Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

Reintroducing Logic and Reason to the Age of Sentimentalism


All of the posts under the "Anti-Catholic" category.

Church Control or Birth Control: A Book Review

A friend of mine, Nicholas Kaminsky, just finished writing a book titled “Church Control or Birth Control: Margaret Sanger’s Propaganda Campaign Against the Catholic Church.” He analyzes the history of the birth control movement in the United States as led by Margaret Sanger. For those of you who don’t know, Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and one of the key players in getting laws that outlawed birth control repealed across the United States. This book is an easy read at just under 100 pages with plenty of documentation, citations, and footnotes which explain in further depth the point that he is making.

church control or birth control

Mr. Kaminsky begins by explaining the history of anti-Catholicism in America. Protestants founded the United States because they were unhappy with England’s staunch Anglican stance. Thus, they fled across the sea and founded America. When Catholics began emigrating to the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Protestant majority made sure to keep the Catholic minority at bay by refusing them education and giving them low paying and sub-par jobs.

While the majority of the country and most Protestant churches were against birth control, Margaret Sanger launched a full-fledged assault on the Catholic Church and led the American people to believe that the Catholic Church was behind the ban. She argued that as Americans, it was our right and part of our freedoms to be able to use birth control. While the Catholic Church was the biggest voice in opposition to birth control, she used every blockade the Church made as examples of how the Catholic Church was limiting the freedoms of the American people.

I won’t go into further detail as Mr. Kaminsky does a very good job detailing these events by citing Margaret Sanger herself. You should consider adding this book to your shelf.


It is intriguing to see how Margaret Sanger used the argument that Americans are American first before their religion. To further illustrate this argument, she argued that freedoms come first. I found this rhetoric to come at an interesting point in history, as many American Catholics who are considered otherwise faithful are so quick to argue that the American freedoms and liberties trump the laws of God and the Catholic Church. The evil tactics that Margaret Sanger employed are now tactfully used by the members of the Church to push for “religious liberty”, allowing the divorced and remarried to receive the Holy Eucharist, and other issues that do not coincide with Catholic theology or doctrine.

If you are looking for a book which details Margaret Sanger’s racism, her work with Planned Parenthood, or abortion, in general, this book does not touch on these topics at all. This book details how Margaret Sanger used the Anti-Catholic rhetoric of the time in which she lived to pit birth control in a power struggle with the Catholic Church. This book is a great read, and I highly recommend it. If you’d like to pick up a copy, you can on Amazon. This book would make a great gift or read for anyone wanting to learn more about how America quickly changed its mind on birth control.

Jeff December 14, 2015 Leave A Comment Permalink

While The Enemies Rest Their Weary Heads

If you’ve been paying attention at all, you’ll know that there are plenty of the Church’s enemies operating from within the highest ranks of the Church, even the Vatican. These enemies are Modernists, heretics, and those who want to see the Church handed over to Satan. These men and women have spent the last 100 years infiltrating the Church and are finally seeing their efforts bear fruit within these last few years.

cozy bed

Objectively speaking, they still have a long ways to go, as they will not rest until every single individual who professes Christ’s sacrifice and His Truth is dead or silenced. However, they are becoming far more comfortable with themselves as they are winning more and more battles. Look no closer than the number of Bishops and Cardinals at the Synod who are in favor of giving communion to the divorced, remarried, and active homosexuals.

Their victories are allowing them to sleep more peacefully at night, I’d imagine. They rest easily, knowing that the Vicar of Christ is not going to stop them. After all, he approved the Relatio and continues to invite Cardinals and Bishops who openly preach a “gospel of acceptance”.

But the one thing they have forgotten in their efforts to destroy the Church from within, is who God Is. At one point they knew that God was omnipotent and unchanging. They knew that God was God. They knew that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, true God and true Man. They knew Jesus was divine. They knew what the Church taught, yet they did not believe. They wanted to redefine who God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Mary, the Saints, and the Church was. They created a god in their own image and likeness. They created another religion.

As the years have progressed and their evil has made itself manifest, we see that few people really know who God is. The problem. however, is these evil individuals have also forgotten. They have bought into the lie much like Adam and Eve bought into the serpent’s lie in the Garden. They no longer recognize who God is, but cling to their imaginative ideal of what they wanted God to be.


While all of this may sound depressing and glum, there is always hope. God is all powerful and omnipotent, and He will have His justice served to these transgressors. We need to pray, fast, and stick close to the Sacraments. We want our enemies to repent of their sins and convert. But we must also recognize that one day, they will meet Jesus Christ face to face, and will have to answer for their crimes against Him and His Church.

