society characterized by the decline of tradition." Having served for decades as a powerful force for cultural assimilation, the K of C now helps slow down what could otherwise be the terminal assimilation of American Catholics-their absorption to the vanishing point by the secular culture that surrounds and threatens to overwhelm them.
Plainly, the Knights of Columbus alone will not save the Catholic community in the United States from that fate. It remains to be seen whether anything will. Here and there, one sees signs of hope, especially in the increasing talk (if not yet action) regarding "Catholic identity." But the "American Church" is now dominant-so that, for example, the attenuated religious identity of those colleges that formerly called themselves "Catholic" and now tellingly call themselves colleges "in the Catholic tradition" occupies the mainstream albeit a mainstream in visible decline-of institutional Catholicism in the United States today.
For Catholics who regard this as a profoundly unhealthy state of affairs, there is an obvious conclusion. Roman Catholics in the United States must urgently explore the range of options open to them for practicing creative counterculturalism. Obvious models exist. These range from the Amish (separatism, flight-the deliberate effort to escape a corrupt and corrupting secular culture and raise walls against it) to the model of the Christian Coalition (aggressive engagement, in hopes of besting the adversary culture with political weapons). Does either model appeal to Roman Catholics of the United States? Is there some Catholic third way? Without panic, but in clear-eyed recognition of our parlous state, we need to begin talking about these things. If the Catholic Church in the United States means to survive, Americanism must finally- nearly a century after undertook to do the job be laid to rest. What comes next? (Underscored emphasis added.)
Note the profound implications of the last two sentences. It is a stark reminder of the ultimate despotism predicted in Rev. 13:11-17. However the final prophecy of the end is the event prophesied in Dan. 11:45. Events under Rev. 13 have been progressing so rapidly that covering them has diverted attention from the Daniel prophecy which is the very last sign that probation is about to close and the final apocalyptic events begin (Dan. 12:1.) It seems highly likely that a pause in the onward rush to consummate the theocratic dictatorship in America should be linked with the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45. Will Americanism play a major role? The religion and commitment of the man who has dethroned "Cyrus, the Chosen One" is significant:
Joe Biden’s Catholic politics are complicated—but deeply American
In spring of 1980, Pope John Paul II had one of the longest meetings of his fledgling papacy. It wasn’t with a world leader, a U.S. president or even a secretary of state. It was with a 37-year-old Joe Biden, a U.S. senator barely a year into his second term
According to a Catholic News Service account of the encounter, the pope shooed away Vatican aides several times when they attempted to interrupt the 45-minute conversation. After waving them out of the room, John Paul pulled his chair out from behind his desk to sit closer to Biden. The pontiff ribbed the senator about his age as the two discussed everything from the politics of Eastern Europe to the spread of communism in Latin America. Biden, a Roman Catholic from Pennsylvania coal country with an interest in foreign policy, listened intently.
But despite the thrill of meeting John Paul, there was one thing Biden refused to do: kiss the pope’s ring, a customary greeting when meeting an esteemed cleric. It was later revealed that it was Biden's mother who insisted he refrain, telling her son, “Don’t you kiss his ring.”
His refusal has become a hallmark of how Biden manages his faith, a throwback to a brand of mid-20th-century political Catholicism that eschews obsessive obedience to the Holy See on matters of policy. . .
“I’m as much a cultural Catholic as I am a theological Catholic,” Biden wrote in his book Promises to Keep: On Life in Politics. “My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world comes straight from my religion. It’s not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It’s the culture.”
It’s a form of faith that experts describe as profoundly Catholic in ways that resonate with millions of American believers: It offers solace in moments of anxiety or grief, can be rocked by long periods of spiritual wrestling and is more likely to be influenced by the quiet counsel of women in habits or one’s own conscience than the edicts of men in miters.
Biden’s complicated relationship with the Catholic hierarchy is a slight reimagining of the Catholicism modeled by John F. Kennedy, the United States' first and only Catholic president who, like Biden, declined to kiss a pontiff's ring when he met Pope Paul VI at the Vatican in 1963. . .
“When John Kennedy ran for president, I remember being so proud that he was Catholic," Biden told the The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware in 2005. "But he had to prove that he wasn’t ruled by his beliefs. I’m with John Kennedy on the role religion ought to play in politics.”
While serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1982, he faced a decision on whether to forward to the full Senate a constitutional amendment that would allow states to pass new abortion restrictions and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion. Biden voted for the resolution, but insisted in an impassioned speech that while he personally opposed abortion on religious grounds — “I’m probably a victim, or a product, however you want to phrase it, of my background,” he explained — he remained unsure if he had “a right to impose” his religious beliefs on others. . .
But in the years that followed, the line between public policy and private beliefs seemed to fluctuate. Biden voted against the anti-abortion amendment when it once again appeared before the Judiciary Committee in 1983, but in 1984, he backed an amendment praising the so-called Mexico City policy, which banned the use of federal money for foreign groups that provide abortion counseling or referrals. By 1987, advocates for abortion rights were already describing his voting record on the issue as “erratic.”
Biden's compartmentalization of faith and policy has become harder to maintain in recent years, especially after critics of pro-choice Catholic politicians became more vocal under John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI. In January, Biden was reportedly denied Communion at a South Carolina Catholic church due to his abortion stance. Shortly after Biden announced Kamala Harris, a Baptist, as his running mate, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island tweeted: “First time in awhile that the Democratic ticket hasn’t had a Catholic on it. Sad.”
“In 1960, Americans needed reassurance that Rome wouldn’t control the Catholic candidate’s conscience, and would allow Kennedy to govern in the nation’s interest,” Imperatori said. “This year, it seems that some bishops will accept nothing less than full control of Catholic consciences, be they the candidate’s, or the voters’.” . . .
Biden, for his part, has occasionally shown a willingness to return the clerics’ barbs. When he met with Benedict in 2011, Biden reportedly chastised the pontiff for cracking down on nuns like Campbell who had backed the ACA in defiance of the bishops.
“You are being entirely too hard on the American nuns,” Biden told the pope, according to “You are being entirely too hard on the American nuns,” Biden told the pope, according to The New York Times. “Lighten up.”
Meanwhile, Biden’s personal connection to the faith remains a highly visible part of his political persona. He carries a rosary at all times, fingering it during moments of anxiety or crisis. When facing brain surgery after his short-lived presidential campaign in 1988, he reportedly asked his doctors if he could keep the beads under his pillow. Earlier this year, rival Pete Buttigieg noticed Biden holding a rosary backstage before a primary debate. . .
Biden, who also lost his first wife and a child in an automobile accident shortly after being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972, talked about Beau’s death with Francis when the pontiff met with Biden’s extended family at the end of his 2015 U.S. visit. Biden later said the meeting with the pope “provided us with more comfort that even he, I think, will understand.”
When the two met again privately in St. Peter’s Basilica a year later during a Vatican conference on cancer, Ken Hackett, then ambassador to the Vatican, caught snippets of Francis offering “moving prayers and concerns about the vice president’s loss of a child.”
“Your religion is complicated, but your faith is something that really motivates and moves you every day — and gives you the strength to carry on,” Hackett said.
But it’s the nuns and rank-and-file Catholics, not popes, whom Biden most often relies on for religious counsel, once telling Campbell that it is “nuns and Jesuits who keep me Catholic.” It’s a preference shared by many of his fellow faithful: In opinion polls, U.S. Catholics show significantly higher support for nuns than for bishops.
Catholics are also more likely to side with Biden on issues of abortion and sexuality than with the church hierarchy. According to a recent RealClear Opinion Research poll, 53% of Catholics don’t agree with the church that abortion is “intrinsically evil,” and 51% say it should be legal in all or most cases. A 2019 Pew Research poll found that a sizable majority of Catholics — 61% — approve of same-sex marriage.
There is also broad agreement where Biden’s beliefs and church teachings overlap. Recent surveys show that most Catholics oppose President Donald Trump’s border wall and believe climate change is not only caused by humans but is one of the major issues facing the world. (Underscored emphasis added.)
In this report is represented a Roman Catholic deeply devoted to his religious faith, including its superstitions. The Rosary includes mysteries, twenty of them added by Pope John-Paul II; but the greatest mystery of all is how intelligent, sophisticated men and women can devote themselves to such practices as "praying the Rosary." It also has its origin in paganism (Cf. The TRUTH about the rosary.) As to Biden's Roman Catholicism in general, the above report is also a depiction of Americanism in action. It also reveals Biden's high comfort level in face to face meetings with the Popes. This is surely a portent of his coming relationship with Pope Francis, especially since the Pope is a Jesuit.
Here the question of separation of Church and State arises. Biden has declared an Americanist support for separation of Church and State:
Joe Biden's Views on Church and State
From "The Fourth R: Conflicts Over Religion in American Public Schools" by Joan DelFattore (Yale University Press 2004):
At a 1995 Senate hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have re-introduced school-sponsored prayer, among other forms of state-endorsed and state-subsidized religion, Senator Orrin Hatch argued that] [t]he government should foster spirituality . . . as an antidote to moral decay. Biden replied, "The coin of religious freedom, we must never forget, has two sides."
America is one of the most religious nations on Earth, he maintained, precisely because the government has stayed out of religion. In his view, the issue before the Senate was not whether religion was good but whether all Americans, including religious minorities, would benefit from increased government involvement with it. . .
From the Associated Press (August 2007):
Biden, a practicing Catholic, acknowledged that he rarely has talked about religion in his 34-year Senate career, but suggested that would change if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
Let me also add a quick summary of Senator Biden's record on some major church-state legislation that ultimately became law and some other church-state issues. Biden supported the Equal Access Act of 1984, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. As the first excerpt listed above indicates, Biden opposed the Istook amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution that was designed to reintroduce school-sponsored prayer and to allow other forms of government-endorsed and government-subsidized religion. The Istook amendment was defeated in 1998.
Biden criticized a court decision that held that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" violated the First Amendment. He has spoken against teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public school science classrooms, and he supported Clinton administration efforts to help public school officials, parents, and students to better understand religion's place in public schools under the First Amendment.
From a Christian Science Monitor piece on how Biden's faith informs his public work (August 2007):
"The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power," he said in an interview with the Monitor. "It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse."
The issues that have most engaged Biden in public life draw on those teachings, from halting violence against women to genocide. At a personal level, his faith provides him peace, he says. "I get comfort from carrying my rosary, going to mass every Sunday. It's my time alone," he says. . . .
But Biden believes he can bridge much of that divide. "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine," says Biden, a six-term Democratic senator from Delaware. "There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that.". . .
"My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world comes straight from my religion. It's not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It's the culture," he writes. . .
Biden was one of the first Catholic politicians of the Vatican II generation. From 1962 to 1965, the Vatican Council II produced documents that opened the door to ecumenical dialogue, freedom of religion and conscience, and greater involvement of the laity in affairs of the church, including saying the mass in English and more emphasis on individual Bible study.
"I was raised at a time when the Catholic Church was fertile with new ideas and open discussion about some of the basic social teaching of the Catholic Church," Biden says. "Questioning was not criticized; it was encouraged."
"[A Catholic teacher] led me to see that if you cannot defend your faith to reason, then you have a problem," Biden says. . .
On the Senate floor, the tough votes also came early and often. In his first term, Biden faced the first of many votes on whether to curtail abortion rights for women. As a freshman Democrat, he was approached by all sides. He told them that while he personally opposes abortion, he would not vote to overthrow the US Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the right to terminate a pregnancy. Nor, however, would he vote to use federal funds to fund abortion.
"I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society," he writes in his autobiography. . . .
"Joe Biden is one of the most sincere Catholics I've known in my
40 years as a priest," says Monsignor William Kerr, executive
director of the Claude Pepper Center at Florida State
University. The two men met by chance outside Biden's Senate
office and began a conversation on faith and politics that has
continued nearly 30 years. Monsignor Kerr recounts a
conversation with Biden on Pope John Paul II's efforts to
discourage President Bush from going to war in Iraq. He says
that Biden told him: "I just have to tell you the pope's wrong
on this, I'm going with the president. That was morality, this
is politics."
Looking back on this decision, he writes, "I made a mistake." He
had "vastly underestimated" the incompetence of the Bush
administration in its conduct of the war. The "fantasy" of
remaking Iraq in the US image was a goal that could not be
imposed on a "fragile and decimated country," he writes in his
new book. Instead, Biden proposes a partition of Iraq along
sectarian and ethnic lines to help restore security for Iraqis –
and more robust international diplomacy to help sustain it.
Without taking a position on how Catholics should vote, Biden makes a case for staying connected to the church and its culture. "If I were an ordained priest, I'd be taking some issue with some of the more narrow interpretations of the Gospel being taken now," Biden says. "But my church is more than 2,000 years old. There's always been a tug of war among prelates and informed lay members."
Democratic Candidates on Religion, Denver Post (July 2007):
In 2005, Biden told The News Journal (Wilmington, Del.): "This is a nation founded on the idea of the separation of church and state. After 200 years, why the hell would you want to start messing with that?" Biden also stated that his religion is "part of my spirituality, part of my identity." However, Biden supports abortion rights and federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research, stances that run in opposition to those of his church.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), on separation of church and state:
"It was not written to prohibit the government's acknowledgement of God. In my opinion, the court's decision is dead wrong."
Joe Biden on teaching intelligent design in public science classes (The Hotline, August 2005):
Pres. Bush's comments last week "supporting the teaching of intelligent design' alongside the theory of evolution in public school science classes has fueled concerns among some of the wall between religion" and gov't " could be breached. This is a nation founded on the idea of the separation of church and state. After 200 years, why . . . would you want to go messing with that?" (Underscored emphasis added.)
Joe Biden appears to be firmly committed to the constitutional separation of Church and State. Although only peripherally relevant to this paper, it is worthy of note that encroachments on the First Amendment by the motto "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance are actually examples of pressure by Christian organizations to identify the United 'States as a "Christian" nation. The motto in its present form was promoted by the National Reform Association, a Protestant organization. The Pledge in its present form was promoted by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus. Anyone who wishes to be fully informed on the role of these two organizations in pressing for recognition of the United States as a "Christian" nation in violation of the Constitution will find this essay to be a comprehensive history of their successful advocacy: History of Motto “In God We Trust” and “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Christian Supremacists have been at work for a long time. President Elect Joe Biden shares the blind spot of jurists, politicians, and the body politic in general to the fact that the inclusion of "God" in the Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance has always been a religious exercise in violation of the separation of Church and State. It is the light of Bible prophecy which alerts to the involvement of Theocrats and their objectives.
The Theocrats are now facing a frustrating interruption of their headlong rush to complete and consolidate their absolute power over the American nation. It must be infuriating to the participants in the "ecumenism of hate" that a Roman Catholic who is committed to the separation of Church and State has dethroned their "Cyrus," "the one chosen by god." they hate him, as they also hate Pope Francis:
The Catholics Who Hate Joe Biden—And Pope Francis
Some of Trump’s most committed Catholic supporters have leveled dark charges against Biden as they battle to sway the vote in crucial swing states. And wait until you hear what they think of the pope.
Joe Biden or Donald Trump: Who’s the better Catholic? If this seems like an odd question to raise in the context of a race for the highest secular office in America—and a race in which one of the two candidates is Protestant—never mind. Both campaigns, and their surrogates, are hotly contesting the answer. . .
Of course, every presidential race since Roe v. Wade has featured tension between single-issue anti-abortion-rights Catholic voters and the more liberal, “social justice” Catholics who consider abortion just one issue of many. This time, though, the Catholic wars have greatly expanded. Trump’s amorality, and actions such as Attorney General Bill Barr’s resumption of the death penalty after a 20-year hiatus, have something to do with that: Liberal Catholics are now united in a kind of concentrated fury that conservatives have always directed at abortion. But another factor is the war within the Catholic Church in America—which has become more vicious and is fueled by the same forces that have wrought polarization and conspiracism in U.S. politics. While Joe Biden says he is fighting for the soul of the country, U.S. Catholics are fighting for the soul of their Church.
The president has aligned his reelection campaign with a proudly revanchist corner of the Church, one unfamiliar to many American Catholics, even those adamantly opposed to abortion. This faction’s positions on women, gay people, Muslims, immigration, socialism, and climate change are much closer to those of pro-Trump white evangelicals than to those of liberal Catholics, whom they consider not to be Catholics at all. Far from being bothered by Trump’s scuffles with the pope—Francis has called the president’s immigration policies “not Christian,” Trump has called him “disgraceful” for saying such a thing, and so on—these ultraconservatives applaud the attacks on the leader of their Church. To them, Francis is the embodiment of abhorrent modernist, globalist, even secularist values.
The effective leader of this part of the Church, which is both superglued to certainty and whirring with conspiracy, is Carlo Maria Viganò. “So honored by Archbishop Viganò’s incredible letter to me,” Trump tweeted in early June, to little general notice. “I hope everyone, religious or not, reads it!” Later, during one of the several White House interviews he has granted to EWTN, the conservative Catholic television network, the president lauded Viganò as a “great gentleman,” who’d written “a tremendous letter of support from the Catholic Church.” . . .
In late July, Trump appointed Taylor Marshall to his campaign’s Catholic Advisory Board. A Texan and convert to Catholicism, Marshall has long used YouTube to propagate a version of the faith that combines hard-core traditionalism with cloak-and-dagger intrigue. “From the year A.D. 33 to 2020, Catholicism has not changed one iota,” he stated in a recent video, terming those who disagree “algae, bacteria, goo.” In his new book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church From Within, Marshall alleges a centuries-old plot to groom recruits to rise in the Church hierarchy, pervert its teachings, and thus empower the forces of global Freemasonry. He quotes admiringly from admonitions, laid down in the early 19th century by Pope Gregory XVI, against such notions as liberty of conscience and the separation of Church and state. As for Francis, Marshall depicts him as the culmination of “organized efforts” of the “enemies of Christ” to place a “pope for Satan on the Roman Chair of Saint Peter.”
Lately, Marshall has turned his prolific video-production efforts to promoting Viganò’s case against Biden—entwining it with the case against Francis. “They all want Joe Biden, who is a fake Catholic … on the so-called throne in Washington, D.C.,” he says of the pope and his liberal confreres, “so they can continue their agenda, which is to create the East-West globalism.” Translation: Deep-state China and deep-state America will converge with their Vatican enablers to do the devil’s work on Earth. . .
To take an arguably more germane page from history, John F. Kennedy had to go on television in 1960 to reassure voters that he was not too Catholic to serve as president. Sixty years later, Biden is compelled to reassure voters that he’s Catholic enough. Rarely, in this melee, has anyone paused to ask why Biden’s religion—not his character or morality, but his religion—is an issue in a political system carefully constructed by the Founders to prevent such tests of avowed faith. But maybe someone should. (All but one underscoring added; italics in the original.
What the facts reveal is that there is an alliance of right-wing Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, with some Jews, Mormons, and even some Secularists. The Secularists are presumably primarily interested in the political ideology of the Religious Right and not their theology. One may make an educated guess that they are mainly interested in wealth and power.
THE POWERS REVEALED IN REVELATION 13
The prophecies of Revelation 13 involve three powers. Of these three which are identified in the following study, the third creates an agent which is distinctly a separate entity, just as a human agent in contractual relationships is a different person from the principal person creating the agency. This is a critically important point in the context of the ultimate tyranny predicted in Revelation 13:
The
Recent events and the forces
at work behind the events as indicated in prophetic Scripture indicate that the
final phase of the great controversy between Christ and Satan has begun. The
final battle is pending. It dare not be overlooked that the revelation given to
John on
The book of Revelation designates three powers symbolically represented as the "dragon," the "beast," and the "false prophet" which vomit out "frogs," which are defined as "spirits of devils" which in turn "go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world to gather them to the battle (πόλεμος - war) of that great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14). They are gathered "together into the place which is called in Hebrew, Har-Magedon" (verse 16, ARV)..
These powers - the dragon, beast, and false prophet - are defined symbolically in chapters 12 and 13, and placed in a locality, "heaven," "sea," or "earth." In the 12th Chapter, "heaven" is used either as the screen on which the drama is portrayed (vs. 1, 3) or heaven itself from which is heard "a loud voice" (verse 10). Beginning with verse 12, the warfare is transferred to the earth and sea, a "beast" rising "up out of the sea (13:1);" and a second beast "coming up out of the earth" (13:11). This second beast is designated as the false prophet. Compare Rev. 13:14 with 19:20. . .
A simple identification of the "beast" is: it is the religious power which arose from the prophetic "sea" and for "forty and two months" (13:5) used the state to carry out its agenda until the state turned on her and inflicted a "deadly wound." The "image to the beast" would be the creation of a government in the prophetic "earth" which would carry out the agenda of the "false prophet." To this end the "religious right" has been seeking to create through the Christian Coalition a theocratic government which will enact and force their agenda on the people of the United States of America revoking the liberty and freedom so long enjoyed by those dwelling in the prophetic "earth."
