Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friday, 31 March 2017

'Conscience, St Thomas More and 'Amoris Laetitia''


The  apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’ by Pope Francis, published in April 2016, has received strong criticism from many quarters, ecclesiastical and lay, on the grounds that it legitimises the concept of  divorced/separated  Catholics who, while living active sex lives in a second relationship, avail themselves of Holy Communion. The exhortation has been described at best as ‘ambiguous’, and at worst contrary to Christ’s teaching, and the Pope has been asked publicly by four Cardinals, in the form of a Dubia, to clarify certain ambiguities inherent in the exhortation. 

It has been suggested that in ‘Amoris Laetitia’, the Pope places great emphasis on the inner workings of individual ‘conscience’, to the extent that a subjective viewpoint based on one’s own conscience, could in certain circumstances, effectively overturn the objective meaning and clarity of God’s commandments and the teaching of the Church, specifically  concerning  marriage and the Holy Eucharist.
           The teaching of the Church on marriage and receiving Holy Communion has always been clear and straightforward, yet now it appears that the Church might have been wrong – which in view of Christ’s promise is surely not possible? This post is not to discuss this particular matter at any length, but the question of ‘individual conscience’ over-riding God’s commandments, has existed since the fall of Adam.

 I have recently been reading a biography of Margaret Roper, the eldest daughter of Sir Thomas More, in which the matters of King Henry VIII’s divorce from Queen Catherine and his marriage to Ann Boleyn, followed by his self-appointment as Supreme Head of the Catholic Church in England, play a pivotal role in the history of that period, and indeed thereafter to the present day. Every person in the land was obliged by law and under oath, to sign their agreement and acquiescence to the King’s actions, failing which they incurred severe financial and status penalties, imprisonment,  and even execution on the gallows. To be sure, the reality of signing did not necessarily reflect agreement, and undoubtedly many signed contrary to their beliefs, probably taking the pragmatic view that they had no choice. It may well be that in conscience they were not unduly troubled, perhaps  believing that matters would right themselves in the future. Thomas More, who in conscience refused to take the oath, declined to blame any person or organisation i.e. Parliament, for supporting the King, considering that, on this question, the decision of every individual was theirs alone, and that each person had  responsibility for their own eternal destiny.  Nevertheless history has shown that governments and leaders of nations who choose in their laws and actions to ignore  God’s Commandments, and force this unbelief on their people, will inevitably create an ungodly nation, which in the case of England under King Henry VIII, resulted in the persecution and almost total destruction of the Catholic Church in England, and the rise of Protestantism.

In his book ‘Margaret Roper’ by E.E.Reynolds, the author considers the relationship between Thomas More and his married daughter, Margaret Roper, with special emphasis on the period April 1534 to July 1535, when More was in prison awaiting trial on a charge of treason for failing to recognise the validity of King Henry VIII’s ‘marriage’ to Ann Boleyn, and for refusing to accept the King as Head of the Catholic Church in England. More was brought to trial on 1st July 1535, found guilty of 'treason', and executed on the scaffold on 6th July at Tower Hill in London.
         Whilst in prison, there was considerable correspondence by letter between  More and Margaret Roper, the eldest of his three daughters.  Some of this correspondence, reproduced in this biography, reveals the strong filial love and respect in which Margaret Roper held her father, even though at times, they appeared to have conflicting opinions, particularly relating to the ‘right’ response to the question of the King’s marriage to Ann Boleyn. Margaret Roper endeavoured to persuade her father to agree first on the Act of Succession (legitimising the right to the throne of any  offspring from the union of Henry and Ann Boleyn), and then the Act of Supremacy (the self-appointment of Henry as head of the Catholic Church in England), basing her arguments on the fact that, with the exception of Bishop John Fisher of Rochester, all the bishops and most of the clergy, and most of the nobility and persons of civic importance, many of whom were personal friends of her father, had signed these agreements, and surely her father should also sign.

