Tag Archives: Secularism

The Village Liar — Deliverance From Evil (Part 4)

“Some things cannot be compromised. The difference between good and evil is one.”


Deliverance From Evil (Part 4)


Vic Biorseth

The many disguises of evil.

From John 8:44:

“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

213316660YCDPFI_fsThe two names our Lord gave to Satan are murderer and liar. The two names go together. Untruth leads to death, and leads others to death, in more ways than one.

Our sole problem in contemporary America involves truth vs. untruth.

Of course, the biggest, most dangerous and most successful (in America) opposition to truth factor involves the varying levels of acceptance of Marxist ideology. And there are lots of levels. My contention is that there is nothing in Marxism that is of any value to man. But many Americans consider some part of Marxist theory to be of some value. Only one of these positions can be correct.

DachauBabies3Beginning, I think, some time in the thirties, when the world began to be aware of the government brutalities imposed on people in Russia and in Germany, American Leftists – both of the German and Russian variants – began to refer to themselves as moderates, to disassociate themselves and their movements from Marxism. At some point, the new word for Communist became Moderate. The term Leftist has always applied to Marxists. For a number of decades, the term Liberal was favored.

Today, few American Marxists refer to themselves as Marxists. Even Leftist is too strong for most of them. Even the softer Liberal is too strong for some of them. Moderate seems about right for most of them; but note well that they all remain Marxist.

We are mesmerized into thinking that one can be a little bit Liberal, or take some of Marx’s theory to heart, and still be a good Constitutional American. This is false. It is untrue. There is nothing at all in Marxism that is in any way compatible with Constitutional America. Seeking any sort of compromise position between Marxist theory and Constitutional American can only result in a weakened Constitutional America.

2043458907_a919d624f2Some things cannot be compromised. The difference between good and evil is one. Government by Marxism, in any variant or form whatsoever, and government by the American Constitution is another. They are incompatible, to the point of being mutually exclusive. You can either have free markets and a liberated citizenry, or you can have some variant of Socialism, one or the other. You cannot have both.

I therefore regard Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Liberalism, Leftism, Moderate-ism and Marxism to all be one and the same thing. For simplification, I refer to them all as Marxism, which is what they all are.

Again, our problem in contemporary America involves truth vs. untruth.

Marxist Driven Public Education.

213316660YCDPFI_fsSo where is all the untruth coming from? Little American children are not learning how to put condoms on cucumbers, and the mechanics of safe fornication, protected sodomy and responsible promiscuity in home schools, private schools, parochial schools, in their homes or in their Churches, Temples or Synagogues. Little American children are being taught these things, solely and exclusively, in the Marxist driven public school system.

FRANCE-RELIGION-POPE-CONDOMHillary has taught us that it takes a village to raise a child. See?

Little American girls are not smuggled in and out of abortion mills without their parent’s knowledge from any home schools, private schools, parochial schools, from their homes or from their Churches, Temples or Synagogues. That sort of thing is done, solely and exclusively, in the Marxist driven public school system.

Judao-Christian religion, scripture, tradition, morality, religious expression, religious exercise and so forth are not strictly and, you might say, religiously censored, prohibited and even opposed in teaching in any home schools, private schools, parochial schools, in their homes or in any Churches, Temples or Synagogues. That sort of thing is done, solely and exclusively, in the Marxist driven public school system.

Pro-Marxist and anti-Capitalist bias is not taught American children in any home schools, private schools, parochial schools, from their homes or from their Churches, Temples or Synagogues. That sort of thing is done, solely and exclusively, in the Marxist driven public school system. That is where American history is taught in the most negative light possible, and Socialism is shown in the most positive light possible.

prop8_13_5-26-09Our so-called public schools are the only places in America where children are exposed to the false rantings of the Femi-Nazi movement, the Homo-Nazi movement and the Eco-Nazi movement. Well, actually, they might see quite a bit of that on TV today, too, and in the public media. Black children are taught to feel victimized, and white children are taught to feel perpetually guilty, in a false and biased racist America slant of American history.

All of this captive audience Marxist indoctrination happens only in American public schools.

Marxist Driven College Education.

