In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot*, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

Jefferson Cyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson Letter to Horatio G. Spafford (17 March 1814).
*despot – a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.

.

To understand today’s topic properly some back history is necessary. So let’s start with –

.

What is the Code of Canon Law?

.

In my library article titled: Why Psychiatry Is More Religion Than Science I go into a fair amount of detail concerning Catholic Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli and something called the Code of Canon Law which he was instrumental in creating.

Here are a few excerpts:

Pacelli, when he and his mentor drew up the enforcement document – Code of Canon Law – laid down the law that the Pope, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Christian Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church and by divine institution – meaning “God” said so” – the Pope has supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls and is infallible.

That’s Vatican I –  July 18,1870.

Eugenio Pacelli’s grandfather and father believed passionately that the Popes could once again exert their power over the ‘world’ through the Church, and they not only wholeheartedly supported this idea, they passed this obsession on to young Pacelli who was groomed to make sure it happened.

Pacelli was recruited into the Vatican in 1901 to specialize in international affairs and church law. He was 24. He was an instant favorite and was taken under the wing of Pietro Gasparri, a world-famous canon lawyer. Together they were working under Pope Pius X (the progenitor used by the later SSPX cult – Society of St. Pius X) who is known specifically for pushing through the creation of this new Code to enforce Vatican I and for his zero tolerance of the basic tenets that America was founded upon.

Pius X made a saint….he waged an unwavering war against the heresy and evils of Modernism […] and brought about the codification of Canon Law.

A lesser known item about him is that he was instrumental (together with Pacelli) in helping get World War I going. Incidentally, he died less than a month after the outbreak of the war in the summer of 1914.

Pacelli went straight from helping get World War I going with that now infamous Concordat with Serbia, to being invited to help draft an even more draconian version of the Pope’s powers decided on at the First Vatican Council – together with his immediate boss, Pietro Gasparri.

Pacelli played a major role in drafting a powerful legal document that transformed the 1870 primacy dogma into an unprecedented principle of papal power. The legacy of Pius X, when finished it was called the Code of Canon Law.

Packaged in a single manual, the Code of Canon Law was distributed in 1917 to Catholic bishops and clergy throughout the world.

Pacelli in Germany, in 1917, doing just that –

Eugenio Pacelli in 1917 in front of the Imperial German Headquarters after an audience with emperor William IIEugenio Pacelli (holding hat) in front of the Imperial German Headquarters after an audience with emperor William II

 

John Cornwell tells us a little bit about this Code –

According to this code, in the future all bishops would be nominated by the Pope; doctrinal error would be tantamount to heresy; priests would be subjected to strict censorship in their writings; papal letters to the faithful would be regarded as infallible (in practice if not in principle); and an oath would be taken by all candidates for the priesthood to submit to the sense as well as the strict wording of doctrine as laid down by the Pope.

– John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope, Vanity Fair article 2013

Pacelli then spent the next 13 years in Germany attempting to rewrite the state concordats one by one in favor of the power of the Vatican. He was constantly engaging in all kinds of “diplomatic” blackmail to try and accomplish this.

Pacelli in Germany

pacelli in germany 3

What was Pacelli doing towards the end of World War I after he helped draft their ‘powers’ they needed? (the Code of Canon Law).

[1917] Aged 41 and already an archbishop, Pacelli was dispatched to Munich as papal nuncio, or ambassador, to start the process of eliminating all existing legal challenges to the new papal autocracy.

At the same time, he was to pursue a Reich Concordat, a treaty between the papacy and Germany as a whole which would supersede all local agreements and become a model of Catholic church-state relations. A Reich Concordat would mean formal recognition by the German government of the Pope’s right to impose the new Code of Canon Law on Germany’s Catholics.

– John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope, Vanity Fair article 2013

“Germany’s Catholics” – of which Hitler was one. Yes, Hitler was a Catholic.

In brief, the Vatican later made a deal with Hitler’s government that basically got them, as a tax mind you, a percentage of all the profits from seized and stripped assets from the jews and other “undesirables”. We’ll go into this a little more later, but the idea here to understand is that Pacelli lived and worked in Germany for twenty years to bring about the conditions needed for both his Concordat and WWII.

All part of ‘eliminating challenges’ to the Pope’s supremacy, together with the British nobility’s same desire to rule the world, they’re a perfect united pair. And they were too, when they weren’t fighting amongst themselves.

The Reich Concordat also granted Pacelli:

  • the right to impose the new Code of Canon Law on Catholics in Germany – the one that says the Pope is infallible and all that crap.
  • promised a number of measures favorable to Catholic education, including new schools.

Bearing in mind that part of the deal was that the Catholic Center Party must vote in Hitler’s dictatorial powers, a terrible betrayal was demanded. Hitler insisted, as part of the deal, that after the Center Party did that voting? Pacelli must supervise its “voluntary” disbanding.

On behalf of Pius XI, Pacelli agreed.

This was the last democratic force in Germany. The fact that the party was forced into voluntarily disbanding itself, rather than go down fighting, utterly shredded the German Catholics sense of self. They even went so far as to decide that they had ‘wronged God’ by opposing Hitler.

How sick is that to do to your own followers?

– End excerpts.

.

If you look at the opening quote by Thomas Jefferson again, you can see just how well he had these people pegged.

For historical interest as to the attitude of these “priests” towards things like the Bill of Rights, etc., you really should have a look at my post:

The True Nature of “Communism” and Why the British/Vatican Slavemasters Needed It – Trashing the American Revolution

Extermination of  “evil” opinions

The Inquisition rides again…

Pope Pius IX

One of the main proponents used to spur the idea of the creation of the Code of Canon Law at Vatican I in 1870, was a man named Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti.

Giovanni reigned as Pope Pius IX from 16 June 1846 to his death in 1878. He was the longest-reigning elected pope in the history of the Catholic Church.

Pius IX put out an encyclical called The Syllabus of Errors (Latin: Syllabus Errorum) on December 8, 1864 just six years before Vatican I – setting the stage for what was to come.

The Syllabus was made up of phrases and paraphrases from earlier papal documents, along with index references to them, and presented as a list of “condemned propositions”.

It is important because the seeds of freedom for man had been being successfully propagated from the newly independent America around the world, including Europe, where the political emancipation of Europe from the tradition of Catholic Monarchies (France, etc.) had well-begun.

Both the British nobility (and the monarchy) and Vatican began viciously attacking the underlying principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson and the young American nation in it’s Constitution, for the ‘scourge’ it was unleashing upon their little bubble-worlds of power that they thought were so impenetrable.

In fact, as revenge for that and for President Jackson having paid off America’s debt and taken down their tentacled Bank of the United States – it’s a little known fact that Pope Pius IX and the Vatican supported the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War, all as part of trying (with the British) to divide and conquer America.