Whether this is through their own death, or through a great chastisement as Our Lady of Fatima has warned about almost 100 years ago, they will be forced to seen the error of their ways. And while they rested peacefully here on Earth, thinking that they had won, they have in reality been the biggest of losers and will live in torment for eternity.

Jeff June 17, 2015 1 Comment Permalink

Comments on the Supposed “Split” Within The Church

I was asked a good question earlier in the week:

“What is this split between us traditional and the ‘liberal’ Roman Catholics? The Creed says ‘I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church’.”

Simply put, what it boils down to is the traditional side being the actual Catholic, since the traditional Catholic is more than likely practicing the faith, according to the Church. The liberal Catholic doesn’t want to follow the Church and her teachings. The liberal Catholic is a promoter of heresy.

But, let’s look at this some more. Why are traditional Catholics, that is, those Catholics who do follow the Church and her teachings, being labeled as “traditionalist”? Catholics are supposed to follow the Church and her teachings and live those values out, right?

This would mean that the “traditionalist” Catholic, really is just a plain Catholic, that is, a Catholic who goes to Mass weekly, goes to confession as needed, spends time in prayer, is faithful to the Church, etc. Really, when you think of a Buddhist, you think of someone who is a…practicing Buddhist. When you think of a Muslim, you think of someone who is a…practicing Muslim. By this same logic, a Catholic is someone who is a practicing Catholic.

We like to put labels on groups of people to make them seem like they are our allies or our enemies. If “traditionalists” went by just plain Catholics, the threat of potential “liberals” hijacking Catholic to distort it seems greater. Case in point: The National Catholic Reporter (or Distorter (or Schismatic Reporter)). About 99% of the reporting is biased journalism wanting the Church to allow gay “marriage”, ordain women, allow priests to marry and the list goes on…and on…and on.

A Catholic, as stated earlier, would be a faithful Catholic. We don’t need to add any labels, really, except maybe “unfaithful”. You would have Catholics, and unfaithful “catholics”, that is, a catholic in name only.

What is interesting with this split, is how the Catholic and the catholic in name only argue with each other. The Catholic is always being told to calm down, listen to the Pope, not be so rash, be open minded, and other such things. Why is it that the Catholic, who already does these things have to constantly re-pledge their obedience to the Church? Meanwhile, the “catholic” never has to do this. They think for themselves, are “allowed to disagree”, etc. A perfect example would be the Catholic wants to receive Jesus kneeling, and gets denied (this is “okay”) but the “catholic” who is openly pro-abortion can receive Jesus. Denial of communion to the “catholic” would be viewed as a horrendous act. The Catholic would agree with me, but the “catholic” would accuse me of whining. To prove that I am not whining, and am merely opening up dialogue and am quite jolly, here is a picture of me being jolly.

Jolly Jeff

One way to help heal the split, would be to publicly excommunicate those who claim to be catholic from the Church. Now, excommunication is a form of help. It doesn’t sound like it is, but here’s how.

When someone is excommunicated, they are basically told that they are not in alignment with Church teaching, and are not able to use the sacraments until they have publicly repented and a bishop (normally there’s) has lifted the excommunication. This excommunication would force the Catholic in question to reexamine their motives and learn why what they believe is wrong. Excommunication, in essence, is there for the individual to learn from their mistakes, to come to know Christ and His teachings on particular issues. It also let’s others know that the individual is not to be trusted in religious matters and is discredited.

This split needs healing immediately. I mentioned in my last post how we need to start re-evangelizing our fellow Catholics. We all need to learn, live and love our faith. With this, we can win people over. Again, Christ is for everyone! Though you need to pray for those as well.

Jeff April 26, 2013 3 Comments Permalink

A Look At the Pro-Choice Mentality (Part One)

The other day on Facebook, I had the pleasure of getting into a debate on the subject of abortion. Unlike most debates that I generally have on Facebook, this one happened to be quite the intense one, and also, I had others who were pro-life commenting. Many times when I get into debates, I notice that it is generally a 3-1 argument in which I am the lonesome pro-lifer. It was refreshing to say the least. I was told by several friends that it was great to see such good arguments coming from the pro-life side.