A perceptive, documented, analysis of the current situation in the prophetic "earth" is to be found in the Yurica Report prepared by Katherine Yurica, a lawyer, and her Editorial and Research Assistant, Laurie Hall - "The Despoiling of America." This report which was first issued, February 11, 2004, documents "How George W. Bush became the head of a new American Dominionist Church/State" A footnote [# 58] was corrected Nov. 6, 2004. This correction alone is alarming. It reads:
Taking his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia [the Vatican "voice" on the Supreme Court] argued, a democratic government, being seen as 'nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals...' Democracy, according to Scalia, creates problems: it can foster civil disobedience."
The Report begins with a discussion of "The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America:"
It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it. And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty. On December 24, 2001, Pat Robinson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.
Robertson's act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush Administration was a government under God that was lead by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth.
Robertson himself had sought to run for the presidency of the United States and entered the primaries as a candidate for the Republican Party. He has promoted via his 700 Club TV show, a political religious movement called Dominionism. Dominionism started with the Gospel teaching of the invisible and spiritual "kingdom of God" and turned this concept into a literal political empire that could be taken by force. Forgetting that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world," the framers of Dominionism boldly presented a gospel whose purpose was to inspire Christians to enter politics and execute world domination so that Jesus could return to an earth prepared for His earthly rule by His faithful "regents." This cult has gathered in an estimated thirty-five million Americans who calling themselves Christian form the core of the religious right. Unless recognized for what it is, Americans will find themselves living in a theocracy that has already spelled out its intentions to change every aspect of American life including its cultural life, its Constitution and its laws.
This cult, born in Christian Reconstructionism, was founded by the late R. J. Rushdoony. The core included Rushdoony, his son-in-law, Gary North, Pat Robertson, Herb Titus, the former dean of Robertson's Regent University School of Public Policy, Charles Colson, Robertson's political strategist, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, the late Francis Schaeffer, and Paul Crouch, the founder of TBN, the world's largest television network, plus an army of television and radio evangelists and news talk show hosts.
Prior to his death, Schaeffer was the leading evangelical theologian. Appearing on the 700 Club show, he urged revolt against what he termed a humanistic society. While not using the word "Dominionism," he charged that the "dominant culture" in the United States was the humanistic, and that Christians had to regain the dominance. He was joined in this appeal for Christians of the religious right to get into politics by Billy Graham. Appearing on the same show, April 29, 1985, he stated:
I'm for evangelicals running for public office and winning if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy, getting control of the executive branch of government. ... I would like to see every true believer involved in politics in some shape or form.
According to these men, Schaefer, Graham and Robertson, - leading voices in the American protestant church which arose in the "earth," - "God's people" have a moral duty to change the government of the United States. . .
From the above passages can be seen the false prophet clearly identified as an apostate Protestant (Evangelical) movement of longer standing than the present alliance of the Religious Right:
The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation
This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.
Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.
But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism. . .
So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.
In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero. . .
Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.
In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.
“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.” (Underscored emphasis added.)
Paul Weyrich was the first among equals in seizing upon the segregationist history of the apostate Evangelical Protestants to bring about a formidable political alliance with Roman Catholics. It is important to note that Weyrich and his Roman Catholic associates were certain that they had the support of the Pope. Rome is ever on the alert to ensnare apostate and unwary Protestants. This was the case with Vatican II, which was convened after Protestant ecumenism had advanced significantly. Rome approved of what Weyrich and his associates accomplished; but this was far from approving of Protestant Dominionism.
The Beast
and the False Prophet are clearly defined in the Bible. The
historical record in
The
ARE PROPHETIC EVENTS IN PALESTINE ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD?
How Will The Obstacles Be Overcome?
The entire Religious Right alliance has impeded the Vatican's progress towards establishing a presence in Jerusalem in fulfillment of Dan. 11:45. A harmony of documentation on both relevant United Nations Resolutions and Papal Policy appears to define a probable path to fulfillment of the prophecy:-
Status of Jerusalem
The Holy See has had a long-held position on Jerusalem and the protection of the holy places in the Holy Land which predates the British Mandate for Palestine. The Vatican's historic claims and interests, as well as those of Italy and France were based on the former Protectorate of the Holy See and the French Protectorate of Jerusalem, which were incorporated in article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, but also provided: “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine“. The Balfour Declaration and the proviso were also incorporated in the Palestinian Mandate (1923), but which also provided in articles 13 and 14 for an international commission to resolve competing claims on the holy places. These claimants had officially lost all capitulation rights by article 28 of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). However, Britain never gave any effect to Mandate provisions arts 13 & 14. During the drafting of proposals that culminated in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (also known as Resolution 181) in 1947, the historic claims of the Vatican, Italy and France were revived, and expressed as the call for the special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. This was also confirmed in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in 1948, which maintained the position that Jerusalem be made an international city,[3] under United Nations supervision
Pope Pius XII supported this idea in the 1949 encyclical Redemptoris nostri cruciatus. It was proposed again during the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.[4] The Vatican reiterated this position in 2012, recognizing Jerusalem's "identity and sacred character" and calling for freedom of access to the city's holy places to be protected by "an internationally guaranteed special statute". After the US recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December 2017, Pope Francis repeated the Vatican’s position: "I wish to make a heartfelt appeal to ensure that everyone is committed to respecting the status quo of the city, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations." (Internal hyperlink and underscored emphasis added.)
U. N. Security Council Document S/14032
The United Nations Security Document #S/14032, dated, 30 June 1980, was given general distribution in both English and French. A cover note by the President of the Security Council read:
"The attached letter dated 30 June 1980 from the Charge d'Affaires a.i. of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations was addressed to the President of the Security Council.”
"In accordance with the request contained therein, the letter is circulated as a document of the Security Council."
The letter signed by Monsignor Alain Lebeaupin is included in the Document as Annex I. It reads:
"On instructions from His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State of His Holiness, I have the honor to request you to circulate as a Security Council document the attached text published in the 30 June issue of Osservatore Romano, which reflects the position of the Holy See concerning Jerusalem and all the Holy Places. The English translation, which was made from the Italian, may be regarded as authorized." . . .
In short, the Jerusalem question cannot be reduced to a mere "free access for all to the holy places." Concretely it is also required: (1) that the overall character of Jerusalem as a sacred heritage shared by all three monotheistic religions be guaranteed by appropriate measures! (2) that the religious freedom in all its aspects be safeguarded for them; (3) that the complex of rights acquired by the various communities over the shrines and the centres for spirituality, study and welfare be protected; (4) that the continuance and development of religious, educational and social activity by each community be ensured; (5) that this be achieved through an "appropriate juridical safeguard" that does not derive from the will of only one of the parties interested.
This "juridical safeguard" corresponds, in substance, to the "special statute" that the Holy See desires for Jerusalem: "this Holy City embodies interests and aspirations that are shared by different peoples." The very universalism of the three monotheistic religions, which constitute the faith of many millions of believers in every continent, calls for a responsibility that goes well beyond the limits of the States of the region. The significance and value of Jerusalem are such as to surpass the interests of any single State or bilateral agreements between one State and others.
Furthermore, the international community has already dealt with the Jerusalem, question; for instance, UNESCO very recently made an important intervention with the aim of safeguarding the artistic and religious riches represented by Jerusalem as a whole, as the "common heritage of humanity."
THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION AND JERUSALEM
As early as its second session, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved on 29 November 1947 a resolution on Palestine of which the third part was devoted to Jerusalem. The resolution was confirmed in the next two sessions, on 11 December 1948 and 9 December 1949 while on 14 April 1950 the Trusteeship Council approved a "special statute" for the city on the basis of the Assembly's decisions. The solution proposed by the United Nations envisaged the setting up of a "corpus separatum" for "Jerusalem and the surrounding area," administered by the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.
This "territorial internationalization" of Jerusalem was not of course put into effect, because in the 1948 conflict the Arab side occupied the eastern zone of the city and the Israeli side, the western. The position of the United Nations does not appear at least as yet to have been formally revoked. The General Assembly, as well as the Security Council, has repeatedly, beginning with the resolution of 4 July 1967, insisted on the invalidity of any measure to change the status of the city.
The Holy See considers the safeguarding of the Sacred and Universal character of Jerusalem to be of such primary importance as to require any Power that comes to exercise sovereignty over the Holy Land to assume the obligation, to the three religious confessions spread throughout the world, to protect not only the special character of the City, but also the rights connected, on the basis of an appropriate juridical system guaranteed by a higher international body. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
While there is broad agreement between the United Nations and the papacy on the internationalization of Jerusalem with the Vatican playing a critical role, the "ecumenism of hate" has resolutely opposed it, with the Evangelical part of the alliance in the leadership. Roman Catholics tend to disagree with the Christian and Jewish Zionism which is the basis of Evangelical opposition.
The "ecumenism of hate" is not going away, and it is not reasonable to expect that it will, voluntarily or under pressure:
Culture war forever (October 25, 2020)
After four years of dialed-up-to-11 political engagement, does all that energy just evaporate? . . .
But perhaps most importantly, Trump made a lot of noise about extricating America from endless wars — instead, he’s left us embedded in a brand new one.
The Culture Wars are our new Forever War. They are all-encompassing and constant; there is nothing they do not touch. Books and movies, basketball courts and football fields, late night television and daytime talk shows, art museums and corporate offices. Somewhere in between the rise of woke capitalism, the fall of the girlboss, Melissa McCarthy’s Sean Spicer impression, and the deep-dive investigative reports on whether Star-Lord might be a secret Republican, the entire cultural landscape has become a battlefield. Unlike our actual military engagements, participation in this war is not optional. Everything is political, including being apolitical; if you’re not with us, you’re one of them.
Even before pandemic lockdowns, police violence and mass protests ramped tensions up to a fever pitch, the political capture of the national consciousness was already in the works. If Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency ignited a spark of awareness, his election turned it into a wildfire. In place of frivolous trends, we now had haute-couture emblazoned with ‘Not My President’; institutions like Saturday Night Live and The Late Show stopped looking for laughs and went all-in on ‘clapter’ (perhaps understanding that the alternative was four years of nonstop anguished screaming.) Even now, with what appears to be the end of the Trump presidency looming ever closer, the entertainment landscape is pretty much Resistance cheerleading as far as the eye can see. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Under the circumstances there is no logical reason to suppose that this nation will ever return to peace and tranquillity. The die is cast: the nation and the world appear to be in the final stages of history.
The post-election responses of right-wing religious leaders to the defeat of Donald Trump provide clear indications of a continuing culture war driven by the "ecumenism of hate." This should not be surprising. The profile of this union of right-wing Roman Catholics and Evangelicals perfectly fits the Image to the Beast which ushers in the tyranny of Rev. 13:15-17. As already discussed, the fundamentalist Evangelicals in particular have a long history of commitment to a theocratic dictatorship, and Rome's history of persecution is well-known. The responses of the Evangelical leaders to Trump's defeat show that they have no inclination to give up on their goal of "Christian" supremacy:
Minister Prophesies Trump Comeback, Says 'God Hates' Biden Support of Equality Act, Abortion Rights
Christian "prophets" and ministers across the U.S. are following up on their nearly unanimous prophecies proclaiming President Donald Trump would "without question" win re-election. But with Joe Biden now named President-elect, church leaders are either apologizing or doubling down and predicting a Trump comeback led by the Supreme Court and Baby Boomers.
Several evangelical and Christian church leaders, including televangelist Pat Robertson, White House spiritual adviser Paula White and First Baptist Church Pastor Robert Jeffress, all made bold predictions about a sweeping Trump victory in the presidential election. Those hopes were dashed Saturday as nearly every major news outlet declared Biden the winner, prompting a scrambled effort among many so-called "prophets" to explain their glaring error in interpreting God.
Update: Bethel Church's Kris Vallotton has since deleted his Instagram apology for getting the election wrong. Followers accused him of caving to bipartisan election officials, every major news outlet and the vote count . . .
All of the self-proclaimed Christian leaders who prophesied Trump's win reiterated that their incorrect message doesn't mean they are "false prophets," urging their followers to "keep trust in the prophets."
Two Christian leaders who prophesied Trump victory on Election Day are responding in very separate ways. North Carolina-based "prophet," Jeremiah Johnson, is predicting Trump to reclaim victory as God exposes voter corruption in the coming months. He cites a vision he had from earlier this year in which Baby Boomers "lift Donald Trump up" and uphold his presidency as he'd predicted throughout 2020. Johnson wrote to his tens of thousands of followers Saturday that "God HATES" Biden's policies and Christian supporters of the Democrat should not mock his prophecy as "false" because they face punishment for "eternity."
On the other side of the country, California-based Bethel Church Pastor Kris Vallotton, apologized for "missing the prophecy" on Trump defeating Biden. The 11,000-member megachurch leader said he made a "major, major mistake" after correctly prophesying Trump would not be removed by impeachment earlier this year as well as Barack Obama's election in 2008. . .
Distraught followers of both prophets said they felt reassured "God's Word" would come true and Trump will prevail, with dozens of top comments citing Democrat support of abortion and the conservative-leaning Supreme Court as evidence of what's to come.
"While we wait until January to determine our next US President, observe the stunning blindness and hypocrisy in the body of Christ," Johnson wrote to his tens of thousands of followers. "Christians who voted for the shedding of innocent blood, the Equality Act, and anti Israel legislation (ALL things God HATES) are now picking up stones to persecute prophets who supposedly missed it," Johnson posted Saturday.
"Either a lying spirit has filled the mouths of numerous trusted prophetic voices in America or Donald J. Trump really has won the presidency and we are witnessing a diabolical and evil plan unfold to steal the election," Johnson wrote, saying "every legitimate prophet I know" is still predicting Trump to win by January. . .
Just days before the election, '700 Club' host Pat Robertson proclaimed Trump would "without question" defeat Biden. But he added that Trump's re-election would prompt assassination attempts, world war threats and ultimately the "End Times" of the world. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Note the denials by these religious leaders that they are "false prophets," which they actually are precisely as prophesied in Rev. 13. If they were not already so completely under the control of the lying spirits of Rev. 16:13-14 their apparent knowledge of this passage of Scripture might possibly bring them to repentance; but a legitimate judgment can be made by true Christians that they have so long grieved the Holy Spirit that they are now beyond any hope of redemption.
What the immediate future holds for America and the world remains to be seen. However, the prophetic Word provides clues, since Dan. 11:45 is yet to be brought to fulfillment. One clue is the politics of the Vatican on Jerusalem, and therefore the need to suppress Zionism. There is also evidence that President-elect Joe Biden already has an established relationship with Pope Francis, who is for the time being at enmity with the "ecumenism of hate." We need to be watching developments in Palestine carefully.
ADDENDUM
The "False Prophet" right-wing Evangelicals have long labored to achieve their goal of establishing a theocratic dictatorship in America and they will not give up. However, the present reality is beginning to penetrate their apostate minds. Pat Robertson, in the past "The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America," has changed his mind about Donald Trump's prospects of overturning the 2020 presidential election result::
Pat Robertson says Trump lives in 'alternate reality' and Biden will be president
Televangelist media mogul Pat Robertson acknowledged on Monday that President-elect Joe Biden won the election, in conflict with President Trump, who continues to fight the outcome of the election even after the Electoral College confirmed the results.
During an airing of “The 700 Club” on Monday, Robertson, who is considered a Trump ally, responded to reports that the Supreme Court had denied another attempt by the Trump campaign to invalidate votes in other states.
“I had prayed and hoped that there might be some better solution, but I don’t think — I think it’s all over,” Robertson said. “I think the Electoral College has spoken. I think the Biden corruption has not totally been brought to fruition, but it doesn’t seem to be affecting the Electoral College, and I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to move in to do anything.” . . .
Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent George Thomas later asked Robertson if he thought Trump should run again in 2024, as reports have suggested he has said to allies privately.
"I think it will be a mistake," said Robertson. "My money would be on Nikki Haley. I think she'd make a tremendous candidate for the Republican candidate. You know, with all his talent and the ability to raise money and grow large crowds, the president still lives in an alternate reality. He really does."
"People say, 'Well, he lies about this, that,' but, no, he isn't lying. To him, that's the truth," Robertson said, referring to Trump's claims of having the largest inauguration crowd, having the highest approval ratings and saving NBC with his show "The Apprentice," which Robertson said "really aren't true."
Though still praising Trump, Robertson said the president's behavior had been "erratic," making note of the officials he has fired in the weeks since Election Day.
"It would be well to say, 'You've had your day. It's time to move on,'" Robertson said, addressing Trump.
The effect of Robertson's desertion of Trump remains to b e seen. He wields much influence in the right-wing evangelical world. It is noteworthy that he appears to be inclined to anoint Nikki Haley as the political successor to Trump, which would be an intriguing choice after "Cyrus, the Chosen One."