Take a look at some of the statements that Pius IX condemned as false (in 1864). Many of which source from American authors and orators such as Thomas Jefferson – see if you can identify which ones.

  • “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil.” (No. 3)
  • “All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.” (No. 4)
  • “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” (No. 77)
  • “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.” (No. 18).
  • “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” (No. 55)
  • “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15) and that “It has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” (No. 78)
  • “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” (No. 80)

This Syllabus went together with an papal encyclical called Quanta Cura Condemning Current Errors put out on the same day, December 8, 1864.

In Quanta Cura, Pius IX specifically marks for condemnation something that Pope Gregory XVI had also foamed-at-the-mouth about. (He was Pope when President Andrew Jackson, a Jeffersonian, was in office and took down their (the slavemasters) infiltrated hold on the U.S. – the Bank of the United States)

Gregory XVI had said that this was insanity

…”liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”
– Gregory XVI, encyclical epistle “Mirari vos,” 15 August 1832.

Pius IX agreed and singled that out for “condemnation” in Quanta Cura, meaning he tremendously elevated in importance as bad, what Gregory XVI had said.

In full context, this is what Pius IX said about it in Quanta Cura

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz., that –

liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”

But, while they [my note: people like Thomas Jefferson for example] rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”4

2 Gregory XVI, encyclical epistle “Mirari vos,” 15 August 1832.
3 same
4 St. Leo, epistle 14 (133), sect. 2, edit. Ball.

 

Resist Truth?

Unbelievable. These people have nothing to do with anything resembling “truth”.

Pius IX also said that the part starting “Liberty of conscience…” was essentially a threat to the world domination plan so fondly cherished by men with such delusions of grandeur

the Catholic Church… should freely exercise even to the end of the world–not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes…

That sounds like a world domination plan to me, how about you?

What was Pius IX’s solution to this threat?

… the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral* solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions

[*Note: Pastoral means shepherd of sheep originally. In Catholicism this is a reference to priests giving “spiritual guidance” to their “flocks of sheep”, so this is literally a direct order to ALL Catholic priests, Bishops etc. to work to exterminate these “evil opinions” of Non-Catholics. It is calling on the priests to get their parishioners to help them exterminate those evil opinions.

And how would they carry out this order if the person, the holder of said “evil opinions” REFUSED?

Exterminate. I want you to think about what that actually means.

Absolute Suppression of Dissent

Punishing those who voice or write those “evil opinions”

.

Now, let’s take a look at a key point from the Code of Canon Law.

The main source I am quoting from can be found here. I find it easier to read, but in the interests of purity of source you can also view the original at the Vatican website.

The first one we are going to examine can be found in Book VI: Sanctions in the Church; Part II: Penalties for Particular Offences; Title I: Offences Against Religion and the Unity of the Church (Cannons 1364 – 1369)

Canon 1369 –

A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

For comparison, the Vatican website puts it thus:

A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.

Basically what is clear here is that anyone who writes or speaks anything the Vatican considers to ‘excite’ contempt for any religion (which is rather revealing for a number of reasons) or says anything blasphemous or that causes the Vatican to lose face – is to be punished.

Anyone.

Get that? Not just Catholics.

Next –

Let’s take a look next at what is considered a “just” punishment for such a person, but before we can do that we have to study a few words and concepts to really get the full meaning of the Canon I am going to show you.

According to Alister McGrath, the term heresy descends from the Greek word her’esy meaning to take, to hold. Then the Catholics (under Pope Nicholas V)P converted it to hairesis in Latin, originally meaning any “act of choosing.” It then quickly progressed to the more perjorative meaning of “choice” or “school of thought” that needed to be rejected by the Catholic church for some reason.

Now let’s have a look at some religious sites definitions.

The english King James version of the Catholic Bible offers a couple little known meanings of heresy as applicable to Law and Politics.

  1. Heresy, in law, is an offense against christianity consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained.
  2. An untenable or unsound opinion or doctrine in politics.

– – –

A non-Catholic priest described heresy as:

  • a belief opposed to the official belief of a church and that is considered wrong, or the condition of having such beliefs.

He also made a good point of describing that heresy involves the authority to identify something as “off limits” – still holding true to the Latin-invented meaning, as you can see.

Put more succinctly – labeling something heresy, or someone a heretic, necessarily involves both power and exclusion.

Therefore, the priest explained, when something is labeled “heresy” we are wielding the power to exclude.

– – –

Religious Heresy is only ever about essential core matters. Never peripheral. For example, the idea that “God” gave the power to run all of earth to some guy called the Pope.

That’s a core matter.

More touchy-feeling descriptions talk about the heretic being portrayed as: an innovative underdog who challenges authority and freely chooses for himself what he will believe, whereas the orthodox person is the oppressor who refuses both to see other possibilities and to allow others to explore those possibilities for themselves.

These kind of descriptions are what I call Hegelian PR (or propaganda). They offer two rather questionable extremes in the hopes that you will “pick the middle” and end up right where these dogmatic religious types wanted you to be in the first place.

See how that works?

Not good.

– – –

Moving on over to the Catholic Encyclopedia (published in 1910) we get into a whole lot darker meanings of both the terms heretic and what is actually meant by apostate and schismatic.

Have a look at this first –

Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin.

St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: “All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief ( infidelitas) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity.”

Ok, so if you are not inclined to believe, are opposed to, or feel repugnance towards believing in their One God theory, this is a sin. But if you specifically do that and talk or write up what is your view about all that and that you think it shouldn’t be believed? This is the greatest sin.

The Catholics of 1910 offer an interesting differentiation between heretics and apostates.

Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ.

You will notice that both seem to carry the idea that the person was or still is a believer in Christ, which is deliberately obfuscating the fact that they don’t just apply these terms to the former or current believer. They also apply it to the NEVER believed it in the first place people.

This is not something they want so easily known, but yet it is most definitely there to be found in their scriptures.

For example:

  • Who is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23)
  • and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” [shunned and excluded] (Matthew 18:17)
  • he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16)

See what I mean?

The Catholics of 1910 also delineated the difference between heretics and schismatics.

Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. … And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff […].

Remember Pacelli and the infallibility of anything the Pope decrees? Well, anyone who denies this is true is called a schismatic for the heresy of simply denying this dogma is true!

That alone verifies one hundred percent that Catholicism is a Cult.

My husband summed this up well in his Scientology Roots chapter 26 titled: Catholic Pope Slavemasters.

He said:

A cult has a leader who must be obeyed without question.

The leader claims they have the only way to salvation or heaven.

They destroy the life of anyone who challenges their ideas or authority.

.

Case closed.

They’re a cult.

* * *

.