          The argument was misguided, but it was presented by a loving daughter desperate to save her father’s life.  More understood this, but remained steadfast in  his loyalty to God and his opposition to the King’s course of action. After his trial at Westminster Hall and finding of guilt, he was taken back to the Tower. On his journey he was met by his daughter Margaret, who bid him an emotional and loving farewell. The account of this final meeting recorded by William Roper, Margaret’s husband, speaks for itself:-
‘When Sir Thomas More came from Westminster to the Towerward again, his daughter, my wife, desirous to see her father, whom she thought she should never see in this world after, and also to have his final blessing, gave attendance about the Tower Wharf, where she knew he should pass by before he could enter into the Tower, there tarrying for his coming. As soon as she saw him, after his blessing on her knees reverently received, she, hasting towards him, and, without consideration or care of herself, pressing in among the middest of the throng and company of the guard that with halberds and bills went round about him, hastily ran to him, and there openly in the sight of them all, embraced him, took him about the neck and kissed him.  Who, well liking her most natural and dear daughterly affection towards him, gave her his fatherly blessing and many godly words of comfort besides. From whom after she was departed, she, not satisfied with the former sight of him, and like one that had forgotten herself, being all ravished with the entire love of her dear father, having respect neither to herself, nor to the press of people and multitude that were there about him, suddenly turned back again, ran to him as before, took him about the neck and divers times together most lovingly kissed him, and at last, with a full heavy heart, was fain to depart from him, the beholding whereof was to many of them that were present thereat so lamentable, that it made them for very sorrow thereof, to mourn and weep.’

          Thomas More’s reported last words to Margaret, epitomise his love of God and the close empathy between father and daughter:-   ‘Have patience, Margaret.  Don’t torment yourself. It is the will of God. You have long known the secret of my heart.'

              Thomas More'  by Hans Holbein the Younger -1527

During his incarceration in the Tower and prior to his trial and conviction, More wrote numerous letters to his daughter who was persistent in her efforts to persuade him to change his mind. In one he writes:

“But whereas you think Margaret, that they be so many more than there are on the other side that think in this thing as I think, surely for your own comfort that you shall not take thought, thinking that your father casteth himself away like a fool, that he would jeopardy the loss of his substance, and peradventure his body, without any cause why he so should for the peril of his soul, but rather his soul in peril thereby too, to this shall I say to thee, Marget, that in some of my causes I nothing doubt at all, but that though not in this realm, yet in Christendom about, of those well learned men and virtuous that are yet alive, they be not the fewer part that are of my mind.  Besides that, that it were you wot well possible that some men in this realm too, think not so clear the contrary, as by the oath received they have sworn to say.

          “Now this far forth I say for them that are yet alive. But go we now to them that are dead before, and that are I trust in heaven, I am sure it is not the fewer part of them that all the time while they lived, thought in some of the things the way that I think now. I am also Margaret, of this thing sure enough, that of those holy doctors and saints, which to be with God in heaven long ago no Christian man doubteth, whose books yet in this day remain here in men’s hands, there thought in some such things, as I think now. I say not that they thought all so, but surely such and so many as will well appear by their writing, that I pray God give me grace that my soul may follow theirs. And yet I show you not all, Margaret, that have for myself in the sure discharge of my conscience. But for the conclusion daughter Margaret, of all this matter, as I have often told you, I take not upon me neither to define nor dispute in these matters, nor I rebuke not nor impugn other man’s deed, nor I never wrote, nor so much as spake in any company, any word of reproach in anything that the Parliament had passed, nor I meddled not with the conscience of any other man, that either thinketh or sayeth he thinketh, contrary unto mine.  But as concerning mine own self, for thy comfort shall I say, daughter, to thee, that mine own conscience in this matter (I damn none other man’s) is such, as may well stand with mine own salvation, thereof am I, Meg, so sure, as that is, God is in heaven. And therefore as for all the remnant, goods, lands, and life both (if the chance should so fortune) since this conscience is sure for me, I verily trust God he shall rather strengthen me to bear the loss, than against this conscience to swear and put my soul in peril, since all the causes that I perceive move other men to the contrary, seem not such unto me, as in my conscience make any change.”  
           In another letter, he writes, “Marry, Marget, for the part that you play, you play it not much amiss.  But Margaret first, as for the law of the land, though every man being born and inhabiting therein, is bound to the keeping in every case upon such temporal pain, and in many cases upon pain of God’s displeasure too, yet is there no man bound to swear that every law is well made, nor bound upon the pain of God’s displeasure, to perform any such point of the law as were indeed unleafal (unlawful).  Of which manner kind, that there may such hap to be made in any part of Christendom, I suppose no man doubteth, the General Council of the whole body of Christendom evermore to that point excepted; which, though it may make some things better than other, and some things may grow to that point, that by another law they may need to be reformed, yet to institute anything in such wise, to God’s displeasure, as at the making might not lawfully be performed, the spirit of God that governeth His Church never hath it suffered nor never hereafter shall, His whole Catholic Church lawfully gathered together in a General Council, as Christ hath made plain promises in Scripture.