213316660YCDPFI_fsThe ‘60s and ‘70s revolutionary, anti-war, hippy-freak, Woodstock generation, which was the first of several truly anti-American American generations, is now in charge of the American college campus. Yesterday’s hippy is today’s dean. They who led and participated in the sit-ins, love-ins, pot parties, orgies, bra burnings, draft card burnings, campus riots, ROTC building burnings, bombings and street-warfare are today’s Ivey League professors and talk-show celebrities.

scacWhatever else may be learned in the typical American university today, American and world history will be dripping with anti-American bias, and Socialism will be taught in the most positive light possible.

On the American college campus, flat out Communist disinformation has gone main-stream. It is the norm.

Even those graduates who are not infected with Marxism are often infected with what the late Jeane Kirkpatrick referred to as the Blame America First Syndrome in which America is always somehow seen to be the cause of whatever is bad in the world. The fact that we consume more than anyone else is grossly over-emphasized; the fact that we produce more than anyone else is forgotten. As is the fact that we export more than anyone else. If we have more than someone else, why, somehow that is unfair, and we owe it to someone else. When Marxism isn’t sinister, it is just silly, but always at the expense of America.

Marxist Driven Mainstream Media.

213316660YCDPFI_fsThese days I’m working as a local delivery driver, and I get to listen to talk radio quite a bit out on the road. I love to listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Both of them seem to seek the truth and find it, quite regularly, and they always seem to hit the nail on the head, on whatever controversial topic they are discussing. Rush gets the preferred nod, as the most entertaining of the two, because of his wit. He is funny; he is always good for at least one good belly laugh every day, and sometimes he keeps me laughing through most of his show. This is good for me, these days, with who is running both houses of Congress and the White House, because sometimes I think if I didn’t laugh, I just might cry.

But both Sean and Rush have got something wrong, and it is their view of the mainstream media, which I have labeled the SLIMC. They feel that mainstream media journalists have missed the boat, are making themselves irrelevant, have failed in their duty, are going to be sorry, and so forth. But that is wrong. They know exactly what they are doing.

WALTER-CRONKITEThe SLIMC is every bit as Marxist as Obama is. I’ve been saying that ever since the Vietnam War. If any American profession today is more anti-American, on average, than the American teaching profession, it is American journalism, by an order of magnitude.

As described in several other pages on this site, Walter Cronkite may be the worst example of them all. Cronkite could have been and should have been investigated, charged, tried, convicted and executed for treason. The same could be said of John (did you know he served in Vietnam) Kerry, Hannoi-Jane Fonda and others, but Cronkite takes the highest “honor” because he was so trusted, and so believed, by so many. Cronkite, more than anyone else, is responsible for producing the first of several anti-American American generations. Cronkite, more than anyone else, as we said in the Vietnam War page, is responsible for the loss of the Vietnam War itself.

Other American journalists idolize Cronkite; he is the one they most seek to emulate; he is their hero. They hope one day, following his lead, to somehow destroy Capitalism, and Constitutional America along with it.



Ed. Note: http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
Provides a focus-point for Orthodox Roman Catholicism, Judeo-Christian morality, Western Culture, Representative Government, American idealism and Conservative values. It promotes faith, family, tradition and property. Emphasis is on ethos, critical thinking and reason.

The Village Liar — Deliverance From Evil (Part 3)

“And upon this flimsy, foundationless, thin-air legal precedent, another Constitutional right was interpreted into being: the Constitutional Right to abort someone.”


Deliverance From Evil (Part 3)


Vic Biorseth

Why Civil Law must be Representative Law and Must reflect the Common Ethos of the people.

Judao-Christian driven ethos, or, Marxist driven secularism?

213316660YCDPFI_fsAs we said above, Founders such as Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, etc. have all warned us that the proper functioning of our American Republic depends upon a basically moral citizenry. To summarize Tocqueville, the greatness of our nation is entirely dependent upon the goodness of her people.

So how are we to judge “goodness?”

In Western Civilization, we judge goodness by adherence to the immutable Word of God, and by how well we obey His laws and precepts. The Marxists among us, who today represent a clear majority in our sitting federal government, would prefer that we remove God entirely from the discussion. Political play-acting aside, they do not believe in God, and they would prefer that we not believe in Him either. They would have us turn to The World for guidance, and to look to worldly government to provide our worldly utopia, and to not think about any afterlife, because this life is all there is. So do your part for worldly utopia while you’re here.