HISTORIC ROMAN CATHOLIC ANTAGONISM TOWARDS LIBERALISM The historical record reveals that what the Church of Rome is (Dan. 7:1-8 & 11-12; Thess. 2:3-9; Rev. 13:1-4,) she accuses liberalism of being (demonic.) For what Rome has accomplished (degradation of the morals of the nations by destroying faith in the Bible,) she has attributed to liberalism. Astonishingly, she includes the Protestant Reformation in her diatribes against liberalism. From Rome's own declarations it is clear that for her own survival, and above all to achieve her objective of world domination liberalism, and Protestantism by association in Rome's terminology, must be destroyed:- Catholic Social Teaching 101: What is Liberalism and What does the Church really say about it? Leo XIII takes up the mantle of his predecessors To begin, we must admit that the collision between liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching is present in the very founding document of the latter, which is generally taken to be Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum of 1891. If we meant to study Liberalism more completely, we’d have to go back even further to Popes Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos, 1832) and Pius IX (Quanta Cura, 1864). However, for the sake of brevity and in accordance with the plan of this work, which centers on the corpus of CST proper, we will reach back no further than Leo XIII. But precisely because Rerum Novarum is to be our starting point, we must briefly step outside of this document and take a look at the mind of the pontiff that produced it, and see how Leo XIII had been dealing with the problem of liberalism throughout his papacy. At the same time, this requires a few remarks on the nature of liberalism itself. The three-fold expression of Liberalism Liberalism appears on three fronts, corresponding to three different spheres of man’s social life: It is religious, political, and economic. The religious form can be identified most clearly in the principles of the Protestant Reformation, personified by Martin Luther. The consequences of Luther’s religious liberalism were directly addressed by Leo XIII at various points, specifically in his Providentissimus Deus (1893) where he pointed to the proper principles for the study of Holy Scripture and identified the problems created by subjecting it to secular methods of criticism and private judgment. The political form of liberalism, on the other hand, was condemned by Leo XIII even more thoroughly, through documents such as Diuturnum (1881), Immortale Dei (1885), and Libertas Praestantissimum (1888). It was within these encyclicals that he clearly identified his foes and summarized their errors: “But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, ‘I will not serve’; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.” (Libertas, 14) “…these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason.” (Libertas, 15) All of this predates the writing of Rerum Novarum, which was itself addressed to the third form of liberalism—the economic. Economic liberalism is analogous to what today we call Capitalism, and centers on the ideology of free markets. This movement can be roughly identified with the person of Adam Smith, thereby completing our “trifecta” of liberal figureheads. As Leo XIII saw, economic liberalism was simply another application of the principles he had seen carried out in every other area. Acknowledging this context, we can enter into the relationship between liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching, proceeding chronologically through the documents which go to form the main corpus of the latter. . . (Internal ellipsis in original; underscored emphasis added.) The reader will recognize in the following statement which references Providentissimus Deus, "the proper principles for the study of Holy Scripture and identified the problems created by subjecting it to secular methods of criticism and private judgment," that this is not a reference to the Protestant principles of exegesis of the Bible, nor to Rome's own Higher Criticism. The Pope must have been referring to repudiation of Roman Catholic Magisterium. Pope Leo's antagonism towards Liberalism targeted "Americanism" in the Catholic Church of America: Leo XIII’s critique [of Americanism] is more substantial than apologists for Americanism care to admit. Much of it, in fact, is pertinent to conditions in American Catholicism today. One set of condemned ideas concerns ranking natural virtues above supernatural ones, along with a division of virtues into “passive” and “active” that gives preference to the latter as more suited to modern times. The Pope says this fosters “contempt … for the religious life” and the disparagement of religious vows. Here, one might say, is a Victorian anticipation of the crisis that has afflicted religious life in the United States over the last half century. Turning to the origins of Americanism, Leo XIII says it reflects a desire to attract to the Church “those who dissent.” Central to it, he adds, is the idea that the Church — “relaxing its old severity” — must “show indulgence” to new opinions, including even those that downplay “the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained.” Leo XIII’s reply is that how flexible the Church can and should be is not up to individuals but rests with “the judgment of the Church.” Opposing this orthodox view, he notes, is the modern error that everyone could decide for himself, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit today gives individuals “more and richer gifts than in times past” — no less than “a kind of hidden instinct” in religious matters. All this and more was the Americanism condemned by the Pope. (Underscored emphasis added.) As strong as some of the statements made by Leo XIII are, other Roman Catholic publications have expressed themselves in unabashedly violent terms: A LIBERAL OBJECTION TO ULTRAMONTANE METHODS The Liberals tell us that our violent methods of warfare against them are not in conformity with the Pope's counsels to moderation and charity. Has he not exhorted Catholic writers to a love of peace and union; to avoid harsh, aggressive and personal polemics? How then can we Ultramontanes reconcile the Holy Father's wishes with our fierce methods? Let us consider the force of the Liberals' objection. To whom does the Holy Father address these repeated admonitions? Always to the Catholic press, to Catholic journalists, to those who are supposed to be worthy of the name. These counsels to moderation and charity, therefore, are always addressed to Catholics, discussing with other Catholics free questions, i.e., not involving established principles of faith and morality, and do not in any sense apply to Catholics waging a mortal combat with the declared enemies of the faith. There is no doubt that the Pope here makes no allusion to the incessant battles between Catholics and Liberals, for the simple reason that Catholicity is truth and (119) Liberalism heresy, between which there can be no peace, but wear [war? to the death. It is certain by consequence, therefore, that the Pope intends his counsels to apply to our family quarrels, unhappily much too frequent; and that by no means does he seek to forbid us from waging an unrelenting stiff with the eternal enemies of the Church, whose hands, filled with deadly weapons, are ever lifted against the faith and its defenders. Therefore there can be no contradiction between the doctrine we expound and that of the Briefs and Allocutions of the Holy Father on the subject, provided that logically both apply to the same matter under the same respect, which holds perfectly in this instance. For how can we interpret the words of the Holy Father in any other way? It is a rule of sound exegesis that any passage in Holy Scripture should always be interpreted according to the letter, unless such meaning be in opposition to the context; we can only have recourse to a free or figurative interpretation, when this opposition is obvious. This rule applies also to the interpretation of pontifical documents. How can we suppose the Pope in contradiction with all Catholic tradition from Jesus Christ to our own times? Is it for a (120) moment admissible that the style and method of most of the celebrated Catholic polemists and apologists from St. Paul to St Francis de Sales should be condemned by a stroke of the pen? Clearly not; for if we were to understand the Pope's counsels to moderation and calm, in the sense in which the Liberal conclusion would construe them, we should have to answer evidently yes. Consequently we must conclude that the Holy Father's words are not addressed to Catholics battling with the enemies of Catholicity, but only to Catholics controverting on free questions amongst themselves. Enmity towards Liberalism was originally a uniquely Roman Catholic phenomenon. The following venomous attack is the work of a Pentecostal minister, and it brings to mind the convergence of interest between the papacy and Pentecostalism. There is here a further convergence with Rev. 16:13-16: Liberalism: a Demonic Deception & Satanic Takeover in American Thinking Summary: I am disgusted with large portions of the American political scene, including much that occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. For the record, I am a registered nonaffiliated voter. I have no party identity and haven’t for some years. That said, I see multiple positions currently embraced in American liberalism that defy biblical teachings. And that, not politics, is of the greatest importance to me. I have no interest in dealing with these issues politically. My focus is entirely on examining some of the pillars of American liberal thought from the standpoint of Scripture. That to me is the overriding, governing principle in this discussion. I am not interested in the names of candidates or of political parties. None will be named. My purpose is to examine from a biblical perspective current American liberalism (the term "progressives" has been embraced by many "liberals," although the two are not always identical). The conclusion I have drawn is that much of modern liberalism is based on demonic deception and represents a Satanic takeover of a large portion of present-day American thought. 1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Revelation 12:9, Amplified Bible …the age-old serpent who is called the devil and Satan, he who continually deceives and seduces the entire inhabited world… Ephesians 6:12, New Living Translation For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places. Our battle is not against flesh-and-blood enemies. Rather, our ultimate opponents are in the unseen world, where Satan and his evil spirits “continually deceive.” The Bible warns prophetically that in these later times there will be many who will “follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” It is many of those devilish teachings that have emerged as pillars of modern liberalism as it is widely practiced in America today. Let’s examine some of those liberal mainstays not from a political perspective, but in the light of God’s Word, the Bible. (Formatting as in the original; underscored emphasis added.) There follows a list of the evils against which he and his allies battle, and it comes as no surprise that "abortion on demand" tops the list, with some of which undoubtedly there is no biblical reason to disagree. However, it is manifest that the label applied to Liberalism is precisely applicable to the author's Pentecostalism. In 1943 the Southern Publishing Association published the book Facts of Faith by Christian Edwardson which is of inestimable spiritual value. Edwardson was an Evangelist-Pastor and author of several books including Facts of Faith. Of him The Adventist Heritage Center writes "The last years of his life were spent at Hutchinson, Minnesota, where he engaged in writing and research. His library numbered about 3,000 books . . ." In a Ministry Magazine dated November, 1944, and titled "The Power of an Informed Ministry" Roy Allan Anderson wrote concerning Facts of Faith, "Another excellent compilation is Christian Edwardson's recently published and newly revised volume, Facts of Faith. No worker can afford to be without this book, which represents nearly half a century of research." This recommendation is now relevant for the Seventh-day Adventist laity who believe Jesus Christ's message to Laodicea (Rev. 3:16, 20.) Roy Allan Anderson was one of the leaders in the compromise with the Evangelicals; but on this recommendation he can be trusted. Had the ministry followed his recommendation, and not his example, more of them would have stood up against the Church's backsliding towards Rome. The ministry as a whole now spurn "heavy theology"; but note Ellen G. White's definition of the righteousness of Christ as "pure, unadulterated truth." The entirety of Facts of Faith is a book "par excellance" on the history of the Christian Church and the malevolent work of the Roman Catholic Church with the objective of eradicating true Christianity from the face of the earth. The closing chapters numbered from 23 to 29 are an exposé of this satanic work in America over a period in excess of a century and dating from the time of Pope Leo XIII, now rapidly culminating in the fulfillment of the prophecies of Rev. 13:11-17. These chapters are essential reading for those who want to understand the strange course of current events in America and Rome's war against liberalism, now also robustly advanced by right-wing Evangelicals.
|
AMERICA SATURATED BY RIGHT-WING PROPAGANDA
The laity Britannica describes propaganda as follows:
Propaganda, dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.
Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas. Propagandists have a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these, they deliberately select facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and present them in ways they think will have the most effect. To maximize effect, they may omit or distort pertinent facts or simply lie, and they may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people they are trying to sway) from everything but their own propaganda. . .
Already from this description we can see that propaganda must be an essential tool of Satan in the great controversy between him and Christ. Ellen G. White has made this statement:
Satan has been working at the wheel, turning it until he has the control of all the human minds who have received the lies with which he deceived Eve and then used her as his agent to entice Adam into sin. Satan has kept up his specious working upon human minds from that day to this.—Manuscript 19, 1894 (1MCP 22.5)
Thus, as man has had a propensity to sin since the fall of Adam, it is obvious that unregenerate humanity would also have a natural inclination to engage in propaganda. Furthermore the papacy, Satan's representative agency on earth, would naturally resort to this brainwashing technique to achieve supreme control of the world. The following publication of the American Historical Association confirms this spiritual reality:
The fact that wars give rise to intensive propaganda campaigns has made many persons suppose that propaganda is something new and modern. The word itself came into common use in this country as late as 1914, when World War I began. The truth is, however, that propaganda is not new and modern. Nobody would make the mistake of assuming that it is new if, from early times, efforts to mobilize attitudes and opinions had actually been called “propaganda.” The battle for men’s minds is as old as human history. . .
The term “propaganda” apparently first came into common use in Europe as a result of the missionary activities of the Catholic church. In 1622 Pope Gregory XV created in Rome the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. This was a commission of cardinals charged with spreading the faith and regulating church affairs in heathen lands. A College of Propaganda was set up under Pope Urban VIII to train priests for the missions.
ROME'S PROPAGANDA PROGRAM TO MAKE AMERICA CATHOLIC
In his book titled Facts of Faith, published in 1943, Christian Edwardson documented the following historical facts:
A letter from Rome, dated October 14, 1894, says:
The United States of America, it can be said without exaggeration, are the chief thought of Leo XIII....A few days ago, on receiving an eminent American, Leo XIII said to him: 'But the United States are the future; we think of them incessantly.'...That is why Leo XIII turns all his soul, full of ideality, to what is improperly called his American policy. It should be called his Catholic universal policy." - "Catholic Standard and Times" (Philadelphia), Nov. 3, 1894; quoted in "Protestant Magazine," Oct., 1913, p. 441.
The report of "the third Washington conference" says:
"Our purpose is to make America dominantly Catholic." - "The Mission Movement in America," issued from the Catholic University, Washington, D.C., June, 1909.
"It seems to me that the main support of Protestantism comes from the United States and England....If we put an end to this effort in England and the United States by making these nations predominantly Catholic, we will have removed the chief obstacle to the conversion of the world to the true faith....A vigorous effort in the United States at this time will reduce the opposition to an insignificant condition....In the course of another century, the [Protestant] sects will be a study for the historian and antiquarian along with Arianism." - Extract from a letter in "The Missionary" (Roman Catholic), Washington, D.C.: May, 1910; quoted in "Protestant Magazine," Vol. II, p. 22.
(Underscored emphasis added.)
This Catholic movement has already made such progress in England, that, with a little careful manipulation, its leaders anticipate very little opposition in the future. (See "History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England," London: 1900, and "The Secret History of the Oxford Movement," London: 1899, both by Walter Walsh; and "The Oxford Movement in America," by Rev. C. E. Walworth, New York: 1895; also "The Jesuits and the British Press," by Michael J. F. McCarthy."
Now the "Catholic Action" is focused on America, not in an antagonistic way, but quietly, in wisely planned, systematically organized, and well directed efforts along numerous lines, so as to gain favor among Protestants, and not to be suspected as propaganda. And, remarkable as it may sound, Protestant leaders and people are totally asleep on the Catholic question, even more so than the Huguenots were in France before the St. Bartholomew's Massacre.
Dr. E. Boyd Barrett, for many years a Jesuit, and still a Roman Catholic, as far as the author knows, has the following to say about the plans of his church:
"In theory, Catholic Action is the work and service of lay Catholics in the cause of religion, under the guidance of the bishops. In practice it is the Catholic group fighting their way to control America." - "Rome Stoops to Conquer," p. 15. New York. 1935.
"The effort, the fight, may be drawn out. It may last for five or ten years. Even if it last for twenty - what is twenty years in the life of Rome? The fight must be fought to a finish - opposition must be worn down if it cannot be swept away. Rome's immortal destiny hangs on the outcome. That destiny overshadows the land. "And in the fight, as she has ever fought when battles were most desperate in the past, Rome will use steel, and gold, and silvery lies. Rome will stoop to conquer." - Id., pp. 266, 267.
In a communication from Vatican City, published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Nov. 4, 1936, we read:
"Pope Pius feels that the United States is the ideal base for Catholicism's great drive....
"The Catholic Movement, Rome's militant organization numbering millions all over the world, will be marshaled direct from Rome by Monsignor Pizzardo - next to Pacelli the Holy See's shrewdest diplomat and politician - instead of by the local bishops as before. The priest's education is to be thoroughly revised and modernized - with special attention to modern propaganda methods. In addition there will be established in each country a central bureau, responsible only to Rome, to combat red agitation with every political weapon available....The church must fight, and at once.
"Coughlin has shown us the way of getting at the modern man. He has embarrassed us by showing and using the political power of the church so openly....We know how to tackle America today, and that is our most important problem at the moment.
"Pacelli is contacting the American cardinals and leading Catholic personalities,...to explain the Vatican's plan for the new crusade....The Catholic political organizations in the large cities, like Tammany Hall, will give the church a good lever. Those contacts are also being carefully inspected by the pope's minister.
"The Vatican itself resembles a general staff headquarters preparing plans and arms for a big offensive. Since the time of the Counter-Reformation, churchmen say, no such extensive reorganization of personnel and propaganda methods has been undertaken. The whole world-wide net of Catholic organizations and sub-organizations is being contacted directly from Rome and cleared for action. The church is to be adjusted to modern political, social, and cultural conditions." - p. 10, col. 3, 4, used by permission.
This article speaks of Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, then papal secretary of state, coming from the Vatican to effect the above mentioned reorganization. He toured the United States "in a chartered airplane." Christian Science Monitor says: "The visit of a high Roman prelate to the United States on the eve of an election is as unprecedented as it is delicate." - Oct. 2, 1926.
This Catholic plan of conquest was well understood years ago. An illustration in Harper's Weekly of October 1, 1870, pictured the pope pointing to America as "The Promised Land." (Pp. 240-242.)
THE FINAL STAGE OF THE PROPAGANDA PROGRAM
All of the foregoing bring into sharp relief the significance of the propaganda which now saturates the American body politic, as it also focuses attention on the role of the Church of Rome. Since the papacy was conducting a program to effect radical change in a nation with a population numbered in hundreds of millions, the title of the following article underscores its success:
In Propaganda We Trust: America's Terrifying Propaganda Affair
These days, one memory stands out more than most others when it comes to our education. Most of us, when we were kids in school, were forced to read George Orwell's 1984as part of our English Lit education.
In 1984, a tyrannical government uses propaganda to brainwash people. Things that were printed months ago were immediately glossed over or changed by news groups at the behest of the government. At the end of the book, it becomes clear that the world was a dystopia where no one knew what was real anymore.
Little did we know that art would imitate life so quickly. Today, we live in a time when people question news sources, politicians discuss "alternative facts," and the White House no longer admits any wrongdoing despite ample evidence to the contrary. Many people are quite vocal about their support of right-wing policies. They regularly vote against their own interests, attack those who are different from them, and refuse to look at the science-backed facts.
It's easy to hate people who stubbornly refuse to listen to others despite the fact that they are hurting others. However, we can't fault them for their support; they've been brainwashed by a love affair with propaganda—all backed by Uncle Sam himself. . .
Politicians are now attacking press members for reporting unflattering stories—even if they are true. In fact, many of Trump's party have claimed that the media is lying about the stories that they are publishing, even when there's video proof of what's going on.
Everyone laughed when FOX News representatives discussed the importance of listening to "alternative facts," but this isn't a laughing matter in the least bit.
Recent news sources have shown that the White House is now trying to blackmail people into publishing flattering stories about Trump. This is a major example of how a fascist regime uses "gag orders" to keep the truth from being shared.
If you aren't scared yet, you should be. Not being able to see two sides to a story is the quickest way to isolate and brainwash people into committing atrocities. In fact, even Hitler used this tactic in order to seize power from people. . .
The American propaganda mill may have been a long time coming — and it may actually be a conspiracy theory that ended up being true.
The CIA has admitted to using mainstream media as a way to send out disinformation in the past. In fact, representatives even admitted that it's the truth in the 1970s.
Declassified CIA documents also showed that the government has paid off major newspapers and headline makers to boost political figures' public images in the past. The name of this project was Operation Mockingbird, and it's believed it's one of the biggest reasons why politicians had such a strong following in the past.
Ronald Reagan's propaganda machine was even stronger by 1987 when the president was able to create "hot button" issues on demand. At one point, a CIA chief was even credited with the following quote:
"We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False.” - William Casey
What's amazing about this quote is that most people trusted the government at the time, and thought that the press was free. The CIA openly admits it tampers with the free press. Nowadays, the cracks are beginning to show—and we're starting to wake up.
The information released has only been shown to be the tip of the iceberg. Imagine what's not being released, and how far propaganda has come. Who's to say that anything we see is real anymore? At what point do we realize that we've been fooled and that we can no longer trust anything that's currently being placed in media anymore?
Considering what we know, it's unsurprising that conspiracy theories and fringe beliefs are becoming more mainstream. (Italics in the original.)
The American body politic has historically hated lies by the leadership of the nation; but for too many truth no longer matters! The disinformation program has somehow dispensed with the need for truthfulness; laying the foundation for the work of the unclean spirits of Rev. 16:13-14. The situation is dire; but Bible Christians have the Word of God and Jesus' promise of the Holy Spirit enabling them to discern between truth and error.
As often happens, researching one particular point can lead to astonishing and very pertinent information. The disinformation program of William Casey's CIA in the Reagan Administration is a case in point:
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
The creepy quote above has been widely attributed to Former CIA Director William Casey.
Casey was the 13th CIA Director from 1981 until he left in January 1987. He died not long after of a brain tumor in May 1987. Dead men tell no tales, as they say.
But did William Casey really say this quote?
The quote itself has been passed around extensively on the Internet, and some people claim Casey never really said it because the only main source it traces back to is late political researcher and radio show host Mae Brussell.
Brussell was the host of the radio show Dialogue: Conspiracy. She got her start when, as a radio show guest, she questioned the official JFK assassination story and the Warren Commission Hearings by suggesting that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only person involved in Kennedy’s murder. Perhaps the propagandized label of “conspiracy theorist” is the reason why people question the quote Brussell often repeated.
However, Brussell is not the only person that can be attributed to this sharing quote.
Someone posted this meme on Quora back in 2013 with the note, “A disclaimer: I just like Quorans debunking or showing the stupidity behind some of the worst FB memes.”
This is a new trend lately, people trying to debunk old (and most especially, establishment damaging) quotes.
This time, however, someone who claims to have been there when Casey said it showed up to validate the quote:
The William Casey anecdote seems incredible. It also seems incredible that a religious institution has been working relentlessly and in deep secrecy for over a century to destroy the American democracy. However, the Church of Rome's conspiracy to make America Catholic and rule the world is heralded by Bible prophecy (Rev. 13.)
There are solid facts concerning the Reagan Administration which make the Casey anecdote credible. Some of these facts were laid out on a of page this website titled HOW THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SOCIAL DOCTRINE IS ADVANCING IN AMERICA, at the bookmark "The presidencies of Bush the elder and younger." Note that William Casey is one of the members of the Reagan Administration who have been described as "devout Roman Catholics." Moreover, "They regarded the U.S.-Vatican relationship as a holy alliance," and "Through the 1980s, Pope John Paul II met regularly with the head of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, William Casey, and participated in what former U.S. National Security Advisor Richard Allen calls “the greatest secret alliance in history” between the Vatican and the Reagan Administration."
More documentation on the Rome-CIA alliance is provided on this website's page titled AMERICA-VATICAN AXIS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION CONSPIRACY. Note in particular the bookmark "The world power seemingly benefitting most." The hyperlinked reports in that section establish a relationship dating all the way back to the 1940s. Again William Casey is mentioned, along with Alexander Haig, both of them members of the Knights of Malta. Incidentally, the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is also a member of the Knights of Malta. (He is also a member of Opus Dei, which is mentioned in an upcoming paper on this website.)
The case is clearly established that the William Casey anecdote is true, and it fits perfectly with the proliferation of lies now confusing and deceiving the body politic of America. It is also clear evidence of the unclean spirits of Rev. 16:13-14 at work.
Also evidence of their working are the hyperlinked reports which follow. There is one notable fact that is central to the Reagan Administration and the propaganda outlets which are now at work in America. They were and are all inextricably locked in the embrace of the Church of Rome. This is not an accident.
ROME TAKES OVER THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
It is not clear when the Church of Rome decided that she had to control a political party in America. However, on reflection it was inevitable that she would do so when the campaign to make America Catholic, as detailed by Christian Edwardson, reached a stage which made it safe to do so. There are Catholic parties in other countries; but such a party in plain view would have been unlikely to prosper in America. Therefore, it is logical that Rome chose to take over an existing political party, and one which was amenable to be shaped into an instrument of authoritarian power. The Church of Rome chose the Republican Party, (a fact which has sadly ensnared thousands of conservative Seventh-day Adventists.):
Both Democrats and Republicans are playing a part in causing "the earth and them that dwell therein" to worship the first beast of Rev. 13. Democratic Presidents Carter and Obama have both invited Popes to the White House, providing them with national exposure and acclamation. The Democratic leaderships in both the House of Representatives and the Senate endorsed the invitation to Pope Francis to address a joint session of Congress in September 2015. However, the Republican Party stands out in its promotion and passage of Roman Catholic laws and its advocacy of religion in politics. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is the Republican Party which has been transformed into a religious party bent on destroying the wall of separation between Church and State, and by this means making an image to the beast and giving life to it in fulfillment of Rev. 13:14, & 15 (first part.) As the influence of the first beast increases, the nation is moving closer to fulfillment of Rev. 13:15 (first part.)
Anyone, especially a Seventh-day Adventist, who continues to doubt that the last paragraph describes and predicts the role of the Republican Party in fulfilling the prophecies of Rev. 13:11-17 should carefully consider the following 2006 Washington Post article by former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips, who has demonstrated an extraordinary depth of insight, and a capacity to predict the course of events:
How the GOP Became God's Own Party
Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.
We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews. . .