What started this epic debate? Well, simply put, this picture:

The “Condescending Wonka” Meme is generally used to point out a bad argument. What transpired was an incredibly long debate. Now, I present to you that debate, along with some commentary from myself post-debate. I will comment in parenthesis and in bold. I will assure anonymity the posters and present them with new names. I will also include the gender so you can tell from who’s perspective it is coming from.

Friend 1 M: *eating popcorn* 
Friend 2 M: Sure, you can egg on if you want; it’s an illogical statement as written. It sounds like a man can instigate an abortion via a sex act or something. Also of course your idealistic vision completely ignores a woman being raped and her rapist running off into the night. The man has no further choice in this act of reproduction nor does he probably care.
Mostly this one fails because you’re assuming the situation you want it to be. (Considering this is the reason for why abortion needs to be kept legal, the reality is just the opposite, those who are getting abortions report the reason of rape being only about 2%. See below.)
Myself (Jeff): Friend 2, I hate to rain on your parade, but rape is only the reason in about 2% of abortions. On top of that, women who have been raped and go through with an abortion generally report having the traumatic experience of the rape reopened, whereas women who go through with the pregnancy do not. (Not to mention the fact that we are killing a live person, who is completely innocent of doing anything wrong. The death penalty is opposed for reasons such as ‘what about those who are falsely accused’ or ‘you need to be 100% sure they are guilty of the crime’. Sadly, if the person is guilty of killing another person, they are given more leeway than an innocent unborn baby.)
When you want to stop throwing around illogical arguments that sound all warm and fuzzy on the outside, but which actual real world scenarios do not play in favor to your point of view, then we can continue.
Friend 1 M: I agree with Jeff. Just because a baby was produced from a rape, killing it is not the answer. Two wrongs don’t make a right. There are many couples/families out there that would be willing to provide a loving home to that baby. Why not take the result of a terrible act and turn it into something that will add happiness to another family for the rest of their lives? That seems like a much better situation than being raped and then killing a baby. (Solid point.)

Friend 3 FFemales can asexually reproduce! It’s called parthogenesis. Aphids and reptiles do it all the time (right, because we are aphids or reptiles, my bad). So why don’t you tell me again how rapists financially support a child born from rape? (I’m fairly certain that there are government programs that would pay for healthcare.) Also: the male contribution for a life: That one sperm that one time. Female contribution: Incubate the thing for nine months. (Ah, the “women don’t need a man argument”.) Who has the greater burden? (Obviously women do. I’m not saying that they don’t. But as human beings we need a man and a woman to create a child, despite the amount that liberals are trying to change the natural order of our world. And just because we have science to do it without that interaction, doesn’t make it right. Remember the Nuremberg Trials?)

Friend 2 M: Jeff: I’m not explaining away all abortion, just saying your dorky meme picture isn’t fully encompassing all scenarios because it seems to imply consensual reproduction with a man who will be there to care about it. (I’ll admit its not the best meme, but, the purpose was to disprove one of the more common arguments, not every single one.)

Friend 1 M: It is irrelevant whether or not it is the mother or father’s choice. It should not be a choice period.

Friend 4 M: I’m against abortions, but for killing babies. (He’s trying to be funny. He isn’t.)

Jeff: Friend 4: So is President Obama, at least that’s what he says and how his voting record reflects. (My clever response.)

Friend 3 F: That’s nice if your faith informs you that there shouldn’t be abortions. (Weird, I don’t recall mentioning my faith at all. *Looks up at previous posts*, nope, I didn’t.) Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s witnesses are informed by their faith to reject all medical interventions, but that doesn’t preclude others from seeking life-saving treatments (Okay, not sure what that has to do with anything). Freedom of religion also applies to freedom from other religious views (Here, let me put down what the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;”). You also have to accept that people who are pro-choice aren’t a bunch of slutty baby-killers, they are informed citizens who read things like peer reviewed research that prove that when women have greater reproductive freedom, society as a whole benefits (Never said they were slutty baby-killers…is your conscience bothering you? Also, there are many peer reviewed research in favor of pro-life views. So, who’s right?). No one is going to force an abortion on people who don’t believe in them, but sorry, you’re not going to use your faith to convince anyone who believes higher uses of contraception and reproductive rights benefit women in the long run of anything different (Seriously, I didn’t even mention my faith, why do you hate faith so much? Also, its interesting that Planned Parenthood never suggests adoption places or alternatives to abortion. Maybe I’m just a cynic.). Because of, you know, that thing called data. (Are you referring to the data that suggests abortion is detrimental to a woman’s health and psychological health, or just the data that supports your point of view?)