          “Now if it so hap, that in any particular part of Christendom, there be any law made, that be such as for some part thereof some men think that the law of God cannot bear it, and some other think yes, the thing being in such manner in question that through diverse quarters of Christendom, some that are good men and cunning (learned), both of our own days and before our days, think some one way, and some other of like learning and goodness think the contrary, in this case he that thinketh against the law, neither may swear that law lawfully was made, standing his own conscience to the contrary, nor is bounden upon pain of God’s displeasure to change his own conscience therein, for any particular law made anywhere, other than by General Council or by a general faith grown by the working of God universally through all Christian nations, not other authority than one of these twain, except special revelation and express commandment of God, since the contrary opinions of good men and well learned, as I put you the case, made the understanding of the Scriptures doubtful, I can see none that lawfully may command and compel any man to change his own opinion, and to translate his conscience from the one side to the other.


    Margaret Roper - a copy (1593) of a lost work by Hans Holbein

In an account of a meeting with her father, Margaret Roper writes:-

“With this my father smiled upon me and said, “What, Mistress Eve (as I called you when you first came), hath my daughter Alington played the serpent with you, and with a letter set you a-work to come tempt your father again, and for the favour that you bear him labour to make him swear against his conscience, and so send him to the devil?”  And after that, he looked sadly again and earnestly said to me, “Daughter Margaret, we two have talked of this thing ofter than twice or thrice, and that same tale in effect that you now tell me therein, and the same fear too, have you twice told me before, and I have twice answered you too, that in this matter if it were possible for me to do the thing that might content the King’s Grace, and God therewith not offended, there hath no man taken this oath already more gladly than I would do, as he that reckoneth himself more deeply bounden unto the King’s Highness for his most singular bounty, many ways showed and declared, than any of them all beside. But since standing my conscience, I can in no wise do it, and that for the instruction of my conscience, in this matter, not slightly looked, but by many years studied and advisedly considered, and never could yet see or hear that thing, nor I think never shall, that could induce my own mind to think otherwise than I do, I have no manner remedy, but God hath given me to the straight, that either I must deadly displease Him, or abide any earthly harm that he shall for mine other sins, under name of this thing, suffer to fall upon me.  Whereof (as I before this have told you) I have ere I came here, not left unbethought nor unconsidered, the very worst and the uttermost that can by possibility fall.  And albeit that I know my own frailty full well and the natural faintness of my own heart, yet if I had not trusted that God should give me strength rather to endure all things, than offend him by swearing ungodly against my own conscience, you may be very sure I would not have come here. And since I look in this matter but only unto God, it maketh me little matter, though men call as it pleaseth them and say it is no conscience but a foolish scruple.”

            Thomas More was executed nearly five hundred years ago. His conscience was firmly attuned to God’s commandments and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. He was a humanist and a man of considerable learning and fame, with many friends in Court and the universities. His appointment as Chancellor by the King, laid on him many duties of State, at the same time and incumbent with his responsibilities, he must himself have adopted a certain pragmatism when dealing with the many matters on which he had to take decisions, and which did not involve contrariness  to God's laws. On a worldly basis his loyalty to God and His Church was disastrous, losing his freedom and ultimately his life. On a spiritual basis he gained a crown of inestimable glory, recognised by the Church by his canonisation by Pope Pius XI in 1935.

           Today the Church is suffering physically and spiritually throughout the world. Communism, violent and radical Islam, aggressive liberalism and anti-Catholicism, materialism and secularism, combine to attempt to destroy the Church and all it stands for. There have been scandals within the Church, particularly relating to sexual abuse of minors within the Church's care, also widespread evidence of active homosexuality within all levels of the Church, particularly in certain seminaries. Modernism and liturgical anarchy following Vatican II  have also taken a heavy toll, particularly evident in the western world by a serious shortage of vocations to the priesthood and religious life.

                                                                       Pope Francis

Certain unclear and confusing pronouncements by the current Pope concerning matters of faith have created great unrest and dissension in the Church itself, this being particularly the case with the apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’, in which it seems that the individual conscience has been elevated in importance to a level higher than that of God’s commandments and the perennial teaching of the Church. Some would say that subjective opinion appears to have taken precedence over objective truth. The Pope may yet satisfactorily clarify matters, in which case I unreservedly and humbly withdraw any criticism made or implied.

"St Thomas More, discerner of truth, pray for our Church and our country."

Ack. ‘Margaret Roper’ by E.E.Reynolds.  Published by Burns & Oates, London. 1960.

Monday, 20 February 2017

50th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 - an appraisal.

This year sees the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967, which  legalised abortion in England, Wales, and Scotland.

Whilst writing this post I have become acutely aware of the coldness and inhumanity of statistics. We are asked to consider the abortion statistics over a period of fifty years, with numbers running into hundreds of thousands, even millions, of unborn children 'legally' killed.
The mind is numbed by these shameful and terrible figures, which can have the perverse effect of insensitizing us to the reality of the physical, emotional, and physiological suffering in every abortion.