It does not require the keenest powers of observation to accept the validity of this Kevin Phillips essay. As stated in the above quotation, "the GOP coalition is unlikely to turn back." This has been obvious with increasing clarity since the 2006 date of the article. It is also verifiable by the historical record, which also reveals how the Republican Party is not simply the "Party of God." It is the Roman Catholic Party.
Control of the Legislature is essential for the passage of Roman Catholic Natural Law. Because America has a constitution which is interpreted by the Courts, control of the Senate enables the appointment of Roman Catholic and fellow-travelling judges to the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court.
Consider the diabolical scheme as it has unfolded: take over the Republican Party; flood the nation, and particularly rural America which includes the least populous States, with propaganda to ensure a strangle-hold on the Senate; and pack the federal courts with Roman Catholic sponsored ideologues to reinterpret the Constitution and establish Rome's desired theocratic nation.
MULTIPLICITY OF RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN PROGAGANDA OUTLETS
Fox News, Trump’s Ministry of Propaganda
How prepared are President Donald Trump’s adversaries to deal with the reality of a lavishly produced state media operation? This, the most-watched cable news network, functions in its fealty to Trump like a real-world Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s 1984, where bureaucrats “rectify” the historical record to conform to Big Brother’s decrees.
I am referring, of course, to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News. Having unsuccessfully tried to sell itself as “Fair and Balanced,” Fox News debuted a new brand in March 2018: “Real News. Real Honest Opinion.” Network executives apparently chose this slogan to differentiate themselves from “fake news” outlets—and, no doubt, to dog-whistle a pledge of allegiance to their commander-in-chief, who since being sworn into office has decried fake news in at least 630 tweets (as of Dec. 4, 2019).
Sean Hannity, the host of Fox’s weeknight flagship Hannity, regularly rails against the “media mob” and its “fake news,” terms he has used on more than 100 of his shows since Feb. 20, 2019. On Feb. 21, 2019, for example, he said, “The mainstream media, they devour, you know, any story that just fits their radical, extreme extension of the Democratic socialist party agenda. If it advances the narrative that Donald Trump is evil and his supporters are bad and America is scary and racist and sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, the media mob will shift into full gear without … any kind of investigation.”
It seems Hannity and Trump have studied the texts of the 20th century’s master of indoctrination, who wrote in his 1925 autobiographical manifesto, Mein Kampf, “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly—it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
Republicans launch propaganda sites designed to look like local news outlets
An investigation by the fact-checking outlet Snopes found that several new local news websites are actually being launched by Republican consultants whose company is funded in part by the candidates the sites cover.
Politico first reported last year that Tea Party-linked conservative activists Michael Patrick Leahy, Steve Gill and Christina Botteri were behind the "Tennessee Star,” a website that purported to be a local news website but mostly posted content licensed from groups linked to big Republican donors.
Snopes discovered that the trio has since launched similar sites in other battleground states ahead of the 2020 elections: the Ohio Star and the Minnesota Sun. . .
The group behind the sites does not appear content with just three outlets. According to Politico, Leahy has purchased domain names associated with Missouri, New England, the Dakotas, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, most of which are electoral battleground states that will be vital in 2020.
Pro-Trump Sinclair Media Poised for National Expansion by 2020
Sinclair Broadcasting Group is the largest owner of local television news stations in the United States. It currently airs original programming on 193 channels throughout the country, enough to reach 39 percent of all American homes.
The company is also owned by a longtime Republican donor, and proudly operates as a platform for conservative propaganda. Sinclair formally promised to provide favorable coverage to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign (in exchange for access to the GOP nominee). Since the mogul’s election, the media giant has ordered all of its affiliates to air commentary that advances White House talking points, and coerced their own anchors into personally reporting that the mainstream news media is biased against the president. . .
It is unclear whether Sinclair will force regional baseball announcers to deliver “terrorism alerts” between batters. But even if the broadcaster leaves its sports stations well enough alone, those stations should still provide Sinclair with a healthy source of revenue for funding its propaganda operations; Wall Street analysts are bullish on SBG’s stock.
And that’s probably bad news for Democrats. It is hard to overstate how much the conservative movement has benefited from its associated billionaires’ investments in mass media. A 2017 study from researchers at Emory and Stanford estimated that Fox News increased the Republican Party’s share of the two-party vote in 2004 and 2008 by 3.59 and 6.34 percentage points respectively. Just this month, a study using the same methodology found that counties where Fox News has a low channel number (and thus, slightly higher viewership) tend to have more conservative fiscal policies as a result.
A Major New Study Shows That Political Polarization Is Mainly A Right-Wing Phenomenon
A major new study of social media sharing patterns shows that political polarization is more common among conservatives than liberals — and that the exaggerations and falsehoods emanating from right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart News have infected mainstream discourse.
Though the report, published by the Columbia Journalism Review, does an excellent job of laying out the challenge posed by Breitbart and its ilk, it is less than clear on how to counter it. Successfully standing up for truthful reporting in this environment “could usher in a new golden age for the Fourth Estate,” the authors write. But members of the public who care about such journalism are already flocking to news organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and, locally, The Boston Globe, all of which have experienced a surge in paid subscriptions since the election of President Trump. That’s heartening, but there are no signs that it’s had any effect on the popularity or influence of the right-wing partisan media.
The CJR study, by scholars at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, at Harvard Law School, and the MIT Center for Civic Media, examined more than 1.25 million articles between April 1, 2015, and Election Day. What they found was that Hillary Clinton supporters shared stories from across a relatively broad political spectrum, including center-right sources such as The Wall Street Journal, mainstream news organizations like the Times and the Post, and partisan liberal sites like The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast.
By contrast, Donald Trump supporters clustered around Breitbart — headed until recently by Stephen Bannon, the hard-right nationalist now ensconced in the White House — and a few like-minded websites such as The Daily Caller, Alex Jones' Infowars, and The Gateway Pundit. Even Fox News was dropped from the favored circle back when it was attacking Trump during the primaries, and only re-entered the fold once it had made its peace with the future president.
The authors of the study refer to their findings as “asymmetric polarization,” and they point to some deleterious effects. The Breitbart-led sites were able to push the traditional media into focusing on Trump’s favored issue — immigration — and to frame it on their terms: overwrought fears about crime and terrorism. Clinton, on the other hand, was defined mainly by scandal coverage in the form of her use of a private email server, the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the Clinton Foundation. The authors of the study, Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris and Hal Roberts of Berkman and Ethan Zuckerman of MIT, write:
It is a mistake to dismiss these stories as “fake news”; their power stems from a potent mix of verifiable facts (the leaked Podesta emails), familiar repeated falsehoods, paranoid logic, and consistent political orientation within a mutually-reinforcing network of like-minded sites.
Use of disinformation by partisan media sources is neither new nor limited to the right wing, but the insulation of the partisan right-wing media from traditional journalistic media sources, and the vehemence of its attacks on journalism in common cause with a similarly outspoken president, is new and distinctive.
Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, writing about the study earlier this week, recalled talking with a Trump voter in Pennsylvania who said she didn’t support Clinton because “I didn’t like how she stole those emails and it got people killed in Benghazi” — a perfect storm of misinformation.
THE GREAT SECOND ADVENT MOVEMENT MESSAGE SABOTAGED IN THE CHURCH
These are perilous times of overpowering lies and deceptions, not only in the world of politics, but also in the community of Seventh-day Adventists. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave us warning: "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many" (Matt. 24:11.) It is obvious that we are more easily deceived by false prophets within than without the Church, and the apostle Peter confirms this statement: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1.) "Denying the Lord . . ." is particularly significant in the contemporary community of Seventh-day Adventists with tens of thousands seduced into denying the eternal pre-existence and equality with God the Father of Christ, notwithstanding the clear revelation in the Old Testament and John 1:1-3, 14. It was in the flesh that He was the only-begotten (uniquely begotten) of the Father.
Ellen G. White identifies what is happening in the Church community when she predicted that there would be "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils in the midst of the Church."
How many of us are aware of her warnings?. How many are aroused to engage in deep study of the Bible to be able to identify the doctrines of devils when even the pastors of the churches express scorn for "heavy theology." Scorn for "heavy theology" is scorn for the Bible. Note in this passage from PROFILE OF Wm. H. GROTHEER AND HISTORY OF ADVENTIST LAYMEN'S FOUNDATION the definition of theology: "Now 'theology' in its simplest form is the study of God and His workings in time; in other words, the Bible." It was theology, and "heavy theology" at that, which revealed the Bible Truths on which the Great Second Advent Movement (1833-1844) and the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1863) were founded. The Church has played the harlot by the wayside, and willingly gone into Babylonian captivity. How many choose to remain in Babylonian captivity? How many are willing to walk in the light of advancing Truth? The Great Second Advent Movement marches forward in the light of advancing Truth towards "the battle of that great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14,) to be with the Lamb, "called, and chosen, and faithful" (Rev. 17:14.) Who chooses now to be on the Lord's side?
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. The people of God are directed to the Scriptures as their safeguard against the influence of false teachers and the delusive power of spirits of darkness. Satan employs every possible device to prevent men from obtaining a knowledge of the Bible; for its plain utterances reveal his deceptions. At every revival of God's work the prince of evil is aroused to more intense activity; he is now putting forth his utmost efforts for a final struggle against Christ and His followers. The last great delusion is soon to open before us. Antichrist is to perform his marvelous works in our sight. So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures. By their testimony every statement and every miracle must be tested. (EGW, The Impending Conflict, P. 22.1.)
CARRIED OVER FROM 2019
SDA CHURCH LEADERSHIP SURRENDERS TO ROME'S ANTI-ABORTION DOGMAS
(SDA Church has wandered onto Rome's enchanted ground, as she did in adopting the Trinity dogma)
The abortion controversy involves issues of extreme complexity, and imagery which arouses strong negative emotions. It should therefore surprise no-one that Satan would choose to hide the Great Lie of the immortality of the soul within these extremely complex issues. The following inspired statements and predictions of Ellen G. White call for commensurate reliance on divine guidance through the treacherous waters of the controversy, when the spirits of devils are manifestly at work. (Rev. 16:13-14):
I have been shown that Satan has not been stupid and careless these many years, since his fall, but has been learning. He has grown more artful. His plans are laid deeper, and are more covered with a religious garment to hide their deformity. The power of Satan now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles. His power has increased, and it will increase, until it is taken away. (2 SG, P. 277; emphasis supplied.)
It is the first and highest duty of every rational being to learn from the Scriptures what is truth, and then to walk in the light and encourage others to follow his example. We should day by day study the Bible diligently, weighing every thought and comparing scripture with scripture. With divine help we are to form our opinions for ourselves as we are to answer for ourselves before God.... (Maranatha, P. 94; emphasis supplied)
The first of these two statements emphasizes the formidable power of Satan to ensnare the human mind in these last days. The second statement underscores the role of the Bible as our protection against ensnarement by the devil, the necessity of utter reliance upon God, and the duty to follow His guidance in forming our opinions. It was Jesus Himself who promised the Holy Spirit to guide us into all Truth.
THE BIBLE AND THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY
The late John V. Stevens, Sr. was the former Director of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists' Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty. His book The Abortion Controversy, is thoroughly researched and heavily documented. He points out the following in the chapter titled "Abortion Law in the Scriptures— Accidental and Induced":
Both sides of the religious controversy over abortion generally recognize the Bible teaching that God is the Author of life and forms humanity in the womb, both fearfully (with great respect) and wonderfully. Without Him there is no life, not even for birds, fish, and animals—or for the vegetation on the face of the earth. Both sides also believe that the Scriptures are inspired, come from God, and should be followed. Many who oppose abortion believe that the sixth commandment, "You shall not murder" and Psalm 139 clearly prohibit abortions of any kind following conception. Inasmuch as most religious denominations take stands against abortion based on their understanding of the Holy Scriptures, it may come as a surprise that only two passages in the entire Bible deal with an induced miscarriage—one accidental, and the other planned. No other references deal with abortion, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. We shall do a detailed examination of those two passages. Religious adherents who favor choice cite these two passages that deal explicitly with abortion—one accidental, and one induced. They point out that biblical law mandated only a misdemeanor fine against one who accidentally caused a woman to have a miscarriage. The induced abortion performed by the priest was the result of a pregnancy that arose from infidelity, and no punishment was imposed for inducing the abortion. Rather, a command came from God to cause it to take place. Of special significance is that both references are part of the law given at Mt. Sinai by God, or Jehovah, as He is referred to oftentimes in the Old Testament. Both references are not only laws, but God spoke them directly, so it was not someone simply recording a law. The first passage is found in the book of Exodus, chapter 21, at the close of the Ten Commandments, and is a continuation of God speaking concerning His law. Those commandments are found in the previous chapter. God's laws are universal, for all time and all peoples. But purely religious laws are not to be adopted by the state and enforced. However, many social laws which the state should enforce, such as the last six commandments, protect people from people. Hence, the One who commanded that we not murder is the same One who continues His laws in the following chapters. They are repeated in Deuteronomy chapters 10-15 and also appear in parts of the book of Numbers. God, the source of all life, has established all the necessary provisions for life. He carries every developing fetus during its formation in the womb, from its conception through birth, and that fetus is dependent on borrowed life from the mother while in the womb until birth, when breath makes its life independent of its connection with the mother through the umbilical cord. . .
In Scripture God does not call for a manslaughter or murder punishment for an accidentally caused miscarriage—but only for a fine. The distinction between the fine for the miscarriage and the penalty for injuring or killing the mother is clear. The fact that God is speaking personally and directly and that the passage comes from the statutory portion of the Scripture makes it of even greater authenticity and force.' The inescapable conclusion of the most obvious meaning of Exodus 21 is that God does not recognize the fetus as a human person. Such a fetus is not given the same protection under the law as one having been born. In Jewish legal reckoning, the fetus is to be regarded as part of the pregnant woman. This is in agreement with the passage found in the book of Numbers, chapter 5. In that passage a woman, guilty of infidelity resulting in a pregnancy, was required to have an induced miscarriage, as a result of the law that God established. The Scripture refers to this miscarriage as the belly swelling and the thigh rotting—the fetus being expelled. This is also consistent with the principle that the fetus has only borrowed life from the mother, whose blood feeds the fetus oxygen, causing it to develop and grow. The position is also in harmony with Scriptures that attribute life and personhood only when one is breathing, following birth. Hence, birth marks the beginning of personhood. (The Abortion Controversy: Abortion Law in the Scriptures— Accidental and Induced (Pp. 157-162; Underscored emphasis added.)
"Only two passages in the entire Bible deal with an induced miscarriage. No other references deal with abortion, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament." This is an inescapable fact, as also the fact that neither passage condemns either the accidental or the induced miscarriage as murder. Moreover, the induced miscarriage was by express commandment of God.
These facts which cannot be denied present no problem for the Roman Catholic Church. Why?! - because Rome's ideology on abortion and birth control were never based on the Bible. (The two cannot be separated in discussing the "Pro-Life" movement, because Rome, the originator of the abortion controversy opposes both on the basis of the same dogmas.) The Seventh-day Adventist Church has in the past recognized that fact, as evidenced in a 1969 Ministry article by J. R. Spangler:-
IF BIRTH CONTROL per se is a moral problem, Satan, at this point, must be about as exuberant as he was when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. What would the world, especially the Christian world, talk about if we solved the birth control problem? Protestants may sneer at Rome's dilemma, but most recently over thrown, seldom enforced, United States State laws against birth control are traceable to Protestant legislation.
Discussions on birth control and related issues range from possible immorality in creases among married and unmarried to imponderable questions such as When does a fertilized egg become a human being? Modern science has now presented the human race with two rather extreme biological and spiritual questions.
1. At what point from fertilized egg to infant does microscopic murder take place in the event of abortion?
2. At what point does death take place in the case of those whose hearts or other vital organs are used for transplant purposes?
We could mini-word these two problems by simply asking, What is the definition for life and death? How fortunate our forefathers were in escaping many a head ache during a time when such issues were nonexistent.
The magnitude of these and related questions for twentieth-century man was impressed upon my mind through a booklet given me by a good Catholic neighbor. This forty-page booklet, prepared by the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., contains thirty-eight questions and answers related to Pope Paul's historic seven-thousand-word encyclical Humenae Vitae ("Of Human Life"). Some of the questions read like this: Why can't a Catholic form his own conscience on the subject of contraception?
Won't the next pope, or the one after him, reverse what Pope Paul has done?
But suppose the condemnation of contraception isn't infallible. Then it's fallible, isn't it? And if it's fallible, couldn't it be mistaken?
The remarkable opening statement of J. R. Spangler in the article, is right in line with the warning of Ellen G. White above.
Rome, by the force of her activism and propaganda has overcome the problem of her position on contraception since 1969 when the two-part article was written by J.R. Spangler. Although the Roman Catholic Church has advocated against birth control as well abortion, the emphasis of the Protestant churches which have joined in her activism has been on the latter. This is symptomatic of their blindness. Furthermore, unlike Rome they have had to conjure up Scriptures to support their campaign. A Roman Catholic publication has republished almost all of an article which first appeared in the Washington Post and is no longer accessible. The portion omitted is small, but significant, and was quoted in an earlier Adventistlaymen.com web page. The omitted portion is in italics below:-
Roe v. Wade anniversary: How abortion became an evangelical issue
There is more to the story of course. One often overlooked dimension of the story is the intersection of evangelical and Roman Catholic concerns in the emergence of a pro-life coalition. While most evangelicals were either on the wrong side of the issue or politically disengaged, Roman Catholic leaders were on the front lines opposing abortion as a fundamental assault on human dignity. By the late 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church was fighting demands for the legalization of abortion nationally and state by state – opposition that preceded the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.
By the time Roe was handed down, Catholic leaders had developed sophisticated arguments and growing organizations to fight for the pro-life cause. In 1967, six years before Roe, Catholics had led in the creation of the National Right to Life Committee. The Catholic tradition, drawn largely from the natural law, became the foundational intellectual contribution to the development of a united front against abortion. Nevertheless, for evangelicals to join the movement in a decisive way, arguments drawn directly from Scripture had to be formed and then preached from the pulpits of evangelical churches. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
RELIGIO-POLITICAL "PRO-LIFE" ALLIANCE MISAPPLIES PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE
The following essay reveals the true reason for the emergence of the religio-political alliance between the Roman Catholics and right-wing Evangelicals. The passages quoted are long; but essential for the perfect understanding which is essential in relation to a satanic doctrine cloaked in a garb of Christian morality:-
The Real Origins of the Religious Right
One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.
This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.
Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.
But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism
Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.
When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”. . .
So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.
In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.
In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.
On June 30, 1971, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the case, now Green v. Connally (John Connally had replaced David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury). The decision upheld the new IRS policy: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, properly construed, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”
Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.
In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.
“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”
But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.
The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”
One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.
For many evangelical leaders, who had been following the issue since Green v. Connally, Bob Jones University was the final straw. As Elmer L. Rumminger, longtime administrator at Bob Jones University, told me in an interview, the IRS actions against his school “alerted the Christian school community about what could happen with government interference” in the affairs of evangelical institutions. “That was really the major issue that got us all involved.”
Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS actions against segregated schools—even though the policy was mandated by Nixon, and Bob Jones University had lost its tax exemption a year and a day before Carter was inaugurated as president. Falwell, Weyrich and others were undeterred by the niceties of facts. In their determination to elect a conservative, they would do anything to deny a Democrat, even a fellow evangelical like Carter, another term in the White House.
Weyrich, Falwell and leaders of the emerging religious right enlisted an unlikely ally in their quest to advance abortion as a political issue: Francis A. Schaeffer—a goateed, knickers-wearing theologian who was warning about the eclipse of Christian values and the advance of something he called “secular humanism.” Schaeffer, considered by many the intellectual godfather of the religious right, was not known for his political activism, but by the late 1970s he decided that legalized abortion would lead inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia, and he was eager to sound the alarm. Schaeffer teamed with a pediatric surgeon, C. Everett Koop, to produce a series of films entitled Whatever Happened to the Human Race? In the early months of 1979, Schaeffer and Koop, targeting an evangelical audience, toured the country with these films, which depicted the scourge of abortion in graphic terms—most memorably with a scene of plastic baby dolls strewn along the shores of the Dead Sea. Schaeffer and Koop argued that any society that countenanced abortion was captive to “secular humanism” and therefore caught in a vortex of moral decay.
Between Weyrich’s machinations and Schaeffer’s jeremiad, evangelicals were slowly coming around on the abortion issue. At the conclusion of the film tour in March 1979, Schaeffer reported that Protestants, especially evangelicals, “have been so sluggish on this issue of human life, and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? is causing real waves, among church people and governmental people too.”
By 1980, even though Carter had sought, both as governor of Georgia and as president, to reduce the incidence of abortion, his refusal to seek a constitutional amendment outlawing it was viewed by politically conservative evangelicals as an unpardonable sin. Never mind the fact that his Republican opponent that year, Ronald Reagan, had signed into law, as governor of California in 1967, the most liberal abortion bill in the country. When Reagan addressed a rally of 10,000 evangelicals at Reunion Arena in Dallas in August 1980, he excoriated the “unconstitutional regulatory agenda” directed by the IRS “against independent schools,” but he made no mention of abortion. Nevertheless, leaders of the religious right hammered away at the issue, persuading many evangelicals to make support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion a litmus test for their votes. . .