As of 1909, in a stunningly similar move as the formation of the Society of Jesus back in the 1500’s, Pope Pius X had actually decreed that in every major Catholic area (diocese) there must be a board of censors and a “vigilance committee”.

Know what the function of that was (and still is)?

…to find out and report on [tainted] writings and persons…

In olden times, the physical penalties on heretics were:

  • the death penalty
  • confiscation of goods
  • imprisonment, etc.

Today’s Catholics would have you believe that they “don’t do those anymore”. That’s not exactly true, said with tongue firmly in cheek. They do do these things, it’s just not as overt or obvious as it was in medieval times. Today, they inflict physical penalties on individuals in any number of subtle and much harder to see ways and methods.

This despite their attempts in 1910 to essentially say that we “only do spiritual penalties now.” However, the opening sentence demonstrates their mindset is most definitely still on a par with their “ancient severity” of torture and dungeons – aka The Inquisition.

The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance. Even in countries where the cleavage between the spiritual and secular powers does not amount to hostility or complete severance, the death penalty, confiscation of goods, imprisonment, etc., are no longer inflicted on heretics.

What are these “spiritual” penalties? (that are actually physical as you’ll soon see)

The spiritual penalties are of two kinds: latae and ferendae sententiae.

It is the first one that we are interested in today (you’ll see why in a bit here).

This latae sententiae is automatically incurred by the mere fact of heresy, no judicial sentence being required!

And what is incurred so automatically?

Check this out –

The penalties latae sententiae are: (1) Excommunication specially reserved to the Roman pontiff, which is incurred by all apostates from the Catholic Faith, by each and all heretics, by whatever name they are known and to whatever sect they belong, and by all who believe in them (credentes), receive, favour, or in any way defend them (Constitution “Apostolicae Sedis”, 1869).

The believers (credentes) in heretics are they who, without examining particular doctrines, give a general assent to the teachings of the sect

the favourers (fautores) are they who by commission or omission lend support to heresy and thus help or allow it to spread

the receivers and defenders are they who shelter heretics from the rigours of the law.

.

This includes anyone who says his doubts in this religion are defensible by reason!

Heretic here means formal heretic, but also includes the positive doubter, that is, the man who posits his doubt as defensible by reason…

Ok, all that was just under the first penalty. Now for the second –

(2) “Excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff incurred by each and all who knowingly read, without authorization from the Apostolic See, books of apostates and heretics in which heresy is defended; likewise readers of books of any author prohibited by name in letters Apostolic, and all who retain possession of, or print, or in any way defend such books” (Apostolicæ Sedis, 1869).

Holy crap!

.

The book here meant is a volume of a certain size and unity; newspapers and manuscripts are not books, but serial publications intended to form a book when completed fall under this censure.

Modern example – Mike’s book Scientology Roots is currently a “serial” (multi-part) publication here at out blog, and here is an example of just this kind of “book banning” towards him.

It gets worse here…

Even editors and publisher’s get condemned!

The “printers” of heretical books are the editor who gives the order and the publisher who executes it, and perhaps the proof-reader, but not the workman who performs the mechanical part of printing.

Note: Not the “workman”? What, is he considered too stupid to know any better or something? Something very strange about that exclusion.

Additional penalties –

[…] Apostates and heretics are […] infamous, that is, publicly noted as guilty and dishonoured.

.

“This note of infamy clings to the children and grandchildren of unrepented heretics.”

.

 …The guiding principles in the Church’s treatment of heretics are the following: Distinguishing between formal and material heretics, she applies to the former the canon, “Most firmly hold and in no way doubt that every heretic or schismatic is to have part with the Devil and his angels in the flames of eternal fire, unless before the end of his life he be incorporated with, and restored to the Catholic Church.”

In plain english, what this means today is a scorched earth policy of degradation, pain, isolation and suffering is to be made to happen to those deemed “formal heretics” (and schismatics) while they are still alive.

.

Their lives up in flames. Literally.

And their children!

.

The conditions of Perdition literally being unnaturally made to exist in that person’s life.

Perdition comes from the latin verb perdere which means to cause utter destruction and loss, so you can see the obvious relevance there before the Catholics later adjusted it to mean eternal damnation or hell; a state of final spiritual ruin; loss of the soul; damnation.

It’s supposed to be a state of eternal punishment and damnation into which a sinful and unpenitent person passes after death but you’ll notice that even Catholic lawyers know that the intent is for that to happen NOW to the person.

That’s what anaethema marinatha is about – it goes beyond just excommunication.

Per the Catholic encyclopedia, the whole point of the promulgation of the anathema is to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.

There are a phenomenal number of parallels between the Catholic and the scientology churches. Here’s a few examples.

  • Sea Organization “Brotherhood” = The Jesuits.
  • Fair Game = ‘Sword of God’ wielded in Anaethema Marinatha
  • Declare SP = excommunication aka Anaethema
  • Disconnection = also part of excommunication aka Anaethema

There is some distinction between the ideas of anathema and excommunication within the Catholic Church. The distinction between them shows up in the Decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII):

Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.

Note that this involves hurting or damaging the person, ie: punishment.

Note that the part about separating from the Church – as in schismatics – earns them this anathema label and as we have already studied in Canon Law – this sentence is AUTOMATIC.

No trial, No defense, no nothing.

The Catholic Church has a ceremony it still does to this day, for pronouncing Anathema. It is called Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi.

 

Part of which is usually recited in chorus:

that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven [aka marinatha]

Now what’s this “sword of heaven” part?

Just like it sounds. Marinatha  is a command for the Lord to come and “strike” the person “by the sword of heaven”.

Since there is no “lord” that means the Catholics have to make this happen ARTIFICIALLY by doing or arranging things to be done to DESTROY the person.

This is what the Catholic League does to people they target. They arrange to bring the “sword of god” down.

So what we have in Catholicism is:

  • Excommunication – separates and kicks out the person from “the society of the brethren”
  • Anathema – a major excommunication, it separates from the body of Christ – which is the Church itself. This is also the meaning given towards labelling someone “schismatic”. Anathema means that the person is barred from “going to heaven” because the Pope has the “keys”.
  • Stricken by the sword of Heaven (Marinatha) – black intelligence operations against the person to “destroy him utterly”. These include financial, familial, physical, and mental attacks on the person so designated as “deserving” of such treatment.

.

– – –

If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed [anathema]!
– end of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 22

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.
– end of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 22

.

Thomas Jefferson (T.J.) – himself classified by these people as a schismatic and a heretic – was dead accurate in his portrayal of them and what they do (or try to do) to “schismatics”.

It is the refusing toleration to those of a different opinion which has produced all the bustles and wars on account of religion.

It was the misfortune of mankind that during the darker centuries the Christian priests following their ambition and avarice combining with the magistrate to divide the spoils of the people, could establish the notion that schismatics might be ousted of their possessions & destroyed.