 'Massacre of the Innocents' by Nicolas Poussin

From 1968 to 2015 a total of 7,928,057 unborn babies were  aborted under the sanction of this legislation.

A breakdown of the Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2015,  published by HM Government, Department of Health, 
 shows  rapid growth  between 1968 and 1988, with a gradual increase over the next two decades,  reducing slightly between 2008 and 2015.

  a)  In 1968 -  23,641 legal abortions, involving  22,332  UK residents,  and  1,309 non residents.

b)  In 1988 - 183,798 legal abortions,                168,298 UK residents,       15,500 non residents.

c)  In 2008 - 202,158 legal abortions,               195,296  UK residents,        6,862 non residents.

   d)   In 2015 - 191,014 legal abortions,                185,824  UK residents,      5,190 non residents.

  In 1968  NHS funded 14,492 abortions.
 In  2015 NHS funded 182,243 abortions.

                 a)  NHS funded      14,492 abortions   with 7,840 privately funded. 
d)              "              182,243 (98.07%)    "     3,581 (1.93%)

 Funded abortions performed in NHS hospitals and NHS Independent sector hospitals
 In 1968 there were no abortions carried out in NHS Independent Sector hospitals, but in 2015 a total of 125,884 abortions were performed. This represented 69.1% of all NHS abortions that year.

 a)  NHS hospitals  14,492 abortions.        NHS Independent Sector hospitals  NIL abortions

    d)                  "      56,359 (30.4%)   "                          "              125,884 (69.1%)              "


In 2011 it was estimated, that on average, every abortion cost the NHS £680.00

Costs have almost certainly increased since then, but using these old figures, the cost to the NHS in 2015 would have been approximately £124 million. Of this amount £85.68 million would have been paid to the NHS Independent Sector, such as Marie Stopes, BPAS, etc. who own the abortion clinics, and who inexplicably are authorised by the Government to counsel pregnant women as to the ‘best’ course of action for themselves and their unborn child. So much for independent advice! There seems to be one rule for financial services where money is involved and strict rules are in place to protect clients, and another for pregnancy advice centres where there is no independent advice available for clients, and where the currency is counted in human lives.

 LINK   -

Acknowledgement to the Daily Telegraph, 22 November, 2011, for the following information concerning the cost of abortions:-

Updated figures from the Department of Health  show that, contrary to earlier claims, much more public money goes to private clinics rather than NHS hospitals.

Campaigners say the new calculations provide more reason to stop the organisations that offer counselling to pregnant women also performing terminations, on the grounds that it represents a conflict of interest.
They are calling for spending watchdogs to investigate why Parliament was “misled” over the scale of the “abortion industry”.

In the words of Lord Alton, the cross-bench peer, “The millions of pounds generated by the private abortion industry, which have never been revealed to Parliament, demonstrate why Frank Field has been absolutely right in demanding that the multi- million pound link between the referral agencies and the abortion industry should be severed.”

 In September, 2011, the Conservative backbencher Nadine Dorries tabled an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that would have meant all women considering ending a pregnancy were given advice independent of the abortion provider.
This eminently sensible proposal was defeated, but the Department of Health has said it will consult on the “best” form of counselling.

Nadine Dorries - “If anything proves that the link between the abortion provider and the woman facing a crisis pregnancy should be broken, this is it - too much money changes hands for anyone to argue that the private abortion provider can remain objective during the decision-making process.”

With acknowledgement to a recent article in the ‘Catholic Herald’ written by a doctor, which highlighted the hypocrisy of certain members of the UK medical profession when assessing abortion requests. 

Whilst 98% of abortions in Britain are carried out on the grounds of reducing mental health risk, a lack of resources and willingness to judge genuine mental health risk has liberalised abortion policy to such an extent, that simply seeking a termination is now considered sufficient evidence.

The meaning  and intention of the clause limiting abortions to cases where continuing the pregnancy presented a risk to the mental health of the mother, has been abused and misused,  effectively leading to the present situation of ‘abortion on demand.’

There is now reliable evidence that abortion is not associated with any decreased risk of mental health disorders.  

Women with an unintended pregnancy should be informed that the evidence suggests that they are no more or less likely to suffer adverse psychological effects, whether they have an abortion or continue with the pregnancy (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists)

Ostensible mental health benefits of abortion are specious (Turnaway Study)
 This is important, since 98 per cent of abortions in Britain are carried out on the grounds of reducing mental health risk.  

If ‘mental health risk’ is a fallacy in the vast majority of these cases, then there is no legal justification for abortion in those cases, and those involved are guilty of serious criminal offences.