This Randall Balmer exposé is so solidly based in historical fact that it is widely quoted in respected publications.
The last sentence of the italicized quotation above from the original article "Roe v. Wade anniversary: How abortion became an evangelical issue" is a candid admission by the author, who was evidently a Roman Catholic, and in any event clearly anti-abortion.
None of the following compilation of Bible texts on the Focus on the Family, website can exegetically support their anti-abortion position. The author even includes Exodus 21:22-25, which actually refutes the contention that the fetus is a life in being. Many of the texts are so clearly unrelated to the question of when life begins that even a non-theologian author should be embarrassed:-
What the Bible Says About the Beginning of Life
The quotation of Bible texts to support an erroneous position on abortion is an egregious example of "eisegesis" as distinct from "exegesis." (Cf. What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?)
Even more egregious is the fact that, on careful exegetical examination, it can be seen that the deadly dogma of the immortality of the soul is the basis of misapplication of Bible texts in support of the "pro-life" movement. This dogma is the foundation pillar of the ideology that life begins at conception.
SPURIOUS USE OF THE BIBLE EXPOSED BY SOUND BIBLICAL EXEGESIS
The chapter titled "Puzzling Passages Made Plain" in John V. Stevens' book The Abortion Controversy exegetically demonstrates the misapplication of Bible texts to support the anti-abortion movement. It is a desecration of the Scriptures to support the dogma of the immortality of the soul:-
THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY - Puzzling Passages Made Plain
|
The
prevailing belief
that man has an immortal soul has given rise to a great deal of
confusion and misunderstanding. Some of the speculation that
emanates from this falsehood is
that since God predicted the birth and
life of some persons, it is automatically assumed that they already
exist somewhere other than on the earth.
Hence, the non-biblical belief that when an "immortal soul" is
infused into the fertilized egg, it has full standing as a person
and abortion is tantamount to killing or, as some say, murder.
God predicted, through the prophet Isaiah, that an emperor by the
name of Cyrus would someday make it possible for the Jews to return
to their homeland and be freed from their Babylonian captivity. In
the following passage, God likens Cyrus to a faithful shepherd who
cares for his sheep:
"Who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and he shall perform all My
Those who hold to the teaching of the natural immortality of the
soul can easily draw the conclusion that since God foreknew Cyrus,
that he was indeed a person prior to his birth. The question to be
asked and answered is: Was Cyrus a person one and a half centuries
before he was conceived, simply because God knew about him and his
future life and activities? If one does not hold to the doctrine of
the natural immortality of the soul, which originated in paganism
and found its way into early Christianity, the answer would be
simply and obviously, no.
Then how is it that God knew him before conception if Cryus did not
yet
The difference between God and a parental couple is that God is the
Creator, and He can bring His plans to pass. A man and a woman are
not creators but partners with God in procreation. Again, personhood
cannot be assigned to the preconception period.
Another passage used by those supporting this premise of a
pre-existing soul before birth is found in Jeremiah: "Before I
formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified
you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations:' Was Jeremiah a person
before he was conceived and formed, simply because God knew him? Or
was he a person because God sanctified him and ordained (assigned)
him to be a prophet? The biblical answer is a resounding no. God planned Jeremiah and his sanctification—that is his wholeness or holiness, and his future role as a prophet—before he was conceived, even as He did with Jesus, John the Baptist, Moses, Samson, Isaac, and others. But that did not make Jeremiah a living person before his conception or birth. Nor was that true of the others, except for Christ, who has lived from eternity with no beginning and no end.
Another text sometimes used is found in Hebrews. Levi was a great
grandson of Abraham. In a picturesque manner, the passage in Hebrews
states that Levi paid tithe before his birth. The ministry in the
Old Testament was paid from the tithe given by the people, which
represented 10 percent of their increase and was limited to sacred
use. "Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when
Melchizadek met him."' The phrase, "so to speak" reveals it is only
a figure of speech, showing the Levitical priesthood was established
by birth in the lineage of Levi, differing from the new priesthood
of Christ.
Being in the loins of his great grandfather was the contemporary way
of referring to hereditary genes passed on from one generation to
the next. But to be in the genes does not equal the status of
personhood. If that were the case, an abrasion of the skin
containing DNA would be the same as killing countless babies,
because the genes in the cells have the genetic code in them. That
argument in favor of personhood is readily rejected by most people.
In the book of Hebrews, the ancestry of Christ is traced back to
Judah. "It is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe
Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood."'
Christians believe that Jesus Christ preexisted prior to His virgin
birth through Mary. While true, His case was an exception. Jesus was
a person prior to being incarnated. He was a descendent of Judah,
another great grandson of Abraham. But simply because he would come
on the scene as a member of
the human race in the future didn't mean that He was literally in
Judah's body. Christ could not have been in Judah's body more than
fifteen centuries earlier. This is simply a picturesque way of
writing to show that he descended from Judah genetically.
God predicted through King David that future generations would rise.
David stated: "This will be written for the generation to come, that
a people yet to be created may praise the Lord:'' Praise to God
cannot take place until the creative process is complete, as with
Adam, who began life as his nostrils were supplied with the breath
of life, and he started breathing. The biblical record is most clear
on the beginning of personhood at the point of independent
breathing. "And the LORD God formed man
of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living being."' If an immortal soul existed prior to birth, then creation would be prior to birth, but the passage is clear that praise would come after creation, which would be after birth. It becomes complicated, confusing, and inconsistent to believe that an immortal, invisible, and intelligent soul is waiting to be implanted in the womb to become a human being, yet that it would be capable of praise before that time—the time of conception. All of God's creation praises Him. Thus we can safely and confidently conclude that there is no preexistent soul that is implanted in the womb to become a person at that point of conception, but rather, taking the obvious and clear meaning of Scripture, we conclude that personhood takes place when the breath of life enters the lungs and one begins to breathe independently. If there were a preexisting immortal soul, it would surely praise God, but that is rejected by the plain and obvious meaning of God's Word.
Most people are aware that King David of Israel planned to build a
sanctuary to God. But because of his wars and the shedding of much
blood, God revealed this to him:
"Whereas it was in your heart to build a temple for My name, you did
well in that it was in your heart. Nevertheless you shall not build
the temple, but your son who will come from your body, he shall
build the temple for My name."8
If the entirety of Solomon—body, soul, and spirit—came from heaven
and earth, it would be improper to state that Solomon would come
from David's body. The only thing that comes from outside the
parents' bodies and the body of the baby that is born is the air
that is breathed, oxygen. No immortal soul comes from God in heaven
to be placed into the fetus at conception or at any time. The body
and the breath are the two components of the entire being—no more,
no less. When breath comes to the baby at birth, it lives. When
breath is removed, the person dies. Anyone who has read some of the Bible will recall that often a phrase will read that a woman was "with child!' That is generally understood to mean she is expecting the birth of a child. If the Scripture calls it a child while it is being formed, then certainly it must be a child and hence, a person. But is that what the Scriptures really say, or is that simply a translation problem that reflects the personal theology of scholars?
Let us take a look at the original language. Since Sarah, wife of
Abraham, could not conceive, she urged her husband to have a child,
an heir, by her handmaid, Hagar. The angel of the Lord came to
Hagar after she and Abraham were together and said to her,
"Behold
you are with child."' The term
with child comes from the Hebrew word
harah. But literally, the
word means "to have conceived:" And the word is used five times. To
be accurate, it should have been translated,
"Behold you have conceived,"
or "you have become pregnant" The actual word
child is not found in the
original documents. For they all understood that one did not have a
child until it was born. It was a developing child-to-be, but not
yet a child. If it were to go to full term, then it would become a
child.
"To be with child"—harah,
hariyyah is the term in Hebrew—literally means "to conceive:'
This term is used two times. For instance: "Thus both the daughters
of Lot were with child by their father" A more accurate translation
is "Thus both the daughters of
Lot conceived by their father."'
The phrase "to travail with child: or "labored with child: uses the
Hebrew word chul,
literally, "to be pained" Isaiah uses it: 'Sing, 0 barren, you
who have not borne! Break
forth into singing, and cry aloud, you
who have not labored with
child! For more are the
children of the desolate than the children of the married woman:
says the LORD:'25
"You did not pain" is the better translation, for the word
child does not appear in the original but was added by translators.
Another use of "to travail with child: uses the Hebrew word,
yalad, literally, "to
bring forth" "The woman with child"' is more accurately translated,
"The woman that was bringing
forth."
"Woman with child: comes from the Hebrew
hariyyah, literally, "to
conceive:' This term is found six times. "As a woman with child is
in pain and cries out"27 more correctly is,
"As a woman who has conceived
is in pain and cries out."
Seven times the phrase "travail with child" is found. The Greek
word is
echo, literally,
"to have in the womb:' An example is the instance of the angel
coming to Mary to announce that she was expecting: "She was found
with child of the Holy Ghost:28 A more accurate
translation would be,
"She was
found to have in the womb, of the Holy Ghost:'
One can now better understand the status of the developing fetus
prior to birth, as not being a child. If it were, God would have
influenced the prophets to make that clear. They used God-inspired
words. But the absence of the word
child in connection with
the growth prior to birth is indicative that it is not then a child
or a person. As we have examined the usage of the term
child prior to birth in
the Scriptures, we've discovered that the original language,
inspired by the Holy Spirit does not give the status of a child to
the pre-born fetus but simply refers to it as a conception, or to be
in pain in delivery, or to have in the womb. Remember, the Word of
God is truth according to God, for all Scripture is inspired by God.29
Then why the dilemma? Translators of the Bible were simply human
beings who held a theological view that the soul was naturally
immortal and that at conception the conceptus was indeed a child
and a person.
This, the Scriptures simply deny by usage of unmistakably clear
language. Emotionally, probably all human beings consider the fetus
a child and talk fondly of it being their child, but according to
God, it is not a child or a person until it is born and breathing
independently, having achieved independent and not borrowed, life.
At that point it advances to the status of a child and a person.
The New King James Version
does translate it correctly in the book of Ruth. "So Boaz took
Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the LORD
gave her conception, and she bore a son:'3°
You will note
the translator could have simply inserted the word
child for conception, and
most people would never know the difference, as they don't in other
similar cases. But the truth is that it is a conceptus until it is
born, and not a child until it is born. God gave Ruth a conception,
and the next phrase is that she bore a son.
The foregoing is more than enough to demonstrate the devastating effect of applying sound exegesis to the spurious use of the Scriptures to support a false religio-political ideology. There is much more, which is strongly recommended reading for its necessary educational value. |
PROPAGANDA CONFIRMS THE UNDERLYING DOGMA AND STIRS UP EMOTIONS
The Roman Catholic hierarchy are masters of propaganda. The word derives from the propagation of the Catholic religion. By means of propaganda, Rome has kept the issue of abortion constant in the minds of Americans. There is one clever manipulation of language that has aroused intense strong emotions against ALL induced terminations of pregnancy. The following passage in The Abortion Controversy put it succinctly in a chapter titled "Efforts to Impose Dogma":
Those opposing abortion picked up on the choice language of the decision [Roe v. Wade] and agreed that women had a choice—a choice of whether to get pregnant or not. Once pregnancy occurred, choice ended. They also proclaimed loudly and clearly that while the members of the Court may not have known when life began, they did, and it was at conception. Language became a tool in the controversy in a most masterful manner. Scientific terms such as zygote, embryo, and fetus were readily replaced with the finished product—baby—and used at every stage of the pregnancy. Revisionism blurred distinctions and confused the public. And we can understand from personal experience that our conceived children were "babies"—at least to us. While not scientific, it satisfied our emotional needs, and it seemed natural. But to use such language when the debate on abortion raged only served to blur the white with the black and produce gray areas. (P. 3)
This propaganda has been very effective in blinding reason. This has made it very difficult for many who would otherwise have no affinity with Roman Catholic dogma to avoid being ensnared.
THE GREAT LIE OF THE DEVIL PASSED DOWN FROM THE GARDEN OF EDEN
The "pro-life" movement is a particularly effective purveyor of the first great lie of Satan. Assent to this lie is deadly at any time, but especially now when the final fate of believers is being determined in the closing work of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. There will soon be no time left for recovery. Ellen G. White has written, "Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul, and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of Spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome." (GC88 588.1). The evidence is conclusive that the dogma of the immortality of the soul is diabolically concealed in the "pro-life" movement by an almost irresistible play on the emotions of sincere Christians:-
A DECEPTIVE TERM MASKING A DEADLY THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD (ET AL.):-
The term "pro-life" is deceptive, conjuring up in the minds of sensitive men and women a living human being in the womb of a woman. Nevertheless, upon close examination it is also revealing. In reality the primary meaning of "life" in this context is not the cluster of living cells changing and developing in the woman's womb. It is the unbiblical dogma of an immortal soul, with the time of "ensoulment" determining when life begins. (Cf. Immortality? (SDA;) The origins of the doctrine of the “immortality of the soul” (Non-denominational. N.B. Citation does not imply support for any theology on the hyperlinked website contrary to the theology of Adventistlaymen.com) From the last citations, it is obvious that belief in the immortality of the soul is not unique to Roman Catholicism. In fact, there is "almost universal adherence to the immortality of the soul within contemporary Christendom" (The immortality of the soul: Could Christianity survive without it? (Part 1 of 2).) It has never been a part of Seventh-day Adventist theology; and happily there still remain some other Protestant denominations which have resisted this false theology.) Also, the concept of "ensoulment" is not unique to Roman Catholicism (Cf. The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and Ensoulment, by two Anglican essayists.) All of this emphasizes the mountain of false theology that confronts those who do not believe in the immortality of the soul. . .
THE COMPLEX PROBLEM OF ABORTION
Roman Catholic Teaching on Abortion
It seems to be almost universally assumed in public debate that the Roman Catholic position on abortion has always been clear, straightforward, and historically consistent. It is indeed true that the Roman Church has always condemned the vast majority of abortions, but this condemnation has over the years been made with greatly differing force, on the basis of a variety of reasons, and with a changing list of exceptions and qualifications. Catholic theologians have disputed at great length about the moral implications of Christianity, but many of their arguments, which have been highly influential in determining the development of the Church’s official doctrine, would probably now seem very questionable to many of those who nevertheless ascribe great authority to the current official position. This position is that the fetus is to be treated as a human person from the “first instant” of conception, and that abortion is therefore tantamount to homicide, excusable only in cases where it is an indirect effect of medical intervention whose direct intention is to save the mother’s life, as in the case of the removal of a Fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, or the removal of a cancerous uterus. We shall see that it is far from clear whether modern Roman Catholics should feel themselves committed to endorsing such a doctrine. . .
The facts stated in the two passages above [these facts are not quoted in this extract; but cf. in full A DECEPTIVE TERM MASKING A DEADLY THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD (ET AL.)] reveal the arbitrary setting of spurious feast dates clashing with the theory of progressive ensoulment, and leading to the promulgation of the blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Conception, absolutely without biblical foundation (Cf. Four Great Marian Dogmas.) How easily are those ensnared who abhor blasphemous Roman Catholic dogmas and yet are either active proponents of the anti-abortion movement or even simply assent to what it advocates!
The role of dogma in Rome's opposition to abortion is brought into sharp relief in the light of Pope Pius IX's biography:
Pope Pius IX was also highly involved in reforming church doctrine. His long time devotion to Mary led to the establishment of the dogma of Immaculate Conception of Mary on 8 December 1854. On 8 December 1869, Pope Pius IX opened the Vatican Counsel in the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome. Before the Counsel ended 8 July 1870, Pope Pius IX established the dogma of "papal infallibility,” which states that when speaking in terms of Church doctrine, the Pope speaks the truth with certainty.
Pope Pius IX challenged the canonical tradition about the beginning of ensouled life set by Pope Gregory XIV in 1591. He believed that while it may not be known when ensoulment occurs, there was the possibility that it happens at conception. Believing it was morally safer to follow this conclusion, he thought all life should be protected from the start of conception. In 1869 he removed the labels of “animated” fetus and “unanimated” fetus and concluded that abortions at any point of gestation were punishable by excommunication. While excommunication was used to punish those who procured abortions, it was not extended to those who used contraception.
Pope Pius IX, commonly known as Pio Nono, died on 7 February 1878. His was the longest papacy in the history of the Catholic Church, and Pope Pius IX is often considered one of the greatest popes to have ever lived. His dogma of Immaculate Conception, Vatican I, and papal infallibility were some of his most notable accomplishments. His efforts in punishing those that procured abortions at any time of gestation prevailed within the Catholic Church; excommunication for abortion became Canon Law in 1917, and later revised in 1983. (Underscored emphasis added.)
The foregoing are the irrefutable facts. The adoption of a religio-political "pro-life" position of necessity involves assent to the dogmas of Rome, including the great lie of the immortality of the soul.
HISTORICAL FACTS FROM THE PROTESTANT WORLD
Very significant historical facts have come to light in the course of researching the divisive issue of abortions, which have always been performed, whether or not prohibited by law. While the Roman Catholic Church has been consistent since the First Vatican Council (1869–70) in unqualifiedly opposing abortion at any time of gestation, Protestant church leaders tended to distance themselves from this extreme position. Indeed, it is surprising to learn that two members of the Presbyterian clergy, Landreth and Sandon, admitted publicly that they were actually helping women in Tallahassee, Florida, to obtain abortions:-
The Surprising Role of Clergy in the Abortion Fight Before Roe v. Wade
Landreth and Sandon’s abortion referral activities at Florida State University had drawn the attention and anger of a state senator and a district attorney who in turn denounced them in the press. After twice appearing before a grand jury, the clergymen worried that they would be charged and prosecuted.
But Landreth and Sandon were not alone. Their experiences reveal how, in the half-decade before Roe v. Wade, respected religious leaders participated in a nationwide struggle to make abortion more accessible. This largely forgotten history undercuts the popular myth that religious people oppose abortion rights. Fifty years ago this month, in May of 1967, as mainline Protestants and Reform Jews called for the liberalization of abortion laws, a group of clergy in New York City founded the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (CCS), an international network of clergy that helped women obtain legal and illegal abortions from licensed medical professionals. When Landreth spoke out, it was as part of CCS, which by then counted over 2,000 other ministers across the United States and Canada as members. . .
As trusted members of their communities to whom congregants turned for counseling, clergy witnessed a medical crisis unfolding because of restrictive abortion laws. In the 1950s and 1960s, prohibitions against abortion drove anywhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million women to obtain illegal abortions. By the end of 1972, the CCS had helped between a quarter and half a million women obtain safe legal and illegal abortions from physicians.
CCS members also demanded that their state legislators repeal abortion laws, and publicly testified for that cause. In 1968, Reverend Carl Bielby spoke with Michigan lawmakers who were conducting public hearings on that state’s abortion laws. Bielby was a leader of Michigan’s CCS. At the hearing he represented the Michigan Council of Churches’ position that, “as a matter of human right, each woman be given the control of her own body and procreative function, and that she has the moral responsibility and obligation for the just and sober stewardship thereof.” Likewise, Reverend Allen Hinand of the Philadelphia CCS proclaimed at a 1972 legislative hearing that it was time for women to “rise up and take control of a situation and a choice that belongs to them as females.”
Most importantly, CCS clergy emphasized that no single religion had a right to impose its religious values upon others. For these clergy, freedom of religion had to include freedom from those religious groups that sought to place restrictions on abortions.
Caught between these opposing positions, the Seventh-day Adventist Church long avoided taking an official position. The denomination in 1992 finally adopted what has been described as a centrist position which was both pro-life and pro-choice by Ronald L. Lawson, Ph.D.
COMPLICATED HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST POSITION ON ABORTION
Dr. Lawson has published a comprehensive history on the subject of abortion in the Seventh-day Adventist Church which is an excellent means of understanding the Church's position prior to October of 2019. Hopefully Dr. Lawson's use of the term "pro-life" in describing the Church's centrist position is not synonymous with its religio-political meaning - i.e. "life begins at conception," which life is the implantation of an immortal soul:-
PRO-WHAT? Seventh-day Adventists and Abortion
Dr. Lawson's study is so lengthy and detailed that it is best summarized, with a minimum of quotations. Reading the full history is beneficial for understanding of the Church's evolution on the issue of abortion prior to October, 2019.
Quotation:
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is conservative in its interpretation of the Bible, and typically upholds conservative standards on “family” issues: it has, for example, adopted strict rules concerning divorce and remarriage and has stated that practicing homosexuals are not acceptable as members [Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 1990: 160]. However, it avoided recommending a position on abortion to its members, despite the sharpness of the debate over the issue within American society and the relevance of the question to both its members and its hospitals, until the end of 1992. At that time, unlike many other conservative denominations, it adopted a statement that attempted to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice concurrently.