This notion we have not yet cleared ourselves from.

– Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion (October, 1776).
Published in The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition,
Paul Leicester Ford, ed., New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904, Vol. 2, pp. 267.

 

Yes, T.J., this notion we have still not yet cleared ourselves from. Organizations like the Catholic League today are still trying to have schismatics – anyone who is against the Catholic Church and won’t follow the Pope and who targets them publicly – be ousted of their possessions and destroyed.

He certainly had their number, didn’t he?

This statement by T.J. was 150 years ago and it is still true today.

That’s a 150 year conspiracy, documented, right there, and we all know it has gone on a lot longer than that. We’re talking what…a minimum of over 400 years now since the time of the Inquisitions?

That’s one hell of a criminal track record on their part.

– – –

So.

Now that you know much more about just what all this name-calling business by the Catholic Church actually entails, before I leave off these Catholic Encyclopedia references I wanted to just quickly point out to you an absolutely horrific section titled:  “Intolerance and cruelty”

Here’s just one piece of it –

The Church’s legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d’être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives […]

That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about them.

* * *

The relevant Canons to my post topic today are:

Canon 1369 –

A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

After our word study I think you can get the full context of this this next one much better.

Canon 1364 –

An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae* excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2

*latae sententiae – sentence (already) passed

Put together, you get that scorched earth policy towards anyone who publicly levels effective exposure and criticism of the incredible evil and vicious hypocrisy inherent in the Catholic Church, or in fact even if the same is leveled towards any “approved of” religion!

As one might expect here in the evil land of apostates and heretics and those with opinions that need exterminating – the United States – there would be a Catholic organization whose “task” it is to level this kind of destruction towards those deemed tainted and a threat.

And so there is.

* * *

 

The Catholic League

 

(AP Photo/Marty Lederhandler)

 

Meet William ‘Bill’ Donohue, pictured posing in his office Tuesday, May 12, 1998, in New York.

President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights since July 1993, Bill has gone to great efforts to steer the organization in very nasty and aggressive acts of suppression towards anyone that he (and his masters) deem “Catholic bashing”.

The Catholic League was founded in 1973 by Jesuit priest Virgil Blum.

As a strong proponent of the enforcement of Canon laws 1364 and 1369 (that we just covered in detail) under Bill Donohue’s helm the organization has grown from 27,000 members in 1993 to a sprawling tentacled organization of more than 300,000 known members.

Each and every one dedicated to enforcing that scorched earth policy against those who dare to speak out against the Catholic Church.

There is hardly anything critical of this organization easily findable out there, and that isn’t because it is innocent. No.

There is only one main critic, a Dr. Mumford who himself tends to not come across as very, shall we say, innocent because most of the time he’s trying to sell people on the idea of eugenics and population control – with some really scary solutions, I might add.

I aim to remedy that lack of uncompromised sources of information – starting now.

Caveat – Dr. Mumford does provide some truly damning quotes from Donohue that have to be seen to be believed.

For example –

“I defy anyone to name a single organization that has more rabid members than the Catholic League. Our members are generous, loyal and extremely active. When we ask them to sign petitions, write to offending parties and the like, they respond with a vigor that is unparalleled…. We aim to win. Obviously, we don’t win them all, but our record of victories is impressive.”

“I think it is a gross mistake to give elevation to fringe groups. Our basic rule of thumb is this: the more mainstream the source of anti-Catholicism, the more likely it is that the Catholic League will respond…. The mainstream media, after all, have the credibility and influence that the fringe lacks, and they are therefore much more likely to do real damage.”

Except when that “fringe” element gets a whole lot of traffic, that is.

And my personal favorite –

What exactly did we have in mind? We were prepared to take out ads in the opposition newspaper, registering our charge of anti-Catholic bigotry. We were prepared to pay for radio spots making our charge. We were prepared to buy billboard space along the majority arteries surrounding the Fort Lauderdale community. Why not? After all, … we are in a position to make such threats….

Note the ominous nature of that last sentence, but it gets much worse.

This is the way it works: if the source of bigotry wants to deal with lousy publicity, it can elect to do so. Or it can come to its senses and knock it off. In the event the anti-Catholic bigots want to bite the bullet and stay the course, we’ll do everything we can within the law to make sure that they pay a very high price for doing so.”

 

Is that so…

So Donohue is wielding the sword of heaven – anathema marinatha – at people!

That particular gem is from Catalyst: The Message From Florida Is: Bigots Beware. April 1995. p. 3.

Note: I independently found that Donohue also referred to making anyone criticizing the Catholic Church effectively pay a high price as a “right” –

That’s our right, and we have every intention of using it. Again and again.

Donohue is practicing condemned with anathema.

If someone knowingly and publicly denies a defined (de fidei definita) doctrine of the Catholic Church, remember, per Pacelli’s Code of Canon Law #1364 the sentence of anathema-marinatha is automatic.

The justification given for subjecting someone to the calculated destruction of their lives is that it is supposedly a benevolent act done in order to “bring the one in error to his senses” – before it’s too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy.

That, the nasty procedure and tactics of anathema-marinatha, is what Donohue is referring to when he says “it can come to its senses” – it’s a very specific thing he’s talking about there, not just the average usual meaning.

Now.

All of the three of the above main quotes by Donohue were taken from chapter 15 of: The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a US Population Policy by Dr. Mumford; 1996

Here’s a PDF I made of it for those interested, including the full references section for the book so people can see the quote sources.

I decided to check the accuracy of Mumford’s bibliography, particularly on that last quote,and he is indeed very accurate – Donohue really did say those things. Catalyst is a mag or publication by William Donohue, the archives of which are hosted right on their website, and here is that particular 1995 article.

But take a look at what else he said (that Mumford didn’t include) in regards to the second quote above concerning Donohue’s attitude towards supposed “fringe” attacks.

And now we start crossing into the behavior of the Anti-Scientology movement, by the way, many of which are Catholics and I suspect are being used by this Catholic League. In a number of ways.

Donohue –

.

We do not want to play into the hands of crackpot bigots who appear on public access television or who publish wacko newspapers and the like. We keep a file on them, to be sure, but we are not interested in giving them media attention.

Well that’s not ominous-sounding at all – and so much like Scientology’s intelligence tactics it’s scary.

I love the part about not being interested in “crackpot bigots” and not wanting to give them “media attention”. That sounds exactly like supposed (and I mean that how that sounds) anti-scientology activist Karen De La Carriere and her vicious and sneaky back-door activities against my husband and I.

See Behind Closed Doors – Mike McClaughry’s Book Banned.

– – –

.