Why is the law openly defied and who is responsible for policing the law? Internal policing by the medical establishment is clearly not working, suggesting perhaps that an independent forum similar to the IPCC which  deals with complaints against the police, should be set up as a matter of urgency.

LINK -        

An on-line Petition deserving support, seeks government action to allow taxpayers to choose not to have their tax used to finance  NHS abortions. I have often wondered about this, but assumed that it would not be possible within the vast Inland Revenue tax system, to set up a suitable working model.  I now believe, that given the will, this  unethical obligation on all tax-payers to contribute to the NHS funding of abortions whether they like it or not, could be addressed. Sounds complicated, but is it?   I would not envisage a reduced tax bill, and in fact the system could stay exactly as it is, thus minimizing the extra work involved.  The Inland Revenue, through a suitably worded extra tick-box in the tax return, would be aware of the numbers of those objecting to supporting abortion, which would be conveyed to the NHS, possibly as a percentage of the total, who would calculate the actual amount of money involved, deduct that percentage from the amount allocated to the abortion side of the NHS, which could then be used for other needy areas such as Mental Health. In this technological age, such a system would surely not present too many problems? This may be too simplistic a solution, and you may well have better ideas. If so, I would be pleased if you could share them in the comment box, thank you.



 Finally I cannot end this appraisal without mention of an excellent article by Mary Ann Kreitzer on 'lesfemmes-thetruth' blogsite; 

 'The March for Death versus the March for Life - Abortion has done nothing to advance women's freedom'

The article makes compulsive reading and includes an extensive bibliography. The author is an American citizen and writes primarily about the American scene, however I'm sure that the conclusions she draws applies equally to our society in the UK.  These include, among others, that:-
 The legalization of abortion has done nothing to advance women’s freedom.
Prior to the legalisation of abortion in the USA, the truth is that maternal deaths from abortion had already been declining, due to advances in medical care, and most illegal abortions were, in fact, performed by physicians.  All legalisation did was to allow more girls and women to be exploited, abused, traumatized, maimed, injured and killed before, during and after abortion.
Women and girls still die from abortion       
The legalisation of abortion has not ended child abuse (child abuse rates have increased since 1973) or violence against women. At least two studies of maternal death rates found that homicide was the leading cause of death among pregnant women.
 Other research  has linked abortion to increased rates of breast cancer, substance abuse, depression, suicide, subsequent pre-term birth, anxiety disorders, and other problems.
 Before abortion was legalised, a woman or girl who was being pressured or coerced to abort could resist on the grounds that it was illegal, unsafe and immoral. Legalisation has made it easier for those around her to insist that because abortion is legal, it must be “safe,” and because it is “socially approved,” it must be moral. It makes it easier for them to refuse to support her desire to continue the pregnancy and insist that she abort anyway.

         For a list of related articles and  resources to read and share (see original article)


                           Holy Family -  Paolo Veronese  (1528-88)

 To conclude, if you link to the sites below, and indeed many other sites dealing with abortion, it becomes clear that  the legalisation of  abortion has been a disaster. Prior to legalisation, advocates argued that such a step would have a positive effect on society. Fifty years down the road, this prediction has proved to be false. Far from empowering women, they have become the losers. The human race is destroying itself. God is mocked, but not for ever.

Saturday, 28 January 2017

'Homosexuality and the New World Order'


                                                           Saint Michael the Archangel

N.B. With acknowledgement and thanks to 'Les Femmes -The Truth' blogsite, for this post.

The philosopher George Santayana once said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In this 2009 interview with Catholic Family News, Randy Engel spotlighted the sexual revolution and the rise of the homosexual cabal and the powers behind it. This has succeeded to the point that public schools are actually teaching the practice of fornication and homosexuality to their students, which is shocking in itself, but more so when one considers how relatively few homosexuals there really are. It makes complete sense, however, when you see it as a strategy in the population control tool-box.

CFN (Catholic Family News) Interview with Randy Engel on
“Homosexuality and the New World Order” 

N.B. Whilst this recorded interview is primarily concerned with the development of the Homosexual Movement in America, in essence the facts apply equally to the United Kingdom and other nations where the LGB  lobby has increasingly powerful political and financial backing.

Introduction – Have you ever wondered how the Homosexual Movement has come to be such a powerful force in American life today? How the movement appears to be able to bend government to its will? How the movement attracts millions upon millions of dollars from Corporate America? These questions, among others, have puzzled me for a long time, so I decided to ask Catholic journalist Randy Engel, author of The Rite of Sodomy ( and an authority on homosexuality in the Church and in Society, from whence comes all this power and money and influence that the Homosexual Movement seems to enjoys not only in the United States but abroad as well. jv

John Vennari – For years, I have been unable to understand how and why the Homosexual Movement in the United States wields such great power and influence? Can you enlighten me and our readers on this question?