This paper examines the evolution of the abortion issue within the Adventist Church and the dynamics and significance of its recent resolution. It highlights the tensions between the conservative inclinations of Adventist theology and of the majority among its global membership and the demand for flexibility by its extensive and influential hospital system. . ."
Abortion was widespread in the U.S. in the nineteenth century–it is estimated that 20% of pregnancies ended in abortion. Around 1860 the medical profession launched a campaign to change this, in part to help establish their profession. Abortion was proscribed in 40 states between 1860 and 1880, and prohibition of it was universal by 1900 [Pearson, 1990:92-4].
Though Adventists were not involved in the crusade against abortion, they supported its stand. Both the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, the in-house paper, and The Health Reformer, a missionary paper founded in 1866, carried articles warning against abortion, dubbing it “child murder” [Gainer, 1988:5,6; Pearson, 1990:100]. Once he became editor of The Health Reformer and chief of both the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the church’s first medical institution, and its fledgling medical school, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg echoed these views. For example, he dubbed America ”a nation of murderers” [Pearson, 1990: 103].
Ellen White, the Adventist prophet, never addressed the issue directly – though it can be assumed that she was aware of it because of the strong stand taken by her protege, Dr. Kellogg, and because her husband included an article by a non-Adventist, Dr. E.P. Miller, railing against abortion, along with other sex-related articles by the prophet, in a book which he edited [White, 1870]. There is also considerable evidence that she would have found it morally repugnant. For example, she laid great emphasis on the importance of prenatal influences, and urged mothers to “consecrate their offspring to God, both before and after its birth” [cited Pearson, 1990:97].
Since the doctors’ crusade resulted in laws banning abortions, there was little controversy over the issue during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Adventists remained almost totally silent on the topic during that time. . .
Though we walk the fence, SDA’s lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and over-population, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population [quoted by Gainer, 1988: 13]. . ." [Cf. Spirit of Prophecy Policy on Family Planning.]
On May 13, 1970, the General Conference officers voted to accept “suggestive guidelines for therapeutic abortions,” the first formal pronouncement made by the Adventist church. The stated purpose of this document was to inform the policies of Adventist hospitals in the U.S. It permitted abortions, after consultation with two colleagues, during the first trimester under the following conditions:
1. When continuation of pregnancy may threaten the life of the woman or seriously impair her health.
2. When continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the birth of a child with grave physical deformities or mental retardation.
3. When conception has occurred as a result of rape or incest [Ministry, March 1971].
These conditions closely paralleled those put forward by the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code, issued in 1959, in which it suggested reforms that would bring the law up to date with what was then the practice in most hospitals [Luker: 1984,65, 278]. However, the situation in the U.S. had changed dramatically since that time. Consequently, when members of the Adventist medical community objected to the new guidelines on the grounds that they were inadequate, church leaders decided not to take them to the General Conference Session for approval.
Instead of this, the General Conference officers decided to enlarge the earlier abortion guidelines committee “to study what counsel should be given regarding elective abortions” [Minutes, July 6, 1970, quoted by Gainer, 1988: 16]." . . . (Underscored emphasis added).
[Here it should be noted that the Seventh-day Adventist Church operates the "largest Protestant integrated network of hospitals and clinics worldwide." This creates complications in providing comprehensive hospital services to communities in accordance with the laws of the land as distinct from Bible-based morality or non-biblical religious dogma.]
Summary
In July 1970, R.R.Bietz, a vice president of the General Conference, met with leaders of the Hawaii hospital and later wrote in a letter that "several of the doctors using the hospital wished to do more than therapeutic abortions." If this were not allowed “chances are fairly good that they will take their patients [to other hospitals] for other treatments as well." [This was not necessarily a mercenary consideration. It is self-evident that loss of patients could reach a level which would force the closure of a hospital.]
"The situation was further complicated by the fact that several of the Adventist doctors were opposed to doing elective abortions . . ." The hospital administration needed the support of "the higher Church organization" to silence these physicians.
"In December 1970 the chief of staff of Castle Memorial Hospital wrote to the president of the General Conference to complain about the length of time that had elapsed without a decision." By this time there was reliable information that "a number of Adventist west coast hospitals had in their practice 'greatly liberalized' their definitions of therapeutic abortion."
In June, 1971, a new position covering both therapeutic and elective abortions was voted by the General Conference officers.
Quotation
The new position, entitled “Interruption of Pregnancy Statement of Principles” because it covered both therapeutic and elective abortions [N.C. Wilson to W.J. Blacker, July 13, 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 23], was finally voted by the General Conference officers on June 21, 1971. The need to consult with other physicians before conducting an abortion was removed, and the conditions under which abortion was acceptable were broadened considerably. Two of the original conditions were liberalized: ”seriously” was removed as a qualifier of a threat to “impair [the woman’s] health”, and “physical deformities and mental retardation” no longer had to be “grave.” Two additional conditions were added:
“When the case involves an unwed child under 15 years of age.”
“When for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human value” [Widmer,1986: 15, emphasis supplied ] (Original.) . . .
In creating abortion guidelines for Adventist hospitals, church leaders had shown an astonishing eagerness to be in step with the changing climate of opinion [see, e.g., W.R. Beach to N.C.Wilson, March 8, 1971, cited by Gainer, 1988: 22]. In arriving at their position they had called for neither theological nor ethical studies, but had deferred to the judgment of their medical establishment, since “the performing of abortions” is “the proper business of responsible staffs of hospitals” [Ministry, March 1971, 10-11]. Moreover, they had granted the hospitals a high degree of autonomy in interpreting the guidelines as they developed their own policies. (Underscored emphasis added.) [Failure to call for theological and ethical studies was probably fatal. The ministry and the laity should have been educated by sound biblical exegesis. In particular, the existence of the deadly dogma of the immortality of the soul in the religio-political Pro-life movement should have been exposed.] . . .
Meanwhile, Adventist members received mixed messages from their church concerning abortion. Church periodicals broached the topic infrequently, but when they did so they were “markedly more conservative than the thinking represented in the General Conference Guidelines” [Pearson, 1990:123]. While an occasional article advocated a moderate position, allowing abortions in especially difficult situations [Londis, 1974], the vast majority adopted stances strongly opposing abortion [Dick, 1971; Gow, 1977; Drennan, 1977; Muller, 1985; Sabbath School Quarterly, August 1982]. However, advice to women from their pastors varied considerably [Sweem, 1988:14], and many of the young pregnant women who chose to utilize Adventist Adoption and Family Services reported that they had been strongly advised by college and academy deans of women, teachers and pastors to put the problem behind them by having an abortion [interview].
Some American Adventists became pro-life activists. . .
Survey data indicate that while there are deep divisions among Adventists in North America concerning abortion, a majority of the laity, in particular, express pro-life sentiments. . .
Thus, in spite of the fact that by the mid-1980s the Adventist church ran a network of over 400 health institutions globally and women members inevitably faced their share of crisis pregnancies, it did not have a consistent position on abortion, nor had it yet fostered any sustained discussion of the issue. Instead it drifted along according to local culture. Given this situation, and the increasingly bitter debate in society, it is not surprising that church leaders often stated that the church had avoided adopting a position . . .
The situation of drift changed dramatically in October 1985, when demonstrators representing conservative Christian churches picketed Washington Adventist Hospital, protesting its abortion program–an action which was reported in the Washington Post. In earlier years, when it was difficult to get an abortion at any hospital in or around Washington, a very liberal obstetrics group at WAH had felt they should provide abortions, and they had since done a lot [interview]. The demonstrators asserted that hospital records showed that 1,494 abortions had been performed there between 1975 and 1982. . .
The demonstration at WAH was especially embarrassing to church leaders because of its proximity to the General Conference and their sensitivity to the public image of the church in Washington. It took place at a time, during the Reagan administration, when abortion was at the center of public debate and the pro-life forces seemed to be on a roll politically.[The beginning of the ascendancy of the Church of Rome in America.] Adventist leaders, whose concern to be in step with public opinion on the issue from as early as 1970 was noted above, wondered whether they were now out of step with it. A chorus of lay people asked questions and began to apply pressure from varying points of view. The abortion issue was suddenly placed under close scrutiny within Adventism in North America. (Underscored emphasis added.) [Note the concern to be in step with public opinion, instead of finding out what the Bible sanctions.] . . .
Summary
The scrutiny involved four main thrusts:
First, the Church press addressed the issue systematically. "The Adventist Review published the core of both the 1970 and 1971 statements–the first time that any portion of the 1971 guidelines appeared in print [Widmer, 1986:14-15], and the Review (Sept. 25, 1986), Insight, the magazine for youth [Jan.1988], and Ministry all attempted to run articles representing the differing opinions among Adventists. However, the latter two both continued to show sympathy to the pro-life position."
Second, "scholars began to research the issue of Adventist hospitals and abortion. [Note that once again the focus was not on exegesis of the Bible.]
Third, "the constituency meeting of the Potomac Conference, whose territory contained two hospitals, Washington Adventist Hospital and Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, which had been objects of pro-life protests, voted to form a study commission to examine abortion policies at the hospitals and records of the numbers and reasons for abortions there.
Fourth, the delegates to the study commission voted an appeal to the hospitals "to immediately adopt and implement abortion policies that institutionally prohibit abortions for social or economic reasons including convenience, birth control, gender selection, or avoidance of embarrassment; limiting the abortion procedure to those times when a pregnancy threatens the mother’s physical life, when the fetus is gravely abnormal, and in cases of rape or incest."
Fifth, and finally, "the Center for Christian Bioethics at Loma Linda University planned a conference for November 1988." This conference was entitled "Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options." This "spawned" action by the General Conference, and a committee was formed to address the issue. It is interesting that among the contributors to the committee's deliberations was John V. Stevens, Sr., who presented a paper to the committee, from which Lawson quotes as follows:
”The abortion issue is the catalyst to subject America, and indeed the world, to the papal ‘divine right of rule’ in all moral matters, social and religious, thus establishing its religion as the law of the land, and inflicting civil penalties on religious dissenters…. The abortion issue will likely serve as the needle that pulls behind it the thread of oppressive Sunday religious worship laws”
It is a certainty that Stevens must have gone into the issue in much greater detail. However, his own exegesis of the Bible is not mentioned by Lawson.
Ultimately the committee's work resulted in an official statement in 1992, titled “Guidelines on Abortion, "which was the Church's position until October, 2019.
Since the latest position was published, it is no longer possible to find the relevant page on the official Seventh-day Adventist website. However, Lawson provides the content, which is quoted in full:
The statement, as approved, begins by affirming the sanctity of life:
“Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift from God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life.”
While this does not necessarily exclude abortion, it means that
“Abortion is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.”
Item 4 considers abortion in greater detail:
“Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church. Women …, however, may face exceptional circumstances…such as serious threats to a pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation.”
Therefore, (5) because Christians are accountable before God, ”any attempt to coerce women either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom;” and (2),
“the church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate.”
Item (3) attempts to bring life and choice together: “In practical, tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express its commitment to the value of human life” – including “educating both genders concerning Christian principles of human sexuality, emphasizing responsibility of both male and female for family planning,…offering support and assistance to women who choose to complete crisis pregnancies… the church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that may lead to abortion.
Since these principles are relevant to Adventist hospitals, “(6) Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to abortion should not be required to participate in the performance of abortions."[5][Adventist Review, Dec.31, 1992:11-12]
By trying to straddle the fence – making the fetus significant, yet allowing a woman the right to choose - to keep Adventists together, the committee created some ambiguity. Consequently, while Whiting held that the committee had arrived at “a modified pro-life stand” [interview], Winslow described it as “ultimately pro-choice, since its bottom line is that the pregnant woman must decide. It places emphasis on the value of life, but this is limited to persuasion” [Winslow, 1991].
Under a paragraph titled "Interpretation," Lawson states:
Because of its sectarian roots and conservative theology and view of the Scriptures, many would expect the Seventh-day Adventist Church to adopt an uncompromising pro-life position. However, although surveys confirm that a majority of members in he U.S. do lean in that direction and that globally Adventists are strongly opposed to abortion, Adventists have never adopted the expected position. It has been shown that while America argued and anguished over abortion policy for over twenty years, the Adventist church failed to give guidance to members wrestling with personal decisions over problem or unwanted pregnancies and allowed a permissive policy within its hospital system. When it finally addressed the issue in 1992, the church issued guidelines to its members which affirmed the value of the life of a fetus and strongly discouraged abortions for trivial reasons, but left the ultimate decision to the pregnant woman. Meanwhile, however, an attempt to issue a companion statement which would have had the effect of bringing unity of practice to Adventist hospitals by eliminating abortions of convenience has apparently been diverted.
After his interpretation, Lawson provides an analysis of "the reasons for the complexity of the current situation," which it is not necessary to include here.
The following is a 1988 Ministry article which appears to be one of those which indicated sympathy for the "pro-life" position:
Abortion: the Adventist dilemma
Note the following passage:
The Adventists' dilemma is compounded by the fact that the major sources to which they normally turn for direction in matters of faith and practice the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen White are silent, or at least less than unequivocal about abortion. Some have argued cogently that there is an anti-abortion ethic implicit in Scripture. A recent MINISTRY article, containing a careful interpretation of Exodus 21:22, 23, was a persuasive example of this viewpoint. . .
Ellen White's writings are equally in conclusive [S/B inconclusive.] It is not difficult to select quotations from her writings to support the view that abortion violates the purpose of God, and as such is a sinful act. The following is but one example: "Life is mysterious and sacred. It is the manifestation of God Himself, the source of all life. Precious are its opportunities, and earnestly should they be improved. Once lost, they are gone forever. . . . [The author's ellipsis.]
"God looks into the tiny seed that He Himself has formed, and sees wrapped within it the beautiful flower, the shrub, or the lofty, wide-spreading tree. So does He see the possibilities in every human being."
It is safe to conjecture that Ellen White found abortion a deeply repugnant act. It is interesting, however, that she refrained from condemning it, even though it was of widespread concern in society in her day. While there are, no doubt, perfectly adequate reasons that she omitted any reference to abortion in her work, the point here is simply that at no time did Ellen White directly address the issue in a way that could supply a norm for Adventists.
Thus an editorial writer in the Adventist Review was prompted to observe that "our church leaders have noted that neither the Bible nor Ellen White say any thing definite about elective abortion. They have felt that where Inspiration is silent, we should not legislate." . . .
What elements in Adventist theology might figure in the abortion decision? The doctrine of conditional mortality is clearly relevant to the debate, though surprisingly little has been said about it in Adventist publications. The Catholic view that a soul is infused into the embryo at conception, and that it, as an inheritor of original sin, must not be allowed to perish without baptism, clearly dictates a certain course of action. In contrast, Adventists believe neither that there exists a separate entity called a soul, nor that baptism is essential to salvation. They prefer to say that man "becomes a soul" rather than that he "possesses a soul." Soul is therefore understood to mean both "life" and "individuality." This then allows them to say that "a new soul comes into existence every time a child is born." which might seem to permit some concession to the abortion option.
On the other hand, this view of humanity means that a soul cannot exist without a body. Possessing a body material entity is part of what it means to be a soul. Thus it could be argued that since a material entity with a unique genetic inheritance is formed at conception, a soul exists from that point and absolute value should be attached to it.
Adventist doctrine overlaps with the abortion issue at several other points, and we as a church can only acknowledge our delinquency in failing to chart the area more adequately.(Underscored emphasis added.)
Note what the author states about Exodus 21:22-23: "Some have argued cogently that there is an anti-abortion ethic implicit in Scripture. A recent MINISTRY article, containing a careful interpretation of Exodus 21:22, 23, was a persuasive example of this viewpoint." Compare this with the exegesis of John V. Stevens above. Moreover the case in the Bible of expressly authorized abortion of a fetus is completely ignored.
To the author's credit, he acknowledges that "at no time did Ellen White directly address the issue in a way that could supply a norm for Adventists."
Exceptionally, the author has something to say about the issue of mortality and immortality; and he acknowledges that "The doctrine of conditional mortality is clearly relevant to the debate, though surprisingly little has been said about it in Adventist publications." This has been a fatal deficiency in the Church's consideration of the status of a fetus.
In spite of their much vaunted reliance on the writings of Ellen G. White for guidance, it is clear that they are ignoring her warning. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has not taken the deadly peril of the Immortality of the Soul dogma seriously. That this dogma is the central underpinning of the "Pro-life" movement is irrefutably established:
THE SEVENTH-DAY CHURCH BENDS TO THE PREVAILING WINDS
Seventh-day Adventists are not immune to diabolical propaganda. Our only protection is in the Word of God. The following warning of Ellen G. White fits the circumstances of the abortion controversy, in which the propaganda plays upon valid moral convictions and reactive emotions:
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. The people of God are directed to the Scriptures as their safeguard against the influence of false teachers and the delusive power of spirits of darkness. Satan employs every possible device to prevent men from obtaining a knowledge of the Bible; for its plain utterances reveal his deceptions. At every revival of God's work the prince of evil is aroused to more intense activity; he is now putting forth his utmost efforts for a final struggle against Christ and His followers. The last great delusion is soon to open before us. Antichrist is to perform his marvelous works in our sight. So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures. . . (Great Controversy, p. 593.)
The tragic reality for too many of both lay members and the ministry of the world community of Seventh-day Adventists is that the propaganda has prevailed to obscure the distinction between the counterfeit and the true. They have not delved deeply enough into the Holy Scriptures to perceive the distinction. Superficial reading of the Bible will not provide the answer to the abortion controversy. Fifty years of progressive departure from the fundamental doctrines of the Advent Movement have come to this pass - that 2 Thess. 2:10-12 applies.
Bible texts are now being misapplied to bolster preconceived notions derived from the propaganda - the great lie. This is reflected in the agitation which culminated in the Annual Council meeting of the Executive Committee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in October, 2019:-
Amidst Growing Criticism, SDA Church Is Revisiting Abortion Position (update)
When it comes to abortion, Seventh-day Adventists range from providers to prominent pro-life advocates. Now the 21-million-member denomination is revisiting its position on the controversial issue.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has announced that it is considering revisiting its pro-choice stance on the topic of abortion. According to a press release issued on August 29, the denomination's Biblical Research Institute (BRI) has been studying the issue from a theological perspective for the last two years.
BRI has prepared a statement that "reflects Scriptural principles bearing on the discussion of abortion." The issue has been intensely debated in the church as some institutions have recognized the contributions of Adventist physicians who operate abortion clinics while other high-profile physicians have taken a strong stance against abortion. . .
The debate over the church's affiliation with the abortion industry became intense in 2013 when Christianity Today reported that La Sierra University, a 2,400-student Adventist liberal arts college in Riverside, California, had named its Center for Financial Literacy after Dr. Edward C. Allred Allred was the founder of Family Planning Associates, one of the largest abortion chains in the United States with 23 locations in California. According to the La Sierra University website, Allred, an active member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is "both the principal sponsor of the center and the inspiration behind its economic philosophy." According to the Family Planning Associates website Allred's business partner, Dr. Kenneth Wright, "pioneered the use of saline amniocentesis, a technique for terminating pregnancy safely in the second trimester." . . .
In contrast, Dr. Ben Carson, who currently serves as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, spent his career before politics performing life-saving procedures on babies in the womb. As the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland from 1984 to 2013, he performed the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb. Dr. Carson is also an outspoken pro-life advocate.
Pro-life Adventist Ben Carson Pioneered Neurosurgery Inside the Womb
Earlier this year, Carson gave an interview at CPAC 2019 about the subject of abortion,
"God has orchestrated an incredible situation where
the egg and the sperm come together, and within a
matter of 10 to 12 weeks, you can see the little
fingers and the little toes, and the little nose,
and the face, the heart is starting to beat," Carson
said. "It's absolutely amazing."
"And then (the brain) goes on to develop very
rapidly from there. Hundreds of thousands of neurons
every single day… I've had the privilege of being
able to operate on little babies that were 25, 26,
27, 28 weeks' gestation. I can guarantee you, they
can feel, they can react… You have to give them
anesthesia if you're going to cut them. They can
also respond to comfort and to warmth."
"For somebody to say that's a meaningless bunch of cells," Carson said, "honestly is just totally ignorant.". . .
In 1985, protesters from a local megachurch gathered outside two Adventist hospitals in the Washington, DC area to protest abortion, according to the Washington Post. . .
While the church's official publications have avoided discussion of the abortion issue, pro-life Adventists have taken to the Internet to call on the church to revisit its position.
Jamey Houghton, the pastor of the Franktown Adventist Church in Colorado, wrote,
"With the evidence in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I have no choice but to be in favor of supporting the lives of the unborn if I am to stay faithful to God's word."
Adventist pastor and WhiteHorse Media director Steve Wolhberg released a 13-part television series entitled "The Abortion Controversy: Two Women Tell Their Stories of Hope and Healing." He has recently made the series available on YouTube.