Friend 5 F: Burden.  We do it b/c we love them. They make us nauseated and make us crave things and kick our insides and squash our bladders and hurt our backs and stretch out our former bikini bodies and keep us up at night but we love them. They weren’t conceived by their own decision, rape or not. For me, it’s like caring for a loved one who is sick and helpless. An elderly parent doesn’t ask to get cancer or osteoporosis or Parkinson’s disease but we care for them b/c we love them. It isn’t about what’s convenient or easiest for us. (Self-sacrificing love is the purest love that we can offer everyone. Hence why Christ’s sacrifice means so much.)

Friend 6 M: Friend 3, the arguments against abortion, as with all ethical arguments, derive neither from science nor from faith, but from philosophy. You would never say, “Don’t put your religion on me” when it comes to the moral injunction against rape, any more than you would say, “The data demonstrates rape to be morally justified in certain circumstances.” You conveniently ignore the philosophical argument, which is rooted in our concepts of personhood and rights. (Well put.)

Friend 3 FYou conveniently ignore that others’ philosophies differ from yours.

Friend 6 M: Not at all. But I do disagree. 

Friend 6 M: I should say that I do not mean “philosophy” in the colloquial sense of “opinion”, but in the sense of an intellectual discipline and mode of discourse. To be sure, there are philosophers in this sense that are pro-abortion (i.e. Peter Singer), but I have read them and I have good cause for disagreeing.

Friend 4 M: Jeff: I wish you’d told me that sooner. I would have voted for him. (Thankfully, this was his last comment…)

Friend 1 M: Friend 3: you are the first person in this thread to bring up religion. I think for most people, religion has nothing to do with determining whether or not to end the life of a baby. No viable life should be ended on purpose ever. I don’t say that as a Catholic, I say that as a human being. I have been a Catholic my entire life and have just become pro-life over the past couple of years. I have two biological children of my own and have been going through the process of adopting a third for the past year. (But, I thought those children were unwanted? (Sarcasm)) After waiting and meeting other people who have been touched by adoption, I feel that there is no reason for abortion. (There never is.) It is all well and good to teach women about contraceptives and all that but they should also be taught that no contraceptives are 100% and if you choose to have sex and get pregnant, you should have to deal with the consequences. (I get the point here, but a baby isn’t a “consequence”, at least in the sense of it being “bad”.) It would be hard, but life is hard and that is no excuse to kill a baby.

Stay tuned for part two!

Jeff December 17, 2012 2 Comments Permalink

Predictions Already Coming True?

In my last two posts, I mentioned two things regarding the 2012 Election Results on what we can expect of ourselves, and what we might expect of the Church.

In short, what we can expect of ourselves is that we Catholics must Learn our Faith, we must Live our Faith, and we need to Love our Faith. I’m so excited about this that I would really like to give a talk on this. Perhaps I can podcast something? I am unfamiliar how podcasting works, so if any of you have suggestions, leave a comment. Needless to say, I notice that I am not the only one who has said this, in fact, here is an example:


Not the exact words, but a similar message. I do believe the Holy Spirit is working on this throughout the Church. Watch for similar messages.

Secondly, I mentioned that public ex-communications may happen soon. I picked these two articles up from Father Z’s blog.

It appears that in the Diocese of Green Bay, WI, an atheist group is demanding the IRS review the Church’s Tax-Exempt status. This was reported as of November 10, not even a week after the election.

Also, across the Pond in the UK, it appears that legislation is being proposed to remove the Church’s charitable status if they deny anyone Communion or any Sacraments. I would expect similar legislation to start popping up over here as well.

To those groups that want to use the “Separation of Church and State” clause against the Church, I would like to reiterate what Thomas Jefferson said:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

As you can see, no where does he mention that the Church can’t have an opinion regarding the way a government governs. Also, this is not a law, but an opinion of a President, similarly to that of say an opinion of President Obama regarding, say, abortion:

I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. -President Barack Obama 2008

That is an opinion (and talk about an eye opener even back when he said it, is it really no surprise he’s the most pro-abortion President/politician EVER?) yet it is not a law that all babies are a punishment.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I’m really uncertain how the Church proclaiming the Gospel of Christ is a “clear violation of the separation of Church and State” when the First Amendment of the Constitution protects all of that.

This will pop up throughout the country. Pray that our Bishops and priests be strong enough to stand up for Truth and justice.

Jeff November 13, 2012 1 Comment Permalink

get_footer() ?>