Randy  Engel – There is no doubt that the Homosexual Movement, is currently at the vanguard of organized sexual deviancy and that it has tremendous clout and resources of all kinds, far beyond what its small numbers would logically dictate.

From a historical perspective, we know that the advancement of homosexuality is part and parcel of the modern Sexual Liberation Movement, started in the late 1920s and culminating in the formation of the World League for Sex Reform in 1928. The main theme of the League was clearly eugenic – “race betterment through selective breeding,” but its platform also included the repeal of anti-sodomy laws and the legitimization of sodomy as an alternative form of sexual expression. In addition, the WLSR also promoted and lobbied for contraception, sterilization, abortion, population control, sex instruction for the young, divorce and “open” marriages, pornography, suicide, euthanasia, artificial reproduction, and government operated and medically supervised brothels.

Pope Pius XI responded promptly with his great encyclical Casti Connubii (On Chaste Wedlock) in December 1930, thereby successfully defending the fort of Christian morality for another generation.

As for the Homosexual Movement in the United States, up until the late 1960s, it remained largely an underground leftist affair organized by such men as Marxist Henry Hay. It was a loosely organized, fringe network congregating in major port cities such as San Francisco and New York and was, in the public eye, mainly associated with avant garde occupations and sexual libertines. Its political clout, financial resources, and influence on American sexual mores were very limited.

JV – And then came Stonewall? 

RE – Yes, and then came the Stonewall Inn riots of June 1969 which, we are told, became the “flash point” of the Homosexual Liberation Movement worldwide. Seemingly overnight, “gay” leaders spontaneously organized themselves into a well-oiled political machine; they staged press conferences in major cities which were covered by the world media, millions of dollars flowed into the movement’s heretofore empty coffers, and leading public figures decried the injustices allegedly suffered by homosexuals. What had been traditionally viewed as a vice to be suppressed by government became a virtue and a civil right to be protected and advanced by the State.

JV – I take it you don’t buy this official version of Stonewall?

RE – Not for one moment. Events of this magnitude take careful planning and coordination and a great deal of money. They do not occur by spontaneous combustion. The Homosexual Revolution, like any revolution worth its salt, started at the top, with the wealthy and powerful, and not with a group of disgruntled clientele of transvestites, homosexuals, and young male hustlers who frequented the small Greenwich Village bar and who were later joined by sympathetic residents in a violent melee with local police.

JV – Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? 

RE – Yes.  I have, for example, the statement of Dr. Richard Day, a former Medical Director of Planned Parenthood-World Population and a Rockefeller protégée, who, just months before Stonewall publicly stated that “homosexuals will be given permission to be homosexual.”

JV – Permission from whom?

RE – From the elite of theNew World System.”

JV – I think we need to back up for a moment. Can you explain the date and context of Day’s statement?

RE – Dr. Day gave his historic speech describing the “New World System” to the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society on March 20, 1969. Titled, “Family Planning: Infant Mortality, Gene Frequency, Abortion and Other Considerations,” Day’s speech described in broad strokes, the New World System which he said was already in place and functioning.  In his lengthy discussion of population control, he stated that in the future there would be “sex without reproduction” (aka contraception, sterilization, abortion) and “reproduction without sex” (in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination). Day’s comment on homosexuality followed on the heels of his prediction that “Abortion will no longer be a crime,” – that it would be accepted as normal and be paid for by taxes for those who could not pay for their own abortions. This was four years before Roe vs. Wade.

JV – Can you cite another example?

RE– On March 11, 1969, just nine days before Day made his statement on homosexuals being given permission to act out, Frederick S. Jaffe, Vice President of Planned Parenthood-World Population sent a memorandum titled “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S.” to Bernard Berelson, President of John D. Rockefeller III’s Population Council. Listed under the section on “Social Constraints” is “Encourage increased homosexuality.”

It is a matter of public record, of course, that the Rockefeller family and its many “charitable” fronts like the aforementioned Population Council and Planned Parenthood  have been promoting all kinds of sexual deviancy for decades including sodomy. The reader may recall that it was the philanthropoids of the Rockefeller Foundation that initially funded the pro-homosexual and pro-pedophile research of sexual deviant, Alfred C. Kinsey, at the University of Indiana from 1941 to 1949 to the tune of $ 414,000.

JV – So what you are saying is that the source of the Homosexual Movement’s power and influence was not generated from within the movement itself, but from without – from the powerful foundations and other entities that rule from behind the scenes?

RE – Exactly.