Last month, Scott Ritsema, director of Belt of Truth Ministries, released a video, "Abortion: Are Seventh-day Adventists Pro-Life?" (YouTube), featuring prominent church leaders, including It is Written speaker John Bradshaw, General Conference President Ted Wilson, Pastor Doug Batchelor, and other key evangelists discussing their support of a pro-life position. . .
Last year, Adventist author Martin Weber, D.Min., and former associate editor of Ministry Magazine gave several reasons why he believes the denomination should revisit its guidelines in the North Pacific Union Gleaner . . .
Here it is worthy of note who Dr. Ben Carson really is! Consider Carson's opposition to separation of church and state and his support of the Religious Right claim that America was founded as a "Christian" nation, which is a historical falsehood. Ben Carson is a theocrat. It is noteworthy that he offers no scriptural basis for his position. Indeed, as The Abortion Controversy establishes by objective exegesis of the Bible, the issue cannot be safely resolved by passages of Scripture which only establish general principles of life. This is so especially since there are two specific references to aborting the fetus in the Bible. Ben Carson's description of the development of a fetus is an example of the persuasive power of imagery in the abortion controversy. It is worthy of note that those who support freedom of choice do not claim that at all stages of development the fetus is just "a meaningless bunch of cells."
As to the Biblical Research Institute, the motivation of this "think-tank" of the Seventh-day Adventist Church can be deduced from their engaging in dialogue with theologians of the Church of Rome as long ago as 2002. Notwithstanding the reason offered for the dialogue, it was a compromise of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's fundamental Bible-based antipathy towards the papacy. Of great significance is BRIs position on ecumenism, which is antithetical to the foundation principles of the Advent Movement:
Adventists and Ecumenical Conversation
The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not exist in isolation from other Christian communities. Social and religious trends in the Christian world impact us; they force us to decide how we should relate to those trends and changes. The Christian concern about the unity of the church, voiced particularly through the World Council of Churches, forces us to define where we stand on this important subject. Certainly, “no Adventist can be opposed to the unity Christ Himself prayed for.”
This article looks at the nature of Seventh-day Adventist involvement in the search for unity among Christians, as well as the doctrinal and theological parameters within which we operate in that search. It also briefly discusses the risks and benefits present in the conversations with other Christian bodies. . .
There is much debate in the ecumenical movement about church unity. Traditionally that unity has been understood as “agreement in the confession of the faith and mutuality in the sacraments and in the ecclesiastical office (ministry), common worship life in prayer, common witness and common service to all human beings, the ability to act and speak together in view of the concrete tasks and challenges, the local as well as the universal dimension of the ecclesiastical unity, unity as well as diversity.”
This far-reaching understanding of unity is incompatible with Adventist self-understanding, especially as Adventists see themselves called into being to be a reformation movement based on a particular prophetic role. The kind of unity expressed in the above statement ignores the damage that apostasy has inflicted on Christianity and, consequently, does not attempt to remedy it.
Hence Adventists are reluctant to be officially involved in the organized ecumenical movement.
Three specific models for unity have been proposed in ecumenical circles.
The first one, the Cooperative-Federal Model, is considered the most elemental type in that it does not address topics like communion of faith, worship, sacraments, and ministry. These are issues of great concern in the ecumenical movement (which is why some people refuse to call it a model of Christian unity).
This “model "consists in the development of a confederation or alliance of churches in order to work together on common interests. The identity and autonomy of each church is preserved and respected. Adventists have remained open to possible involvement in such a federation because it does not threaten the church’s message and mission. This is particularly the case in France, with our participation in the French Protestant Federation. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
Risks
The Adventist involvement in interfaith conversations has never had the purpose of seeking unity with other ecclesiastical bodies. We have used such conversations as a means of sharing our true identity and mission with others, and as a way of eliminating misunderstanding and prejudices against us.
In that task the Council on Interchurch/Faith Relations of the General Conference has performed a significant role; it has been of great service to the Adventist Church and has represented it with dignity and respect. . .
Benefits
Despite the potential dangers, meetings with other Christians also come with potential benefits. Therefore we should not discourage, formally or informally, approaching other Christians and even non-Christian religions. . .
At such meetings we come to know each other much better and occasionally sensitive questions are asked behind the scenes, on the basis of the developing friendship. It is safe to say that these important questions would almost certainly not be asked in the more formal setting of the main meetings. Here witnessing takes a personal dimension at a moment when confrontation is at its lowest point. . .
Conclusion
Adventists have not isolated themselves from the Christian world and its search for unity. We have been selectively involved in conversations with other religious communities, not because we want to pursue unity on their terms, but because we want to make ourselves known and, at the same time, eliminate misconception. (Underscored emphasis supplied.)
What a self-deception it is to think that dialogue with apostates to gain their favor could be pleasing in the sight of God! Ellen G. White predicted the result:-
The heavenly Teacher inquired: "What stronger delusion can beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right foundation and that God accepts your works, when in reality you are working out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah? Oh, it is a great deception, a fascinating delusion, that takes possession of minds when men who have once known the truth, mistake the form of godliness for the spirit and power thereof; when they suppose that they are rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing, while in reality they are in need of everything." . . .
Who can truthfully say: "Our gold is tried in the fire; our garments are unspotted by the world"? I saw our Instructor pointing to the garments of so-called righteousness. Stripping them off, He laid bare the defilement beneath. Then He said to me: "Can you not see how they have pretentiously covered up their defilement and rottenness of character? 'How is the faithful city become an harlot!' My Father's house is made a house of merchandise, a place whence the divine presence and glory have departed! For this cause there is weakness, and strength is lacking." . . . (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8, Pp. 249-250)
We have seen this come to pass. If "the divine presence and glory have departed," how in the world can the deluded leaders of the Church withstand the guiles of Satan, whose power "now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles?" The point cannot be over-emphasized that it is the Holy Spirit alone Who guides us into all Truth! The opposite is happening in the Seventh-day Adventist Church:
There will be seducing spirits and doctrines of devils in the midst of the church, and these evil influences will increase; but hold fast the beginning of your confidence firm unto the end.--Ms 61, 1906, p. 2. ("Hold Fast the Beginning of Your Confidence," June 29, 1906.) (8MR 345.2)
How many Seventh-day Adventists take this warning seriously? It requires acute alertness at a time when the condition of the laity is one of careless indifference to sound exegesis of the Bible.
Before proceeding to consideration of the October 16, 2019, Statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Executive Committee, here is a brief look at three subsequent reports, all non-Adventist:-
BREAKING: Adventist Church approves pro-life position on abortion
On October 16, 2019, the Executive Committee of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church voted at its Annual
Council meeting [see Video] to adopt
the position that "[t]he
Seventh-day Adventist Church considers abortion
out of harmony with God's
plan for human life."
The newly adopted position statement affirms that
"God considers the unborn child as human life" and
that "the principle to preserve life enshrined in
the sixth commandment places abortion within its
scope."
The document also states that
"Life is protected by God. It is not measured
by individuals' abilities or their usefulness, but
by the value that God's creation and sacrificial
love has placed on it.
Personhood, human value, and salvation are
not earned or merited but graciously granted by
God." . . .
The adoption of a pro-life position does not imply that the denomination will become active in civil legislation on abortion-related issues but does provide internal guidance for church members and institutions. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Ironically, this report appears on a "Religious Liberty" website; but harmonizes with the Religious Right's activism for their brand of "Religious Freedom," which denies that of those who do not agree with them. Grotesquely, the website belongs to "Founders First Freedom," an atheist organization. This brings to mind Ellen G. White's warning that the "great error" of the immortality of the soul "lays the foundation of Spiritualism."
Seventh-Day Adventist Church Adopts Pro-Life Position: Abortion is “Out of Harmony With God’s Plan”
The Seventh-Day Adventist Church confirmed its solidly pro-life position in a vote Wednesday during its annual council meeting in Maryland.
The Christian denomination declared abortion to be “out of harmony with God’s plan for human life” in a new position statement approved by its executive committee, Religious Liberty TV reports.
The statement of belief affirms the value of babies in the womb and condemns abortion as murder under the sixth commandment. It states that “God considers the unborn child as human life,” and “the principle to preserve life enshrined in the sixth commandment places abortion within its scope.”
Some mainline Protestant denominations have abandoned Christian teachings on the sanctity of human life, but others, including the Catholic Church and Seventh-Day Adventists, hold strong to the core belief that every human life is valuable because he/she is created in the image of God. (Underscored emphasis added.)
In a statement released by its executive committee, the Seventh-day Adventist Church took a strong pro-life stance during its Annual Council in Maryland.
The four-page document states “human beings are created in the image of God” and “abortion is out of harmony with God’s plan.” No previous statement on the sanctity of preborn life had been written before this, according to the Adventist News Network. The last time guidelines on abortion had been established by the church was in 1992. Adventist World Church President, Ted N.C. Wilson said the 1992 guidelines gave a “far more limited approach in terms of a comprehensive view of the Biblical approach to this precious subject.”
The statement released by the Seventh-day Adventist Church takes the position that every child should be “loved, valued and nurtured even before birth.” Quoting from the biblical books of Genesis, John, Psalms, and Jeremiah, the statement outlines “life is a gift from God,” sacred and important. It goes on to give biblical proof that God considers the “unborn child as a human life.” (Underscored emphasis added.)
These non-Adventist websites are telling us that they understand perfectly the Seventh-day Adventist Church's unequivocal commitment to their ideology and all that it necessitates, although the first one cited does not expect the Church to become activist. Clearly assent to the ideology in which the immortality of the soul is central and indispensable is all that is required for their approbation.
The new statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on abortion follows precisely in the path of the Evangelicals, who for religio-political reasons decided to adopt the Roman Catholic position, which is entirely based on tradition. The Evangelicals then sought to find biblical justification for this decision. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has done the same, with the embellishment of numerous Bible texts on the general principles of life, quoted on the presupposition that the fetus is a life in being at all stages of development:-
STATEMENT ON THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF UNBORN LIFE 3AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ABORTION
Statement on the Biblical View of Unborn Life and Its Implications for Abortion . . .
This statement affirms the sanctity of life and presents biblical principles bearing on abortion. As used in this statement, abortion is defined as any action aimed at the termination of a pregnancy and does not include the spontaneous termination of a pregnancy, known also as a miscarriage. . .
2. God considers the unborn child as human life. Prenatal life is precious in God’s sight, and the Bible describes God’s knowledge of people before they were conceived. “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:16) [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] In certain cases, God directly guided prenatal life. Samson was to “be a Nazirite to God from the womb” (Judges 13:5). [Cf. Stevens' reference.] The servant of God is “called from the womb” (Isaiah 49:1, 5). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] Jeremiah was already chosen as a prophet before his birth (Jeremiah 1:5), [Cf. Stevens' exegesis,] as was Paul (Galatians 1:15), [Cf. Commentaries; (Bible Hub Commentaries)] and John the Baptist was to “be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). [Cf. SDA Bible Commentary and Stevens Exegesis.] Of Jesus the angel Gabriel explained to Mary: “therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] In His Incarnation Jesus Himself experienced the human prenatal period and was recognized as the Messiah and Son of God soon after His conception (Luke 1:40- 45). The Bible already attributes to the unborn child joy (Luke 1:44) [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] and even rivalry (Genesis 25:21-23). Those not-yet-born have a firm place with God (Job 10:8-12; 31:13-15). [Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] Biblical law shows a strong regard for protecting human life and considers harm to or the loss of a baby or mother as a result of a violent act a serious issue (Exodus 21:22-23) [Exaggerated interpretation which distorts the true meaning of the text; Cf. Stevens' exegesis.] . . .
4. God is the Owner of life, and human beings are His stewards. Scripture teaches 2 that God owns everything (Psalm 50:10-12). God has a dual claim on humans. They are His 3 because He is their Creator and therefore He owns them (Psalm 139:13-16). They are also His because He is their Redeemer and has bought them with the highest possible price—His own life (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). This means that all human beings are stewards of whatever God has entrusted to them, including their own lives, the lives of their children, and the unborn. . .
5. The Bible teaches care for the weak and the vulnerable. God Himself cares for those who are disadvantaged and oppressed and protects them. He “shows no partiality nor takes 1 a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:17-18, cf. Psalm 82:3-4; James 1:27). He does not hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers (Ezekiel 18:20). God expects the same of His children. They are called to help vulnerable people and ease their lot (Psalm 41:1; 82:3-4; Acts 20 20:35). Jesus speaks of the least of His brothers (Matthew 25:40), for whom His followers are responsible, and of the little ones who should not be despised or lost (Matthew 18:10-14). The very youngest, namely the unborn, should be counted among them. . .
Implications
The Seventh-day Adventist Church considers abortion out of harmony with God’s plan for human life. It affects the unborn, the mother, the father, immediate and extended family members, the church family, and society with long-term consequences for all. Believers aim to trust God and follow His will for them, knowing He has their best interests in mind.
While not condoning abortion, the Church and its members are called to follow the example of Jesus, being “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14), to (1) create an atmosphere of true love and provide grace-filled, biblical pastoral care and loving support to those facing difficult decisions regarding abortion; (2) enlist the help of well-functioning and committed families and educate them to provide care for struggling individuals, couples, and families; (3) encourage church members to open their homes to those in need, including single parents, parentless children, and adoptive or foster care children; (4) care deeply for and support in various ways pregnant women who decide to keep their unborn children; and (5) provide emotional and spiritual support to those who have aborted a child for various reasons or were forced to have an abortion and may be hurting physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually.
The issue of abortion presents enormous challenges, but it gives individuals and the Church the opportunity to be what they aspire to be, the fellowship of brothers and sisters, the community of believers, the family of God, revealing His immeasurable and unfailing love. . .
Only paragraphs in which the pro-lifers' catch phrases could be found have been quoted above. All of the paragraphs of the Statement except "2. God considers the unborn child as human life" are general biblical principles with no specific application to abortion. Paragraph "2. God considers the unborn child as human life" is the one which follows the path of the Evangelicals in eisegetical application of certain passages of Scripture to the abortion controversy. (Ref. John V. Stevens' exegeses inserted within Paragraph 2 above.) The Bible texts which are not analyzed by Stevens do not support the findings of the BRI.
On Judges 13:5 - "from the womb" is not defined by the Bible Commentaries.
On Isaiah 49:1, 5 - "from the womb" is similarly not defined. However, some apply verse 5 as a Messianic prophecy, and Jesus is unique because of Christ's pre-existence.
On Galatians 1:15, - respected Bible Commentaries expressly contradict the application made by the BRI. On the expository side, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers states:
From my mother’s womb.—A comparison of other passages where this phrase is used seems to make it clear that the sense is rather “from the moment of my birth” than “from before my birth.” (See Psalm 22:10; Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; Matthew 19:12; Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8.) From the moment that he became a living and conscious human being he was marked out in the purpose of God for his future mission.
Meyer's NT Commentary states:
ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου] who separated me, that is, in His counsel set me apart from other men for a special destination, from my mother’s womb; that is, not in the womb (Wieseler); nor, from the time when I was in the womb (Hofmann, comp. Möller); nor, ere I was born (Rückert); but, as soon as I had issued from the womb, from my birth. Comp. Psalm 22:11; Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; Matthew 19:12; Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8 (in Luke 1:15, where ἔτι is added, the thought is different). ἐκ γενετῆς, John 9:1, has the same meaning. Comp. the Greek ἐκ γαστρός, and the like. We must not assume a reference to Jeremiah 1:5 (Grotius, Semler, Reithmayr, and others), for in that passage there is an essentially different definition of time (πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ κ.τ.λ.).
Expositor's Greek Testament states:
Galatians 1:15. ἀφορίσας. Paul looks back on his parentage and early years as a providential preparation for his future ministry: this view is justified by his antecedents. By birth at once a Hebrew, a Greek and Roman citizen, educated in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Greek learning, he combined in his own person the most essential requisites for an Apostle to the Gentiles. He was further moulded by the spiritual discipline of an intense, though mistaken, zeal for the Law of his God, which issued in bitter remorse. By this career he was fitted to become a chosen vessel to bear the name of Christ before the Gentile world. He did not hesitate accordingly to regard himself, like Hebrew prophets of old (Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5, Jeremiah 1:5), as dedicated from his birth to the service of God.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:
separated me … womb] ‘Set me apart from my birth,’ comp. Jeremiah 1:5. The good pleasure was from all eternity, the setting apart was at birth, the call was on the road to Damascus, the revelation, then and subsequently.
Other commentaries such as Barnes' Notes on the Bible, and Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible similarly explain the meaning of the term "from my mother's womb" to mean from birth. Note the linkage to Jeremiah 1:5 in the passages quoted above.
On Luke 1:15, - It is noteworthy that the BRI ignored the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (1956,) which states:
From his mother's womb. John's very existence was due to the will and power of God, and not of man. He came into the world with his assigned lifework, and was to be dedicated to God from the very first. It was possible for the Holy Spirit to "fill" John from birth because the Spirit had first been able to fill John's mother Elisabeth, directing and controlling her life. (Underscored emphasis supplied; cf. "John the Baptist . .")
As John V. Stevens pointed out, "since God predicted the birth and life of some persons, it is automatically assumed that they already exist somewhere other than on the earth." In other words, the assumption is clearly based on the idea of an immortal soul. The BRI has followed the Evangelicals by quoting Bible texts that make such predictions in support of the "pro-life" position. By so doing, they have endorsed the dogma of the immortality of the soul even before joining in the egregious error of attributing personhood to the fetus.
Having laid a very lengthy foundation, it is unnecessary to go into further examination of the October 16, 2019, statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's Executive Committee. "Res ipsa loquitur" ("the thing speaks for itself." It is clear that the Church has capitulated to Rome and all of her dogmas related to abortion. The document is spotted with the terminology of Rome and the Religious Right, as demonstrated by the underscored text above.
"It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy." Ellen G. White, The Signs of the Times, Feb. 19, 1894.
One thing it is certain is soon to be realized,--the great apostasy, which is developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout. (NYI, February 7, 1906 par. 1)
BOOKMARKS
Trump surpasses 15,000 false and misleading claims in office after lying more than ever in 2019
President Donald Trump has lied more than ever this year as he faces impeachment, bringing the total number of false and misleading claims he has made in office to more than 15,000, according to The Washington Post’s fact-checkers.
Trump developed a penchant for making blatantly false statements as a candidate and quickly piled up nearly 2,000 false or misleading claims in his first year in office, according to The Post. He annihilated that mark in 2018 with 5,689 false or misleading statements in 2018. Facing an impeachment in the House of Representatives and derision and mockery abroad, Trump has already made 7,725 false or misleading statements so far in 2019, bringing his grand total to 15,413 during 1,055 days in office.
The number of false claims peaked in October and November, as House Democrats moved forward with an investigation that saw numerous administration officials defy Trump’s orders and testify to lawmakers. The only month when Trump made more false claims was in October 2018, before the Democrats won a majority in the House of Representatives. . .
Fox News, Trump’s Ministry of Propaganda
For nearly a quarter of American adults, Fox News is their only cable news source. It tells them what Trump wants them to hear.
How prepared are President Donald Trump’s adversaries to deal with the reality of a lavishly produced state media operation? This, the most-watched cable news network, functions in its fealty to Trump like a real-world Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s 1984, where bureaucrats “rectify” the historical record to conform to Big Brother’s decrees.
I am referring, of course, to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News. Having unsuccessfully tried to sell itself as “Fair and Balanced,” Fox News debuted a new brand in March 2018: “Real News. Real Honest Opinion.” Network executives apparently chose this slogan to differentiate themselves from “fake news” outlets—and, no doubt, to dog-whistle a pledge of allegiance to their commander-in-chief, who since being sworn into office has decried fake news in at least 630 tweets (as of Dec. 4, 2019). . .
It seems Hannity and Trump have studied the texts of the 20th century’s master of indoctrination, who wrote in his 1925 autobiographical manifesto, Mein Kampf, “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly—it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” . . .
In Propaganda We Trust: America's Terrifying Propaganda Affair
In 2013, a law was silently left to lapse. Now,
America's propaganda affair is causing civil unrest.
These days, one memory stands out more than most
others when it comes to our education. Most of us,
when we were kids in school, were forced to read
George Orwell's 1984as part of our English Lit
education.
In 1984, a tyrannical government uses propaganda to brainwash people. Things that were printed months ago were immediately glossed over or changed by news groups at the behest of the government. At the end of the book, it becomes clear that the world was a dystopia where no one knew what was real anymore.
Little did we know that art would imitate life so quickly. Today, we live in a time when people question news sources, politicians discuss "alternative facts," and the White House no longer admits any wrongdoing despite ample evidence to the contrary. Many people are quite vocal about their support of right-wing policies. They regularly vote against their own interests, attack those who are different from them, and refuse to look at the science-backed facts. . .
Right before Trump's victory in 2016, voters all just assumed that Clinton would win—and she did win the popular vote by 3 million. However, gerrymandering and propaganda were what turned most of America red enough to let Trump win.
Basically, Republicans said America was broken and they could "Make America Great Again."