A search of the term scientology at the Catholic League website brings up several interesting results. My personal favorite is Donohue’s rant (February 11, 2011) against Mark Warren of Esquire for his amazing take on why all the fuss about scientology and not Catholicism.

On the front page of the website of Esquire magazine, there is an article by its executive editor, Mark Warren, titled, “Investigate the Vatican” [click here].

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on it today:

Mark Warren’s article gives new meaning to the word “rant,” for it is the most turgid declamation on the Catholic Church in print. He begins by applauding the New Yorker for its critical piece on Scientology, founded by L. Ron Hubbard. But he is angry nonetheless.

Wouldn’t the resources and time of journalists be better directed at the finances, earthly corruption, and raw power of the Catholic Church, an institution that wields influence incalculably greater that L. Ron Hubbard’s itty-bitty religion?

.

Now there’s an excellent question.

.

But…”turgid declamation“? Somebody definitely needs to ease up on the old thesaurus.

.

.

Other notable articles –

Bill Donohue specifically brings attention to Tony Ortega (but not by name) in an editorial titled: Protecting Kids From Religion, January 9th 2013; he says scientology isn’t lambasted as badly as the Catholic Church by tv’s South Park, July 12, 2006; and then there’s this one from December 23rd 2008 which deserves quoting all by itself. It’s titled: COMEDY CENTRAL PERPETUATES WAR ON CHRISTMAS.

It starts out saying:

But by far the most offensive part of the show is the monologue by Denis Leary on the origins of Christmas.

And then it assembles a number of quotes from the show, one of which chosen to be singled out was this one:

“Tom Cruise is taking a lot of s— for belonging to a religion, Scientology, that believes aliens came to this planet 75 million years ago. That is nothing. I was raised Catholic. We believe Mary was a virgin and Jesus ended up walking on water, creating a bottomless jug of wine and rising from the dead. Oh, yeah, and Tom Cruise is crazy.”

Well-put, if I do say so myself.

It then quotes Catholic League president Bill Donohue as saying:

For those who doubt there is a War on Christmas, they need look no further than Comedy Central. They are well aware that this special is offensive—indeed, mocking Catholicism is the goal […]

And then there’s this one from March 14th, 2006 titled: HYPOCRITES AT “SOUTH PARK” AND SHOWTIME. Tell me, does this make any sense to you? What the hell is Donohue trying to say here?

And now we learn that Stone and his buddy Trey Parker were moved to take a shot at Scientology because they were ticked off that their equally foul-mouthed friend, Penn Jillette, was banned from ripping Scientology on his crude Showtime series, ‘Bulls – – t.’  Forget about Stone and Parker—the real issue here is the cowardly, hypocritical response from Jillette.  Last year, Jillette went on a rampage against Mother Teresa calling her ‘Mother F- – king Teresa.’  Yet this same big oaf hasn’t got the guts to slam Scientologists for fear of upsetting his bigoted boss, Sumner Redstone (he is chairman of Viacom, which owns Showtime).  As for Redstone, he wrote to me last August defending Jillette’s assault on Mother Teresa saying ‘we as an organization are committed to artistic freedom.’  Not when it comes to Scientologists—their penchant for filing lawsuits scares the daylights out of him.

He says that last bit almost proudly. Odd, that.

Donohue follows up with –

“What does it take to get the New York-Hollywood gang to stop with their Catholic bashing?  Threats of beheadings?  Threats of lawsuits?  Seems that way.”

I’ll bet this guy does wish he could break out the old Inquisition and start beheading people, but notice how he’s using the Church of Scientology’s modus operandi as some kind of model? Even if supposedly in jest, I’m afraid I find this rather portentious considering what’s about to be launched under the guise of “activism” against all manner of people deemed tainted – including EX scientologists.

Remember the rise of the “Anonymous” protest group against Scientology?

Yep. that’s not long after this.

In fact, one of the very first things that happened with that group was that a writer for the Catholic League, Randy Sly, comes out and helps bring media prominence to the initial efforts of Mike Rinder, Mark Rathbun

PDF – Catholic League Expose — Scientology And Abortion – Sea Org – The Ex-Scientologist Forum

A blurb about Randy found at Catholic Online –

Randy Sly is the Associate Editor of Catholic Online. He is a former Archbishop of the Charismatic Episcopal Church who laid aside that ministry to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in 2006. His reporting on the Church of Scientology has received global attention

Here’s Randy Sly promoting the Catholic League on December 1, 2010: Catholic League Provides Light at the End of the Tunnel

Here’s Randy Sly trying to explain why he’s so suddenly focused on scientology on February 12, 2010: Editorial: Why the spotlight on Scientology?

Some quotes from the article:

So, in addition to belief, our concerns about Scientology involve behavior. Some have stated in the comments section that, as Catholics, we should address our own bad behavior. At Catholic Online, we have.

They have not. What a squirrely, evasive and sub-understanding style statement that is.

Regular readers of Catholic Online will have noticed that the Church of Scientology has been in our cross-hairs several times this past year. Personally, I have written a dozen articles on the subject.

Our focus on Scientology did not come by pulling an arbitrary name out of a hat at an editorial meeting, nor did it come because any of us are ex-Scientologists.

I’ll bet it didn’t. But not for the reason he tries to say it is – he was, no question about it, deliberately HELPING grow the very, very Catholic anti-scientology movement.

You do notice how utterly focused most of the media is on families, children, suicide, abortion, and “violation of human rights” regarding scientology? And not anything of any real substance as to what scientology was actually backed by and created for?

That is no accident.

Randy tries to have it be believed that it’s just cuz “scientology is in the news”.

They are, frankly, in the news. Whether it´s the renunciation of affiliation by a celebrity member, conviction of fraud by the French courts, harassment of defectors or depositions regarding forced abortions that have shown up on the web, the spotlight has been turned on.

Randy brings attention to the “Truth Rundown” series – watch how he tries to distance from Anonymous (heavily Catholic dominated) and at the same time marginalizes anyone who has come before.

That is also no accident.

In June 2009, however, the St. Petersburg Times wrote an extensive three-part series on Scientology…

The world of Scientology, which before had been primarily the focus of expatriates and groups like Anonymous, were now being brought into the mainstream of attention.

Randy then goes about promoting an article by Jesuit John Coleman –

While Catholic Online was one of the few Catholic voices to cover Scientology, a hard-hitting article appeared this week in America Magazine´s online edition, entitled “Scientology at the Dock.”

In this piece, Father John Coleman, S.J., who served as a Professor of Social Values at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles until last year, took a careful look at the organization and its recent track record. Fr. Coleman´s concerns mirrored those of Catholic Online, when he stated, “Recent allegations about Scientology rely less on the organization´s belief system… The recent attacks on Scientology focus mainly on its behaviors.