When discussing these powerful U.S.-based philanthropic foundations, technically referred to as “privately organized public institutions” there are a few things one must keep in mind.

First, there is nothing “charitable” about these groups. They were, from the beginning, created by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller to be agents of social change and control, and they have used their funds effectively to support a wide range of anti-life and anti-family initiatives including “Gay Liberation.”

With their great prestige and virtually unlimited and unrestricted financial resources, these foundations can go where others fear to tread and pave the way for public acceptance of all forms of sexual deviancy, until the time is ripe for the NWO elite to take over and the particular deviancy in question is institutionalized as official public policy, and the financial burden shifted to the shoulders of the American taxpayer. They did it with eugenics. They did it with birth control including abortion. And now they are doing it with homosexuality.

JV – Didn’t a group of billionaire insiders meet secretly late this spring to discuss increasing
their philanthropic output?

RE – You’re probably referring to the May 5, 2009 meeting held at Rockefeller University which was called by Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and David Rockefeller, Jr. Among those in attendance were Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner and George Soros and other anti-life servants of the NWO. Not surprisingly, an increased commitment to population control was at the top of the list. This means that Americans had better prepare themselves for a new wave of “population bomb” propaganda, as well as an increase in “gay” and pro-abortion advocacy.

JV – What other groups besides these large foundations are supporting the Gay Liberation Movement today?

RE – One of the largest sources of support for the Homosexual Movement and Gay Agenda is  Corporate America Coke-Cola, Pepsi, Ford (Globe), General Motors,  American Express, Best Buy, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Mellon Financial, Shell, Dell, Avon, Estee Lauder, Coors, General Electric, General Mills, Kraft, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Hyatt, State farm, Avis, Starbucks, Subway, Gameboy, Ikea, JC Penney, Sears, Sam’s Club, Target, Wal-Mart (Pride), Weight Watchers, IBM, Intell, AT&T, and on and on.

I suspect, although I cannot prove, that virtually all major U.S. business corporations have an agreement with the NWO elite that requires them to “donate” a portion of their profits to advance the various pet “charities” of the New World Order. Pro-life groups are not on the list. 

The Federal government, of course, has done its part to advance the Homosexual agenda. Among the Federal Agencies and programs that have supported the Homosexual Movement are the Center for Disease Control, CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act), the National Institutes of Health, Legal Services Corporation, National Park Service, National Public Radio (funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting), to name but a few. The Internal Revenue Service has awarded the 501 (c) (3) tax deductible status to homosexual organizations that “foster an understanding and tolerance of homosexuals.”

When you add the power of the liberal mass media that has always backed the Homosexual Movement, you’re looking at one powerful propaganda machine.

JV – Did the AIDS crisis hinder or help the Homosexual Movement?

RE – In terms of finances, government-sponsored AIDS programs proved to be the goose that laid the golden egg, and millions of dollars of “health” funds has made their way into homosexual political/activist organizations. AIDS has the added “benefit” of helping to reduce the “surplus population,” in keeping with the New World Order’s relentless  campaign against the proliferation of people. Unfortunately, the useful idiots that dominate the “gay” leadership have yet to figure that out, or if they have, they are silent so as not to loose their salaries, or possibly their lives. 

JV – How about financial aid and support from churches?

RE – That question would require a book to answer, but yes, almost all liberal mainline churches, synagogues, and religious orders contribute financially and in other ways to promote and sustain the Homosexual Movement. That would include the American Catholic Church especially the bishops’ bureaucracy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 Finally, I would like to mention the role that Organized Crime, as a functionary of the NWO, plays in supporting the Homosexual Movement. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two since criminal syndicates own many homosexual-frequented establishments such as “gay” bars and baths. Organized Crime also supplies drugs, pornography and young male prostitutes which are staples of the homosexual anti-culture. 

JV – I can understand why Organized Crime would have a vested interest in promoting and funding the Homosexual Movement. I can also understand, given the large amount of disposable income that many homosexual have, why the movement would attract some support from Corporate America. But I don’t quite understand what the elite of the New World Order has to gain by promoting homosexuality?

RE – Again, John, I’d need a book to answer that question thoroughly, but let me give you a simple response by referring back once again to Dr. Richard Day’s speech on the New World System.

According to Day, the sine quo non of the New World Order is population control. While we pro-lifers generally associate population control with contraception, abortion, sterilization and the like, this is a very limited view of the meaning of the term. Day makes it very clear that for the Puppet Masters of the NWO, population control has a much broader meaning. It means total control over every aspect of human life – education, economics and finances, religion, entertainment, transportation, medicine, the arts, national defense, politics, medicine, science and technology, sports, law enforcement, agriculture and farming, and ultimately, who shall live and who shall die.