The only problem was that America wasn't broken. In fact, Obama's presidency led to a booming economy, expanded health care, and better human rights throughout the country. Research backs this with a phenomenal amount of data.
So, why do so many people think that Republicans are better for economic policy and human rights? Well, it all boils down to a very well-oiled propaganda machine from the right-wing.
During the months leading up to the election, right-wing news groups and speakers made a point to tell citizens that they were under attack by leftists. They began to paint a picture in which only Republicans could save America from the onslaught from these invisible forces.
They appealed to extremist Christian groups by talking about God and how they would end abortions. They began to talk to families about the dangers of immigrant crimes, despite the statistics that show most immigrants are law-abiding people. Even online memes were politicized with great success.
Rather than appeal to people via facts that don't back the Republican party's views, they went for emotion. They do what they can to make people think they're being attacked, judged, or hated. That is, after all, the most effective way to get people on your side—and also the hardest to defend against.
However, emotional propaganda is only one part of the Republican ways of brainwashing the public. They also have taken a page from fascist regimes by attacking the press. . .
ROME PITS HER "NATURAL LAW" AGAINST THE LAW OF THE LAND
Rome is very aggressive in opposing abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. The propriety of a religious institution being aggressively active in the political arena apart, the Bible is more than adequate to prove that homosexuality and euthanasia are sinful. Nevertheless, the Church of Rome elevates natural law above the Bible in her campaign against these sins:
For centuries, the term Christendom denoted the fact that two sets of powers, the Church and the State, were so united that there were not always clear divisions between these two institutions exercising their powers. History reveals a constant struggle demonstrating each of these two powers attempting to control the other. It is critical to examine the ideal relationship between these two sets of powers in a contemporary manner. While it is true that there have always been conflicts both within the Church and within the State, this paper will examine the conflicts of abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia between the Church and the State in the United States. The use of the term Church will be clarified for this paper. It will also analyze the origin and distinction of natural law and positive law and apply them to these three conflicts. Finally, a contemporary understanding of the appropriate relationship between the moral law and civil law regarding the conflicts of abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia will be offered. It is necessary to clarify exactly what is meant by the term Church in this paper. While it is true that there is a Catholic Church in the United States, there is not an American Catholic Church reflecting the fact that the Catholic Church is universal and connected to the Roman Pontiff always and everywhere. Vatican Council II states correctly from an historical perspective what the term Church meant when it stated that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church which is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. Though there are many elements of sanctification and truth found outside of its visible confines, they are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ and are forces impelling towards Catholic unity (Flannery ed., 357). The relationship of the powers of the Church and State is distinguished in their respective origins. It certainly is true that all the power of any type comes from God though the origin, means, and end to which the particular power is exercised will differ between the Church and State. The Church, unlike the State, was founded in a positive act by Jesus Christ, her Divine Redeemer; hence, the origin is supernatural. The State, however, has its origin in natural law meaning that civil society was naturally bound to come into existence and develop based on the intrinsic nature of how God made human beings. The state was not founded by a positive act of the Divine Redeemer (Barry ed., 1228). To improperly understand the relationship between the Church and State results in an incorrect understanding of the relationship between the supernatural and the natural or in theological terms, between grace and nature. . .
One of the conflicts that occurs between Church and State is rooted in the proper distinction between natural law and positive law. While natural law implies a law not made by man yet able to be discovered by use of reason, positive law is nothing more than a law derived from human consent as expressed in the majority will (Krason 3-4). The Church teaches that it is in the fact that Jesus Christ gave divine power to Peter and the apostles such that they and their successors indisputably are to both guard and interpret the whole morality not only of the gospels but also of natural law, since natural law does reveal the will of God and is necessary for salvation (Flannery ed. 398-9). Natural rights, which are based on the natural law [1], are unfortunately under direct attack today by secular humanists with the idea of replacing natural law with absolute positivism. At the root of the attempt to reject natural law, secular humanists are rejecting God, Who created and sustains nature, from which natural laws are derived. While it is true that government enforcement is necessary to ensure that natural rights are upheld in the life of a society, it is not true that it is the source of them (Krason, 4). No attempt of positive law can ever legitimately define truth which is objective and exists outside of man's being. Though many today accuse this relationship of Church and State as proposed here to be rooted in totalitarianism, it is far from that; on the contrary, the Church aims at liberating and perfecting the human person in this life such that he will experience salvation in the next life (Barry ed., 1229).
Perhaps no conflict has caused more confusion and division in America than that of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in 19,73 which legalized abortion. This decision has essentially allowed abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. Since the landmark decision of 1973, 25-30 million unborn children have been killed. While almost everyone today has some opinion on abortion, the v.ast majority of Americans remain largely uninformed and uneducated as to the basic facts regarding abortion. The truth regarding abortion and the American perception of it continues to be manipulated by the media in favor of the so-called "pro-choice" position. While the media keeps telling us that the majority of American support the "right to choose," research consistently shows that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the great majority of abortions performed in the United States (Craycraft, 21-23). . .
The Church enters the battle of abortion as a human rights issue of the morality which Christ entrusted to Peter and the apostles, and their successors. The Church recognizes that questions such as what constitutes a human being, when ensoulment takes place, and whether actions of any type are morally good or evil, are matters that are properly philosophical and moral (Flannery ed., 445-6). The Church is the expert by Divine Will to rule in the spectrum of moral matters, among which abortion is included. "Whoever hears the Church, hears Christ. Whoever rejects the Church, rejects Christ. And whoever rejects Christ, rejects the Father" (New American, Luke 10:16). . .
At the moment of conception, a soul must be present such as there is a continual interaction between form and matter as the new human being comes into existence and develops until the moment of natural death. The soul is the substantial form of the body and hence causes the being to be what it is; in this case, a human soul causes an individual human being to exist. There is no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church has been a powerful voice in protecting the dignity and sanctity of unborn life in America. The Church's condemnation of abortion reflects the fact that abortion violates both natural law and divine law - a teaching, therefore which can never be changed. . .
The natural law alone, which is discovered by human reason, supports the fact that women who subject themselves to this violent procedure where their unborn child is destroyed are likely to suffer devastating effects (Angelo, 69-79). . .
One of the most pressing issues today that is a source of confusion or division is that of so-called "gay rights". There is much unresolved debating as to the causes of homosexuality though it is not portrayed as such. The moral analysis also is construed to be ambiguous. The political agenda of the "gay rights" movement has been gaining increasing acceptance and has become powerful. It is not by chance that there is so much confusion and division on this issue. . .
In the moral analysis of homosexuality, the Church makes the distinction between orientation and practice. While the etiology of homosexuality remains unknown, the Church recognizes that while the orientation is not normative, it is not an intrinsic evil, hence the orientation alone is not sinful. The Church's teaching on this moral issue is based on both natural law and divine law, both of which recognize that engaging in homosexual behavior of any type is clearly against God's plan for the manner in which He calls human beings to live. . .
One significant battle which is just beginning in the United States concerns the "right to die.". . .
The Church is able to be a significant influence to the State. She is able to do this by teaching the truth of Christ that despite good, subjective intentions to alleviate human suffering, killing the patient is against natural law and divine law; it is, in fact, against the way God wishes his people to live in order that they obtain eternal life. . .
While the conflicts of abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia all involve a direct violation of the natural law and divine law, all of society will suffer if the civil law is unjust. . .
Recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court indicate that the current trend is dangerous: a secularization which not only separates Church and State, but does not allow these two institutions to work together at all (Murray, 37). Regrettably, all of society will be damaged by this trend. It is time for all men and women of good will to speak out again, namely, that we affirm the principle of separation of Church and State; however, we believe it erroneous that these two institutions cannot and should not work together lest all of society become endangered.
[1] The Church of Rome's definition of Truth is far removed from the Protestant biblical principle of Sola Scriptura. It is staggeringly audacious in its rejection of God's own revelation in the Bible of what constitutes Truth, and the claims made for the Roman Catholic Magisterium which includes natural law on an equal footing with the Bible:
Natural Law and the Catholic Faith
There are three pillars of truth in the Roman Catholic Faith:
1. Tradition
2. Scripture
3. Magisterium
The Magisterium (the living teaching office of the Church) teaches from Tradition and Scripture. All the teachings of the Magisterium are found, explicitly or implicitly, in Tradition and Scripture. . .
So then, what place does natural law have with respect to the Magisterium? The Magisterium can teach from natural law, as well as from Tradition and Scripture. This assertion does not contradict what Vatican II taught, since all of the truths of natural law, which can be attained by reason alone apart from Divine Revelation, are also found in Divine Revelation (Tradition and Scripture), at least implicitly. So when the Magisterium teaches from natural law, She is teaching truths also found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
For the Catholic Faith is not based on faith alone, but on faith and reason. Faith is greater than reason, since faith attains to knowledge from Divine Revelation that is beyond the reach of reason alone. Faith is greater than reason, since what is known by the reason of a fallen sinner is less certain that what is known by the faith of a fallen sinner in the teachings of the Church. But reason allows us to understand, to a great extent, what faith teaches. Reason prevents faith from becoming the blind obedience of a slave or a servant. . .
We are the children of God, and so we believe with understanding. Blind adherence to a set of assertions without any understanding would not even be a type of faith, but rather an idolatrous imitation of faith. Therefore, reason is necessary to the life of faith and grace given to the disciples of Christ.
What is natural law?
Natural law is the promulgation of the eternal moral law in all creation, especially in created persons, both in the nature of each created thing, and in the ordered relationship between created things. Moral goodness is inherent to, and understandable from, all Creation, especially created persons. The nature of created persons is more like the Nature of God than any other created thing. And so the natural law is most clearly perceived within the nature of created persons and within the proper relationships between created persons.
Saint Thomas Aquinas: “Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that ‘knowledge of the eternal law is imprinted on us.’ ” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 91, A. 2.)
Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The natural law is a participation in us of the eternal law….” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 96, A. 2.)
his imprinting of the eternal moral law upon human persons is inherent to human nature itself; it is not merely an addition to, or one aspect of, human nature. For all that God created is inherently good, and therefore all that God created is a reflection of God, who is Goodness itself. Human persons are said to be made in the image of God because free will and reason make created persons more like God than other created things. Thus the natural law is first and foremost found in human nature itself.
But the natural law is no different than the moral law, except that the natural law is the means by which we know the moral law. Therefore, the natural law is the promulgation of the moral law, so that this eternal moral law may be known naturally by created persons. . .
The imagined capacity of human beings to "come to know the eternal law" "through the light of native reason" directly contradicts the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21) (Jer. 17:9; John 2:24-25; Matt. 15:18-20.)
The brazen blasphemy of Rome is understood in the light of Rev. 13:2(b).
HISTORIC ROMAN CATHOLIC ANTAGONISM TOWARDS LIBERALISM
The historical record reveals that what the Church of Rome is (Dan. 7:1-8 & 11-12; Thess. 2:3-9; Rev. 13:1-4,) she accuses liberalism of being (demonic.) For what Rome has accomplished (degradation of the morals of the nations by destroying faith in the Bible,) she has attributed to liberalism. Astonishingly, she includes the Protestant Reformation in her diatribes against liberalism. From Rome's own declarations it is clear that for her own survival, and above all to achieve her objective of world domination liberalism, and Protestantism by association in Rome's terminology, must be destroyed:-
Catholic Social Teaching 101: What is Liberalism and What does the Church really say about it?
Leo XIII takes up the mantle of his predecessors
To begin, we must admit that the collision between liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching is present in the very founding document of the latter, which is generally taken to be Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum of 1891. If we meant to study Liberalism more completely, we’d have to go back even further to Popes Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos, 1832) and Pius IX (Quanta Cura, 1864). However, for the sake of brevity and in accordance with the plan of this work, which centers on the corpus of CST proper, we will reach back no further than Leo XIII. But precisely because Rerum Novarum is to be our starting point, we must briefly step outside of this document and take a look at the mind of the pontiff that produced it, and see how Leo XIII had been dealing with the problem of liberalism throughout his papacy. At the same time, this requires a few remarks on the nature of liberalism itself.
The three-fold expression of Liberalism
Liberalism appears on three fronts, corresponding to three different spheres of man’s social life: It is religious, political, and economic.
The religious form can be identified most clearly in the principles of the Protestant Reformation, personified by Martin Luther. The consequences of Luther’s religious liberalism were directly addressed by Leo XIII at various points, specifically in his Providentissimus Deus (1893) where he pointed to the proper principles for the study of Holy Scripture and identified the problems created by subjecting it to secular methods of criticism and private judgment.
The political form of liberalism, on the other hand, was condemned by Leo XIII even more thoroughly, through documents such as Diuturnum (1881), Immortale Dei (1885), and Libertas Praestantissimum (1888). It was within these encyclicals that he clearly identified his foes and summarized their errors:
“But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, ‘I will not serve’; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.” (Libertas, 14)
“…these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason.” (Libertas, 15)
All of this predates the writing of Rerum Novarum, which was itself addressed to the third form of liberalism—the economic. Economic liberalism is analogous to what today we call Capitalism, and centers on the ideology of free markets. This movement can be roughly identified with the person of Adam Smith, thereby completing our “trifecta” of liberal figureheads.
As Leo XIII saw, economic liberalism was simply another application of the principles he had seen carried out in every other area. Acknowledging this context, we can enter into the relationship between liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching, proceeding chronologically through the documents which go to form the main corpus of the latter. . . (Internal ellipsis in original; underscored emphasis added.)
The reader will recognize in the following statement which references Providentissimus Deus, "the proper principles for the study of Holy Scripture and identified the problems created by subjecting it to secular methods of criticism and private judgment," that this is not a reference to the Protestant principles of exegesis of the Bible, nor to Rome's own Higher Criticism. The Pope must have been referring to repudiation of Roman Catholic Magisterium.
Pope Leo's antagonism towards Liberalism targeted "Americanism" in the Catholic Church of America:
Leo XIII’s critique [of Americanism] is more substantial than apologists for Americanism care to admit. Much of it, in fact, is pertinent to conditions in American Catholicism today.
One set of condemned ideas concerns ranking natural virtues above supernatural ones, along with a division of virtues into “passive” and “active” that gives preference to the latter as more suited to modern times. The Pope says this fosters “contempt … for the religious life” and the disparagement of religious vows. Here, one might say, is a Victorian anticipation of the crisis that has afflicted religious life in the United States over the last half century.
Turning to the origins of Americanism, Leo XIII says it reflects a desire to attract to the Church “those who dissent.” Central to it, he adds, is the idea that the Church — “relaxing its old severity” — must “show indulgence” to new opinions, including even those that downplay “the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained.”
Leo XIII’s reply is that how flexible the Church can and should be is not up to individuals but rests with “the judgment of the Church.” Opposing this orthodox view, he notes, is the modern error that everyone could decide for himself, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit today gives individuals “more and richer gifts than in times past” — no less than “a kind of hidden instinct” in religious matters.
All this and more was the Americanism condemned by the Pope. (Underscored emphasis added.)
As strong as some of the statements made by Leo XIII are, other Roman Catholic publications have expressed themselves in unabashedly violent terms:
A LIBERAL OBJECTION TO ULTRAMONTANE METHODS
The Liberals tell us that our violent methods of warfare against them are not in conformity with the Pope's counsels to moderation and charity. Has he not exhorted Catholic writers to a love of peace and union; to avoid harsh, aggressive and personal polemics? How then can we Ultramontanes reconcile the Holy Father's wishes with our fierce methods? Let us consider the force of the Liberals' objection. To whom does the Holy Father address these repeated admonitions? Always to the Catholic press, to Catholic journalists, to those who are supposed to be worthy of the name. These counsels to moderation and charity, therefore, are always addressed to Catholics, discussing with other Catholics free questions, i.e., not involving established principles of faith and morality, and do not in any sense apply to Catholics waging a mortal combat with the declared enemies of the faith.
There is no doubt that the Pope here makes no allusion to the incessant battles between Catholics and Liberals, for the simple reason that Catholicity is truth and (119) Liberalism heresy, between which there can be no peace, but wear [war? to the death. It is certain by consequence, therefore, that the Pope intends his counsels to apply to our family quarrels, unhappily much too frequent; and that by no means does he seek to forbid us from waging an unrelenting stiff with the eternal enemies of the Church, whose hands, filled with deadly weapons, are ever lifted against the faith and its defenders.
Therefore there can be no contradiction between the doctrine we expound and that of the Briefs and Allocutions of the Holy Father on the subject, provided that logically both apply to the same matter under the same respect, which holds perfectly in this instance. For how can we interpret the words of the Holy Father in any other way? It is a rule of sound exegesis that any passage in Holy Scripture should always be interpreted according to the letter, unless such meaning be in opposition to the context; we can only have recourse to a free or figurative interpretation, when this opposition is obvious. This rule applies also to the interpretation of pontifical documents. How can we suppose the Pope in contradiction with all Catholic tradition from Jesus Christ to our own times? Is it for a (120) moment admissible that the style and method of most of the celebrated Catholic polemists and apologists from St. Paul to St Francis de Sales should be condemned by a stroke of the pen? Clearly not; for if we were to understand the Pope's counsels to moderation and calm, in the sense in which the Liberal conclusion would construe them, we should have to answer evidently yes. Consequently we must conclude that the Holy Father's words are not addressed to Catholics battling with the enemies of Catholicity, but only to Catholics controverting on free questions amongst themselves.
Enmity towards Liberalism was originally a uniquely Roman Catholic phenomenon. The following venomous attack is the work of a Pentecostal minister, and it brings to mind the convergence of interest between the papacy and Pentecostalism. There is here a further convergence with Rev. 16:13-16:
Liberalism: a Demonic Deception & Satanic Takeover in American Thinking
Summary: I am disgusted with large portions of the American political scene, including much that occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. For the record, I am a registered nonaffiliated voter. I have no party identity and haven’t for some years. That said, I see multiple positions currently embraced in American liberalism that defy biblical teachings. And that, not politics, is of the greatest importance to me. I have no interest in dealing with these issues politically. My focus is entirely on examining some of the pillars of American liberal thought from the standpoint of Scripture. That to me is the overriding, governing principle in this discussion. I am not interested in the names of candidates or of political parties. None will be named. My purpose is to examine from a biblical perspective current American liberalism (the term "progressives" has been embraced by many "liberals," although the two are not always identical). The conclusion I have drawn is that much of modern liberalism is based on demonic deception and represents a Satanic takeover of a large portion of present-day American thought.
1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
Revelation 12:9, Amplified Bible …the age-old serpent who is called the devil and Satan, he who continually deceives and seduces the entire inhabited world…
Ephesians 6:12, New Living Translation For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.
Our battle is not against flesh-and-blood enemies. Rather, our ultimate opponents are in the unseen world, where Satan and his evil spirits “continually deceive.” The Bible warns prophetically that in these later times there will be many who will “follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” It is many of those devilish teachings that have emerged as pillars of modern liberalism as it is widely practiced in America today. Let’s examine some of those liberal mainstays not from a political perspective, but in the light of God’s Word, the Bible. (Formatting as in the original; underscored emphasis added.)
There follows a list of the evils against which he and his allies battle, and it comes as no surprise that "abortion on demand" tops the list, with some of which undoubtedly there is no biblical reason to disagree. However, it is manifest that the label applied to Liberalism is precisely applicable to the author's Pentecostalism.
In 1943 the Southern Publishing Association published the book Facts of Faith by Christian Edwardson which is of inestimable spiritual value. Edwardson was an Evangelist-Pastor and author of several books including Facts of Faith. Of him The Adventist Heritage Center writes "The last years of his life were spent at Hutchinson, Minnesota, where he engaged in writing and research. His library numbered about 3,000 books . . ." In a Ministry Magazine dated November, 1944, and titled "The Power of an Informed Ministry" Roy Allan Anderson wrote concerning Facts of Faith, "Another excellent compilation is Christian Edwardson's recently published and newly revised volume, Facts of Faith. No worker can afford to be without this book, which represents nearly half a century of research." This recommendation is now relevant for the Seventh-day Adventist laity who believe Jesus Christ's message to Laodicea (Rev. 3:16, 20.) Roy Allan Anderson was one of the leaders in the compromise with the Evangelicals; but on this recommendation he can be trusted. Had the ministry followed his recommendation, and not his example, more of them would have stood up against the Church's backsliding towards Rome. The ministry as a whole now spurn "heavy theology"; but note Ellen G. White's definition of the righteousness of Christ as "pure, unadulterated truth."
The entirety of Facts of Faith is a book "par excellance" on the history of the Christian Church and the malevolent work of the Roman Catholic Church with the objective of eradicating true Christianity from the face of the earth. The closing chapters numbered from 23 to 29 are an exposé of this satanic work in America over a period in excess of a century and dating from the time of Pope Leo XIII, now rapidly culminating in the fulfillment of the prophecies of Rev. 13:11-17. These chapters are essential reading for those who want to understand the strange course of current events in America and Rome's war against liberalism, now also robustly advanced by right-wing Evangelicals.