This is exactly the party line that you will see people like Tony Ortega, Karen de la Carriere, Anonymous group activist Roxanne Seibert aka Anonlover (a virulent Catholic and Catholic League supporter) etc. etc. ALL trying to enforce anti-scientologist activists to toe-the-line on.

“I suspect with so much smoke,” Coleman writes, “somewhere there must be a real fire. While the organization hates the term, it is a totalitarian ´cult.´ It just may also be criminal.”

However, not only are ALL Catholics directed to take issue now with scientology’s “behaviors”, they are also BOUND to take issue with its beliefs.

Fanatically so.

As Catholics, there is no doubt that we take issue with the system of belief embraced by the Church of Scientology. No amount of good works can offset the fact that the group proposes doctrines that are irreconcilable with Christianity. From a Catholic perspective, they are not a legitimate religion.

I was recently offered an invitation to visit a Scientology Church in Washington, D.C.. Whatever I might find during such a visit could never alter the fact that the truth claims found within the teaching of Christianity and the claims of Scientology cannot be somehow glossed over. We can never simply “agree to disagree” concerning the claims of our Christian faith and the claims of Scientology.

That’s basically a statement of war right there, but it is also much more complicated than that. To me, since I have now proven in numerous articles and posts here at the blog that scientology is a PARALLEL front group designed to literally be something to “shoot down” – Randy’s statement becomes a whole lot more than what it appears on its surface.

Take this statement by itself:

the group proposes doctrines that are irreconcilable with Christianity

Know what some of those are? The true and very real natural spiritual abilities of man – Telepathy, remote-seeing, clairvoyance etc.

All of which ARE CONDEMNED by the Catholic Church, and not only that, they are ALWAYS attributed to the devil!

ALL of which are touted as “real” by scientology, but are merely bait to attract people into this trap front group that has no intention of enabling or supporting people to actually use such abilities.

Catholic Online is, by intention, a Catholic news organization. We are compelled to explore and explain the belief systems of such groups as well as underscore the areas where they depart from orthodox Christian faith as revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition and taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

While Scientology states that there is room for Christianity in its world, as faithful followers of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is no room for Scientology in ours. Should you read the materials on the Scientology website and learn more about their world, it becomes quite clear that each adherent will come to a point where they must answer the question, “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

Again, another clear statement of a war-like attitude.

Check this out –

According to one source, 28 percent of Scientologists, including Tom Cruise, were former Catholics. Somewhere, those who left to become a part of Hubbard´s new reality had lost sight of the grace and power of the Gospel in transforming and rebuilding lives. We don´t want this to continue to happen.

We are called to inform our readers about the actual beliefs of incompatible religions, inspire them to maintain faithfulness to the Truth found in Jesus Christ and His Church, and ignite them to fulfill her mission of evangelization and transformation. Inform, inspire, ignite is more than just a tagline for Catholic Online.

.

That word transformation, you do realize the sub-understanding beneath that don’t you?

EXTERMINATE evil opinions.

.

Right on cue with the tailored agenda of the Anonymous group and the “new” anti-scientology movement, here’s Randy jumping on the scientology and abortions bandwagon.

6/15/2010 – The Unanswered Question: Did Scientology Force Abortions?

Catholic Online reported on these very disturbing allegations last fall in the article “Scientology Religious ‘Order’ called ‘Sea Orgs’ Forced Abortions on Members.”
    
[…] On Sunday, the story, “No Children Allowed” was published. In this account, the Times reports that forced abortions were not isolated instances but a general rule of thumb for those in the Sea Organization (or Sea Org) which is described as an “order” within Scientology of highly committed followers.

[…] On Monday, the Times followed up with an article entitled, “She fought Scientology for the child they wanted to abort,” telling the story of Natalie Hagemo, a 19 year-old Sea Org member who had become pregnant and, along with her husband, withstood the pressure of the leadership to have an abortion. She gave birth to a daughter, Shelby.

Then there’s Randy (writing or at least overseeing) the fawning over Leah Remini, who is now an apparently rabid Catholic, and talking about how she was coerced or bullied. That’s pretty disgusting considering what people like Randy and the Catholic League probably do EVERY DAY to those who speak out against Catholicism.

July 12 2013; Actress Leah Remini leaves Scientology; says she was coerced, bullied

It’s a pretty much nothing article, just the usual Catholic agenda yammering but I did want to pull this out:

Remini’s friends within the church had reportedly for “25 to 30 years wrote internal reports” about her that “caused an investigation on her family.”

Know what one of the things Remini was up-in-arms about that her friends wrote up in reports to scientology ethics staff about her?

The six-month security checking of people partaking in one scientology’s highest level – OT VII.

According to the Knowledge Reports, Leah was also raising questions about the high prices that Scientology charged, which tended to put longtime members into serious debt. Why, for example, did members who were on OT 7, one of the highest course levels and one that tended to take years to complete, have to come in every six months for an expensive “sec check” that, with the cost of accommodations, could end up costing thousands of dollars? Where, she asked, was the L. Ron Hubbard policy which called for such expensive mandatory security interrogations?

“What’s the LRH on that?” she asked Futris.

She only knows about that because of me, and what my husband and I did back in 2000. See: Scientology: The Plan that doesn’t exist and Scientology Roots: Chapter 35: Illegal Security Checks on OT 7.

Journalist Tony Ortega knew that and yet goes out of his way not to mention us!  Ortega had also done this in 2014, only that time he said it was the Barnes who “found the reference” against it. That was me that found that and gave a copy to the Barnes’s. Greg and Debra Barnes would never have known about it if it wasn’t for me.

In the second video, Stacy Brooks had contacted the host of that cable access show and explained what was really going on. The host invited Stacy to appear as his guest to explain what FRT and Scientology were really about. He seemed quite annoyed that he had been played. Stacy brought along Greg Barnes, who had recently been declared a suppressive person (Scientology’s brand of excommunication) for questioning the policy of charging for mandatory biannual interrogations on the upper levels. He and his wife had found a policy from Hubbard that said this should never happen, and when they told others they got declared. In this show, Stacy and Greg directly respond to many of the lies Mary and Hans told in the first show.

Such shoddy reporting! Probably at the behest of Karen de la Carriere, a woman controlling a lot of the “anti” scientology media out there and  who goes totally psychotic at the idea of anyone holding us up as the courageous people that we were to bring this to a huge number of scientologists attention.

How? Initially, one of the things we did way back around the time we were Declared Suppressive in 2000, was that we gave a write-up that Mike had done to a man named Wayne Froemke. Wayne was posting on scientology newsgroups using the name “Safe”. We also gave him a huge list of email addresses of scientologists and Wayne then mailed out our writeup to all of them on New Year’s Day.

Why am I bringing that up? Because in Ortega’s article he says that Leah Remini was “influenced” by scientologist Debbie Cook’s “mailing” to scientologists on New Years Day 2012.