If we listen to them, we should turn our lonely, helpless eyes to scientism and naturalism, recognize the need for a wise and benign ruler, see the beauty of the earth and nature, and recognize the scientistic fact that HBAACOTE. Once we’ve finally internalized that little bit of “wisdom” we will be ready to join in one or more of the Leftist programs moving us all toward worldly utopia.

LoveInArcadiaWe have the Marxist driven Femi-Nazi movement; the Marxist driven Homo-Nazi movement, and the Marxist driven Eco-Nazi movement, among others. Pick your favorite. We have been “saved” by the great sexual revolution that opened our unsophisticated eyes to the wonders of fun for the sake of fun. We have been “educated” in the “truth” of our population problem and thus the need for artificial contraception methods including abortion. Because we still need to have fun, for fun is a requirement for a good quality-of-life. And always remember, a good quality-of-life eventually may be a requirement for continuation of life when you get older. That explains the ever growing need for ongoing development of male enhancement drugs and morning-after pills.

Any devout Jew and any practicing Christian, of whatever denomination, should see all of this as nothing but absolute crap. It is utter nonsense. Sophisticated? Anyone who pushes or embraces secularism and would use it to displace our Judao-Christian Ethos has got to be so stupid as to make us wonder how they still manage to live. Any brain that small must raise questions regarding the function and purpose for it’s surrounding skull.

But, you see, once you are properly secularized – once you put your faith and morals aside – anything and everything becomes acceptable, and everything that involves any sort of worldly pleasure works its way to the forefront in your attention.

trioToday, grown and educated men and women, keeping a straight face, will argue with you about how homosexuality is an involuntary orientation rather than a chosen lifestyle, with nothing whatsoever to back up their nonsensical argument. No genetic proof, no evidence of any kind, just idiotic, head-bobbing general consensus thinking. Ignoring the huge and continuing history of those “cured” and turned to heterosexuality, and the huge and continuing history of those “converted” or seduced into homosexuality, and the huge and continuing history of those who are episodically heterosexual and then homosexual. To say that someone is somehow born homosexual is pretty much equivalent to saying someone is somehow born to commit serial murder, or to abuse children, or to rob banks, or to do anything at all. They have absolutely no choice in the matter.

They will insist that someone who decided to have his (hers/its) sexual genitalia surgically reversed, somehow, by that incredibly stupid decision, needs to enjoy more legal rights than the rest of us, and special protections under the law. We actually have gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual special rights coded into civil law in some American jurisdictions, because, after all, they have no choice in the matter. Freud and Jung and Kinsey said so.


213316660YCDPFI_fsI know many of you are probably tired of my harping on Darwin, Freud and Marx, but that’s who started it all, and theirs are the foundational “truths” that have been socially accepted in spite of the fact that they are all falsehoods. While these universally accepted “false truths” are not the only ones or even the earliest ones, they are the biggest ones, and the ones most responsible for turning American faces away from God, and for the resulting decline of Constitutional America.

So what does that term even mean?

Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it describes the organization of the United States, and it alone provides, describes, empowers and limits the legal authority of the three co-equal branches of our federal government to govern here. If it is not in the Constitution, then the government may not do it. Very simple. We are a nation of laws and not just of men, even elected men. Elected or appointed government officers and officials are not free to do whatever they damn well please; they are constrained by the limitations of the United States Constitution.

American Marxists like to use the so-called Elastic Clause in Article I Section 8, which says

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

because they claim, falsely, that the term “general welfare” is open to such broad interpretation that Congress may levy any tax for virtually any purpose whatever, so long as it may be claimed to provide for the general welfare of the people. Note that the quote above finished with a semi-colon, indicating that the statement was not yet complete. Go to the actual Article I Section 8 and you will find a long list of the specific things to be included in the “pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;” If it isn’t in that list, Congress is not authorized to do it. Period. Taxing for anything not specifically in the list is unconstitutional. The list presents the very specific details of exactly how our government may pay debts, provide for common defense and general welfare.

The only other place in the Constitution that the term general welfare may be found is in the Preamble, which serves as an introduction to the Constitution, and is not Constitutional Law.

Our Founding Fathers clearly intended to limit the reach of government, and government restriction and limitation is clearly the intent of our Constitution as written. Today’s American Marxists, with Obama in the lead, intend to grow the government and expand it’s governing power far, far beyond the legal constraints of our Constitution. They’ve already done it. They ignore it, and they violate it.