JV – So population control is, in fact, people control?

RE – Correct.  

JV – Alright then, how does homosexuality fit into the NWO scheme?

RE – Well, first let me state that there have always been two natural enemies of totalitarianism of any stripe – the family and religion. The advancement of homosexuality and other forms of deviant sexual behavior, as we have seen from the current battle over “gay marriage,” is designed to undermine both marriage and family, as well as the natural law and traditional morality. The goal of the NWO is to create a generation of polymorphous perverts – narcissistic, isolated and rootless individuals who, being enslaved by their own unnatural passions, will not present any serious opposition to their new slave masters.  

JV – Once this goal is achieved, will rank-and-file homosexuals continue to play a special role in the NWO?

RE – No. This is highly unlikely. As Dr. Day made quite clear, the NWO prides itself on stability and loyalty to the New Order and homosexuals are notoriously unstable and unreliable. So, having served their purpose, when the time comes, rank-and-file homosexuals will be systematically eliminated as enemies of the state. Elite “gays” within the NWO will probably remain.

JV – Randy, you have painted a rather bleak scenario of life under the New World Order and the role of the Gay Liberation Movement in helping to bring it about. Do you foresee any viable opposition coming from the Catholic Church with regard to stemming the Homosexual Movement’s advance and that of the NWO?

RE – As I document in my latest book, The Rite of Sodomy (, thus far, the Church has been unwilling or unable to stem the tide of homosexuality both within its own ranks and in society at large. Resistance to so-called “gay marriage” and other abominations has come from individual traditional Catholics, from Evangelicals, and other concerned citizens.

As for leading an organized opposition to the NWO, as Day stated in 1969, “You think the churches will oppose us. I tell you they will help us.” And he did not make any exception for the post-Conciliar Catholic Church.

JV – Recently, I read for the first time, the complete transcript of “The New Order of Barbarians,” which contains the recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, a Pittsburgh pro-life pediatrician who was in attendance at Day’s infamous lecture in March 1979, as well as Dr. Dunegan’s interview with you on the NWO.  The accuracy of his predictions chilled me to the bone. Is that transcript available to CFN readers on the internet?

 RE – Yes, the U.S. Coalition for Life has just posted the official transcript of Dr. Dunegan’s report on the Day talk, free of charge, on its Research Library webpage at An audio boxed set of the text (CD or audio cassette) is also available from the USCL, Box 315, Export, PA 15632 for $24.95, postage included. I guarantee your life will never be the same after you hear “The New Order of Barbarians.” Mine certainly wasn’t.

JV – Are you discouraged by the fact that virtually every prediction made by Dr. Day in 1969 concerning the NWO has come to past?  

RE – I would be lying if I said that the anti-Christian agenda of the NWO does not concern me. It should concern every Catholic, indeed every human being on this planet. But I also know that God is still in charge of the world. As we read in The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis, “… For man proposes, but God disposes; neither is the way of man in his own hands.”

I do not know what the future holds for us on this earth, but I firmly believe that as a member of the Church Militant, if we put our faith in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother, humanity’s solitary boast, we shall not be disappointed and the final victory will be ours. Alto quien vive!!

JV – Which means?

RE – Loosely translated it means “Anyone on the battlefield who is still alive, stand up and fight!!”

 To fight effectively it's important to understand how a thing came about. Tolkein teaches us that principle in The Lord of the Rings. St. Ignatius of Loyola in his meditation on the Two Standards shows us how to fight. We are called to be Christ's soldiers in the Church Militant. Fast and pray. Debasement of our sexual powers and the attack on the family may be the "one ring that rules them all!" Our Lady of Fatima chose three little "hobbit" children from the Shire of Fatima to fight the evil. Are we listening to her message? 2017 is an important year in this battle with the 100th anniversary of her apparition. Answer her call.

Lucia Santos (left) with her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto (1917) - Our Lady appeared to them at Fatima on several occasions, culminating in the miraculous spinning of the sun (October 13, 1917) witnessed by an estimate 70,000 onlookers of all faiths and none, and reported in the national and international Press.

  1. For ordering information and reviews on The Rite of Sodomy see
  2. The text of the “New Order of Barbarians” is available at Tapes and CDs of the Dunegan interviews are also available by contacting the U.S. Coalition for Life at
              (ack. 'Les Femmes-the Truth' blogsite.)


'When we see anything beautiful, a beautiful garden or a beautiful flower, let us think that there we behold a ray of the infinite beauty of God, who has given it existence,' (January 29)
('Thoughts from St Alphonsus- for every day in the year.' Compiled by Rev C McNeiry C.SS.R)