Yep, you guessed it. This new controlled anti-scientology movement COPIED what we had done almost exactly and then acted like it was “the first time” and that she was who revealed the six-month check info to Leah Remini.

Oops. Shot themselves in the foot over that one.

A little shout-out –

Hey Leah!!!

You’ve been lied to.

It’s me you need to thank for that, not Debbie Cook or anyone else.

.

And yea, I can prove it.

– – –

Mumford’s book has an excellent section I really think you should read.

Quoting Donohue –

“It is the conviction of the Catholic League that an attack on the Church is an attack on Catholics.

“[…] over the past 30 years, it has become evident that most of the Catholic-bashing centers on the institution of the Church…”

Mumford writes:

In 1971, the League’s founder pointed out, “If a group is to be politically effective, issues rather than institutions must be at stake.

In this way, the institution is successfully using individual lay Catholics to shield it from all criticism.

And now we come to the meat-and-potatoes section.

– – –

Catholic League – Methods of Intimidation

Donohue has cited many of the methods used by the League, as documented in Mumford’s book.

These are all quotes by Donohue, but I am going to turn them into a list.

Starting with an overview by Donohue –

We specialize in public embarrassment of public figures who have earned our wrath and that is why we are able to win so many battles: no person or organization wants to be publicly embarrassed, and that is why we specialize in doing exactly that...”

  • The threat of a lawsuit is the only language that some people understand.
  • The specter of public humiliation is another weapon that must be used.
  • Petitions and boycotts are helpful.
  • The use of the bully pulpit — via the airwaves — is a most effective strategy.
  • Press conferences can be used to enlighten or, alternatively, to embarrass.
  • making use of every legal means available — from boycotts to stockholder revolts — all designed to send a clear and unmistakable message [My Note: Staged revolts, you understand.]
  • Ads taken out in prominent national newspapers are quite effective.
  • a constant “in your face” attack of local newspapers.

While that second bolded part in the initial quote (no person or organization wants to be publicly embarrassed) may be true in the sense that no one particularly likes it, there do exist people that will not allow “punishment” to deter them from the right thing to do. This is probably why Donohue has an “expanded” list of attack methods, and I suspect he and his organization go so far as to utilize surveillance and other skirting-the-edge-of-legal methods. These would definitely not wanted to be publicly known tactics as it would publicly embarass them – that’s their “button” – see that? That’s part of the reason they think it’s SUCH a big deal to do to someone.

They hate to be publicly visible as the disgusting, hypocritical little….you get the idea….that they are.

But when it isn’t quite so easy to scare someone into submission, there are these tactics that are stated to be used by them – note the boycotts and stockholder “revolts” part – that’s where you see a little hint of actual INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS that these people run to destroy others. A boycott could include making it so someone can’t get a job anywhere, and I would be willing to bet money that they will go that far.

On a more general note – this type of intimidation is even leveled at the U.S. government.

Intimidation of the media leadership and of our government by the League is achieved through the wide distribution of frequent news releases, its monthly newsletter and an annual report.

In an article on the publication of its 1994 report, Donohue writes –

The purpose of the report is to educate the public and influence decision-makers in government, education and the media….The report is being distributed to all members of Congress, the White House…and to prominent members of the media and education.”

From an article regarding the 1995 annual report:

It has been sent to every Bishop and congressman in the nation, as well as to influential persons in the media and other sectors of society.

Donohue gloats as to their success –

“One of the major reasons why people are giving [donations] is the success the Catholic League has had. […] We have had a string of victories and we have also had an unprecedented degree of media coverage. We don’t win every fight but our overall record is quite good. Our presence on radio and TV, combined with coverage in newspapers and magazines — both religious and secular — is excellent.”

This organization extracts – after massive public degradation – “apologies” from the nation’s newspapers, TV networks and stations and programs, radio stations, activist organizations, commercial establishments, educational institutions and governments.

In a fund-raising letter mailed in December of 1995, Donohue makes it clear that the desired result he wishes to achieve in his “targets’ is that they become people “who will think twice before crossing Catholics again.

In the League’s 1995 Annual Report he reiterates that point even more clearly: “It is hoped that by …[attacking critics], potential offenders will think twice before launching their assaults on Roman Catholicism.

Assaults?

The suppression of all criticism of the Catholic Church and its hierarchy is the goal of the Catholic League.

Now that’s an assault.

It is absolutely unconscionable that any organization as dirty as the Catholic church should be allowed to so intimidate other people and basically ruin their lives with impunity if they don’t…repent and be silent.

The Catholic League is clearly just a next generation outcropping of the Jesuits from the 1500’s, and the board of censors and “vigilance committees” formed back in 1909 by order of Pope Pius X.

Remember what the function of that was (and still is)?

…to find out and report on [tainted] writings and persons…

And there’s Bill Donohue stating that:

We keep a file on them

Among the so-called anti-scientology movement there are a number of rather vocal (and vicious) Catholics populating Tony Ortega’s blog, various internet forums, etc., plus any number of people who do whatever they say due to fear of exactly the kinds of things Bill Donohue’s organization might bring down on them if they didn’t go along and worse – if they EXPOSED such connections.

One such Catholic ex-scientologist name you might easily recognize would be Leah Remini – whom we discussed earlier that Catholic League supporter and associate editor of Catholic Online, Randy Sly, likes to glorify to other Catholics.

Leah likes to bill herself as being the ballsy type, but I wonder…does she have the balls to expose the far more corrupt nature and behavior of the Catholic Church she now professes her undying loyalty?

The rest of the Catholics, I have a few particularly in mind, within the anti-scientology community can be documented as practicing every one of Bill’s tactics, making them a million times more duplicitous and far worse than the Church of Scientology could probably ever hope to be – and that’s saying something.

It is not my purpose in this article to talk about them, however, I am more interested in opening up the communication lines here to any EX-Catholic League members willing to give their testimony (and their name) as to who they have targeted and what they were asked to do, or know about others asking to do.

I’d also like to crack into just who exactly are these 200k plus members involved, I would be willing to bet money there are quite a few “anti-scientology activists” on such a list.

Here’s some possible names to look into –

Karen De La Carriere and Catholic Nancy Many. Nancy says: “MR (Mike Rinder) said that you find and go for the guys most important possession or connection and that is how you bring them down”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

.

On that note, I did find this PDF that does list a number of people, some of which are known to be sort of “hit-men” as to character assassination for this organization. People like Ronald J. Rychlak, for example, who was what I call a hired-gun writer tasked to counter John Cromwell’s rather brilliant research about Pope Pius XII (Pacelli). You can read more about all that in my Why Psychiatry is More Religion Than Science article, but I didn’t known before that he actually was part of this Catholic League when he did so.