But they are not the first; the ground has been prepared by others.

Why is the Court driving the American bus?

And how long must we endure the domination of all legislative and executive actions by the court? It is easy to see what Marxist driven Supreme Court and lower court bench-loading has done to us as a people.

213316660YCDPFI_fsWe have the wild-assed Chief Justice Black gross miss-interpretation of a private letter by Jefferson as somehow pertaining to the intent of the religion clause of the First Amendment, which is just nuts. This Black Court establishment of new law ruled that no state, nor the federal government “can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” He further ruled that “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religions organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by laws was intended to erect a “wall of separation between Church and State””.

He made all that up out of thin air. Jefferson, and others among the founders, actually did all of the very things Black said they could not legally do. He lied about Jefferson’s wall, and about Jefferson’s intent, and about the intent of the framers. And a majority backed him up, Congress and the Executive branches did nothing, and we had ourselves a “Constitutional Principle” that to this day may not be found anywhere in the Constitution. You can read the disgusting details in the Refuting Separation of Church and State argument.

1pm-3We have the wild-assed Justice Douglas penumbras formed by emanations so-called precedent that allowed a new Constitutional Right to be interpreted into being, on the whim of an evil man supported by a majority of justices. A Constitutional Right, mind you, that may not be found in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution. And upon this flimsy, foundationless, thin-air legal precedent, another Constitutional right was interpreted into being: the Constitutional Right to abort someone. Again, another “Constitutional Right” not to be found in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. Worldly men made it all up out of thin air.

These court decisions (Roe v Wade; Doe v Bolton) overturned existing, legislated, representative law in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and made new law, at the national level, overriding all existing state laws. It was un-legislated, un-representative, un-constitutional new law. And Congress just sat there like a bunch of dumb-asses and did nothing. Legislation was supposed to be their job, but they weren’t smart enough to know that. Or, perhaps, they were evil enough to want this to happen. You can go to the Abortion In America page to read the disgusting details.

All of this is a matter of undeniable historical fact. We are supposed to be – or, rather, we were intended by the Founders to be – a nation of laws and not just of men. What this trend is turning us into is a nation of popular whim, fad and fancy, saying to hell with any fixed set of rules. To hell with fixed notions of right and wrong. To hell with the Constitution.

213316660YCDPFI_fsYou don’t have to be an attorney to know that these actions were clearly unconstitutional. All you need to be able to do is read.



Ed. Note: http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
Provides a focus-point for Orthodox Roman Catholicism, Judeo-Christian morality, Western Culture, Representative Government, American idealism and Conservative values. It promotes faith, family, tradition and property. Emphasis is on ethos, critical thinking and reason.

The Village Liar — Deliverance From Evil (Part 2)

“Right is wrong, wrong is right; white is black, black is white; virtue is vice, vice is virtue…”


Deliverance From Evil (Part 2)


Vic Biorseth

The Ascent of Evil in America

213316660YCDPFI_fsThis nation began life animated, motivated and guided by the Judao-Chrisitan Ethos, which represented the common social sense of right and wrong. This Western religion-based morality served as the foundation of our Constitution and our civil law. Ethos is a commonly held sense of morality; a recognized, fixed, standard set of moral values. Ethos has its base in religion. It is ethos – not race, and not ethnicity – it is a common ethos that makes a unique people. And it is a people with a common ethos that makes a nation.

It is religion that provides ethos. For an individual, we call it a conscience. For a group of people of similar conscience, or a common sense of right and wrong – which is to say, a culture, or a people – it is an ethos.

banner-bible01-smUsing the common sense of right versus wrong that they all held and were raised with in their various Judao-Christian families, our Founding Fathers, acting in a hurried crisis-mode, put together, and then eventually Constituted this American Republic, which has been passed on to us. (There was at least one Jew, a couple of Catholics and all the rest of the Founders were Protestants.) Our first Congress, in fact, our whole sitting government, and every sitting government since, was and is overwhelmingly Christian. The same may be said for our first and all following voting populations. America remains Christian by population, and the largest single non-Christian minority is Jewish.

Much is made by some of the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were infected with or dabbled in a popular intellectual fad of the day called Deism; the belief that God just sort of created everything and then stood back and watched to see what it might become. Which would be blasphemous, I suppose, but it never took hold of any of them with enough force to get them to reject the common ethos of Judao-Christianity. That was the ethos they were all raised in, it was how their individual consciences were formed and strengthened in their families and in their Churches, and that was what they all lived their public lives by, whatever other transgressions or imperfections they might have experienced. They were, after all, mere humans, like us. Popular Deism seems to have died out with their generation.

So our national ethos – at least on paper – has not changed. But we all know that, as a practical matter, meaning how we live it, it has indeed changed, and the change has been dramatic.

DSC_0056cropsmall213316660YCDPFI_fsToday we see many if not most of our supposedly representative elected officials directly opposing our national ethos in their campaign speeches, their policies, their legislation and their lives. Yet they continue to play-act at being devout worshipers of God, for the cameras, and for purely political reasons. Our judges and justices overturn representative, legislated law in order to adjudicate in favor of evil, and the two representative and Constitutionally co-equal branches of our government seem to cheer them on rather than overturn their clearly unconstitutional judicial actions. The Court now overturns representative law and makes new unrepresentative law, while the Legislative and the Executive branches just sit and watch.

Our notions of Right and Wrong have changed places with each other. Examples abound showing how our contemporary civil laws and regulations now show vice as virtue, and virtue as vice. The good is outlawed, and the bad is protected by law. The Founding Fathers may be rolling over in their graves.

holding-hands_8-24-08Homosexuality may be the best example, because, as Satan knows, if you can get a man to accept homosexuality as a good, then you can get him to accept anything. Today, sodomy is celebrated, and sodomites have become celebrities, frequently even treated as some sort of heroes thanks to universal uncritical acceptance of the HIV=AIDS Myth. In fact, calling sodomy what it is, by its name, may even be a misdemeanor or a crime. Saying the word sodomy or the word sodomite is now a Hate Crime in some American jurisdictions. You are supposed to call it gay and not refer to it in any negative way. Our supposedly representative civil law has changed and is still changing for the worse.

Note well that our ethos has not changed on this matter, or on any other. Scripture has not changed. All versions of the Bible, including the most popular King James Version, treat sodomy as a sin so horrific as to be an abomination before God. Which means that, in the same jurisdictions in which publicly renouncing sodomy by name as sinful has been outlawed, the Holy Bible is, officially, Hate Speech, and is against the law.

Right is wrong, wrong is right; white is black, black is white; virtue is vice, vice is virtue. This is the New World Order as seen through the eyes of Marxist driven worldliness and elitist pseudo-sophistication. Meanwhile our most Marxist political leaders, who proactively feed this new way of thinking, continue to play-act and pretend at being devout men before the public and the cameras. They are, after all, indeed first and foremost, politicians.

KerryPapalMass3They are also actors.

213316660YCDPFI_fsWashington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and others among the Founders, and perhaps most eloquently, the Frenchman Tocqueville, elaborated on the undeniable dependence of the American Republic upon a highly moral citizenry for proper function and sustenance. The American Republic, as constituted, cannot survive with an immoral citizenry.

Marxism despises and always seeks to destroy the two completely co-dependent twin elements of, first, free and open commerce, and second, individual liberty, which together represent a nutshell definition of Free Market Capitalism. But men may only enjoy the blessing of liberty when they are self-constrained in such a way as to predominantly act in favor of what is right, and in opposition to what is wrong. That means that they need to know right from wrong in the first place. And, it means that they need some proper motivation other than civil law to keep them moral.

christsblood2Up until now, meaning contemporary times, that motivation has involved purposeful alignment with Divine Will, a constant seeking to know that Will, and a felt need and desire to please God. Up until now, those who acted otherwise were widely recognized as instruments of evil.

But now many of them have learned to act, and they take on the camouflage of the chameleon. They play-act at public piety while they live like pigs. They make patriotic-sounding speeches while they act to destroy the very foundations of the American Republic. They champion and sponsor abortion and sodomy and dare to come to the Communion rail.

Permit me to quote from Scripture:

[23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,

[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

[27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

1 Cor 11:23-29

213316660YCDPFI_fsNothing has changed here. No matter what any man says, no matter what the world says, nothing has changed here.

Our American culture has declined; we are becoming a coarse and vulgar people. The Marxist driven secularism movement has done it’s evil work.