That stinks to high heaven.

The PDF is a publication of: Catholics for Choice, The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: Neither Religious nor Civil, Washington, DC, (2008).

It discusses some more of the tactics of the Catholic League, many of which you see in action in the so-called anti scientology community.

Manufacture controversy
Once Donohue has found a “controversy” he uses wildly inflated rhetoric that is sure to inflame
Try to intimidate the “enemy”
Bully the opposition
Bill Donohue is an acknowledged master of rhetorical bullying. No attack is too harsh; no language too extreme.
Complain early and often
Volume is a key element of the Catholic League’s tactics.
Attack popular culture

The author of the PDF writes that the Catholic League uses –

  • embarrassment
  • intimidation
  • bullying
  • and distortion

to suppress critics of the Catholic church, the Vatican, and the church’s many controversial policies.

Sound familiar?

Karen de la Carriere and her husband Jeffrey Augustine go to great lengths to try and prevent people from reading our blog (it doesn’t work though, they read anyway) but she tries. A year and a half ago she said:

Karen De La Carriere to Scott Gordon

Please do not link Mike Mclaughry’s hallucinations and delusions to this group. Whilte he might have a nugget of truth here and there, he has so much fantasy and lunatic fringe ramblings, that it is not for this group.

Karen De La Carriere (continued two minutes later)

Scientology Inc is bad enough with enough truthful stories without going off the deep end into rubbish, Tony Ortegs is the reference point. If Tony never quotes Mike McCiaughry you can bet there is a good reason.

This is followed by an even more off-the-wall statement 2 minutes later, comparing Mike to Steven Fishman for some bizarre reason.

Karen De La Carriere to Scott Gordon

Steven Fishman and Mike McCiaugry are just not credible. They are delusional.

  • embarrassment
  • intimidation
  • bullying
  • and distortion

Check.

Catholic Leah Remini’s co-host of the Scientology A&E show, Mike Rinder (whom Karen “steers”) just a few weeks ago on February 13, 2017 stated publicly at his website that:

That’s conspiracy theory idiocy. They “groomed him to be a front man”… So laughable not even worthy of further commengt.

  • embarrassment
  • intimidation
  • bullying
  • and distortion

Check.

Mike Rinder was saying that about this quote from my husband Mike McClaughry’s book –

“When Ron Hubbard was a teenager Ian McBean recruited him for British intelligence. They groomed Hubbard to be a front man for their subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. ”

https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/the-reading-library/scientology/scientology-roots/scientology-roots-introduction/

Clearly Mike Rinder is also engaged in SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT.

Conspiracy theory idiocy?

No.

Fully documented in Chapter 9 of Scientology Roots – Hubbard’s Lifelong Intelligence Career.

– – –

.

Chris Shelton and Tony Ortega

They (Karen etc.) have even had to have Tony Ortega trot Chris Shelton out in a video the other day to try and “educate” people on how there couldn’t possibly be a centuries long operation to suppress humanity (like I documented coming down for the last two hundred years from one pope after another towards Bill of Rights and Constitutional ideas – using the Vatican’s own website.) Chris deliberately used the stupidest (and craziest) sources possible to try and have this poorly thought out “debunking” be believed.

So, did it work?

.

ill try to restrain myself 2

.

Yea. I didn’t think so.

Want to see these Catholics Anti-scientologists doing a “Catholic League” on Chris Shelton to smack him into line? Check this “discussion” out where Chris is being cured of his wrong ideas about Catholicism and confessionals and has to apologize.

I just wanted to jump in for a second on the conversation here as I found that I had been, to this day, operating on some lingering false data from the cult about Catholic confession.

… This idea stuck with me all this time and, not knowing anything about Catholic confessionals until I talked to a Catholic friend of mine today.

I made the comparison in this video about Catholic confessionals, saying that sec checks were the Scn version of Catholic confessionals. That was a bum analogy and I can see I shouldn’t have put it that way now.

.

Smack! Bad Chris! Apologize PUBLICLY right now!

The Holy Church is HOLY and would never act in any way like the Church of Scientology.

.

William Donohue, anyone? Sounds a whole hell of a lot like his tactics to me, and the fact that the Video Chris had made was about Leah Remini – who is now a Catholic – and within two days of his putting it up he had to apologize due to some Catholic “friend” correcting him stinks to high heaven as to just how much Catholic control is being exerted on these people.

And besides, some “friend”. Makes my skin crawl to think who that was. If I had a picture of a female skekses that’s what I’d put here, but this will have to do.

Chris’s “friend” correcting his EVIL OPINIONS

The Catholic Church is GOOD now. The Catholic Church is GOOD now.

.

All dark humor aside, the fact remains that there are some particularly vicious Catholics posing as “critics” of scientology who are strangely Catholic League in their treatment of those they cannot make tow the line like they did to little Chris there.

Watch out for them, and please, watch your back out there.

At least ONE of the more prominent ex-scientologists is fully aware of the nasty nature of the Catholics and the Catholic League – Alex Gibney.

Just a couple weeks ago Alex can be found saying:

Alex Gibney: What an honor! Like being attacked by Trump, who is inexorably infuriated by the truth, being named as a ‘bigot’ by the ‘Church’ of Scientology is like being named an ‘apostate’ or a hater by the Catholic League for exposing pedophile priests and how the church worked to cover their tracks. Oh yes, I recall: that happened too. The experience of making Going Clear was particularly gratifying because it put me in touch with thousands of ex-members who thanked me for helping to tell the world the truth about the malice and human rights abuses of this creepy tax dodge masquerading as a religion.

.

Here is Alex Gibney pictured with Mike Rinder a couple years ago discussing Gibney’s Going Clear movie.

Gibney far right, Rinder second from right.

I wonder, does Gibney now realize what a tool Rinder has always been, and how he’s right there currently and very publicly attacking people he previously ran black ops on as being “conspiracy theory” idiots?

Do Alex Gibney and Leah Remini realize that Mike Rinder still refuses to take any publicly stated direct responsibility specifically for running black ops on the McClaughry Family starting with getting Virginia’s passport blacklisted, all when he was head of the Office of Special Affairs (the dirty tricks department) – and do Gibney and Remini realize that Rinder is still attacking Virginia and Mike in exactly the same way as when he was in the Church?

Well, if not, they will now.

Why is Mike Rinder still running black ops on the McClaughry’s? And now in concert with Catholic extremist fanatics – the Catholic League.

Whose tool is he now?

* * *

 

In closing this topic for now, we’d like to reiterate that we’d love to hear from real people that have information about real life targeting of others by this Catholic League – especially by anyone who is known to also be involved with “exposing scientology” supposedly.

Mike and Virginia McClaughry

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Category

All that Spy Stuff, Historical Research, perceptions

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,