But our ethos has not changed; it is still here, in the background, unchanged, and ready to be taken up again and revitalized.



Ed. Note: http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
Provides a focus-point for Orthodox Roman Catholicism, Judeo-Christian morality, Western Culture, Representative Government, American idealism and Conservative values. It promotes faith, family, tradition and property. Emphasis is on ethos, critical thinking and reason.

Public Schools Vs. Home Schooling

Not this time.


EDITOR NOTE: This post is taken from an article submitted within the Illinois Valley News, Cave Junction, Oregon

This year my wife and I will be sharing the duties of home-schooling our three children. We’ve selected and purchased a reputable and accredited Catholic home schooling program, spoken with counselors, completed placement tests, received curriculums, collected needed materials, constructed new desks and bookcases, and (according to my aching back) rearranged our entire home–as well as our lives.

003Perhaps, it was the length of summer combined with the busyness of our preparation, but the full realization that our three little ones would no longer be attending Evergreen Elementary School somehow escaped me until this week when I walked into the office with transcript request forms.

From my study of the pros and cons of home/private schooling vs. public education I’m aware of the strained relationship which exists between the two in these modern times of ours, due largely in part to the prevailing secular vs. religious differences and philosophies played out so often in what’s been termed the “culture wars”.

The crux of the problem, I believe, is rooted in our understanding of ourselves. From both a healthy Christian and secular human perspective, education consists essentially in preparing man for what he must due here below with his or her own life in accord with society and the common good. But, for Christians, there is more in regards to man. In order to attain the sublime end for which we were created it is necessary for true education to also be wholly directed to man’s last end.

080This is the primordial mover for our decision to home school our children–to come to know, love, and serve God in this life, and be with Him forever in the next.

This, of course, according to catechism 101, is the meaning of life for all souls as human beings created in the image of God. But, it shouldn’t be forgotten either, as is sometimes the case in these so called culture wars, that its impossible to love God and at the same time fail to love ones neighbor.

This explains I suppose that twinge I felt within my heart after visiting the school office this week, as well as, again tonight after our family conversation about our fine local school on River St. In years past, we as parents shared the responsibility along with the teachers and staff of Evergreen Elementary in preparing our children as citizens of society and directing them, hopefully, toward serving the common good of all.

As a religious education teacher from St. Patrick of the Forest Catholic Church I will continue on, (as last year), with leading the Bible release students from Evergreen school to St. Pat’s on Tuesday’s each week. But, it won’t be the same…

Knowing this, my wife and I, along with our children, would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank all the wonderful teachers and staff at Evergreen Elementary whom over the years have helped us with our educational needs. I would like to name them all here (and they truly deserve it) but space does not permit—you know and we know who you are. So, with one long tip of the hat in recognition of Evergreen Elementary School and its service to both our family and our community, we just want to tell you each that we are most grateful for all your help here below… Have a great school year!

The Evans Family,

Jim, Dea, Andrew, Gabriel, and Hanna

Why this woman is so blind to spiritual evil… From Orthodoxy To Heresy: The Secularizing of Catholic Universities

Notre Dame Redux…

Margo Howard, daughter of advice columnist Ann Landers, who identifies herself as Jewish, though actual beliefs fall somewhere between humanism, agnosticism and atheism...

“I mean no disrespect to those who take the Bible literally, but Satan?

By now – the 21st century – Satan, to me, is like a character in a play or a puppet show; a metaphor for bad and evil things. It is hard to imagine a senior prelate of a major religion actually saying with a straight face that “we are engaged in a constant warfare with Satan,” as though he were a person running an organization, if you will, that stands for everything the Catholics don’t.”

Margo Howard, on Bishop Robert W. Finn, wowOwow

Screwtape: “The fact that “devils” are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of some¬thing in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.”

C.S. Lewis, The ScrewTape Letters

Isn’t it interesting–as some believe–that with the passage of time and  ”progress of man” in the modern world that the existence of Satan and spiritual evil become less and less real? That somehow through intelligence we’ve outgrown that foolish notion? So it is for souls hindered by secularism in America, they know neither the works of the Holy One of Israel in Spirit and Truth nor the enmity of the Devil to God’s plan of salvation in Jesus Christ. The reality for these, of course, as you’ll read below, is that “truth being relative, their own individual conscience reigns supreme in establishing their own standards concerning God, faith and morals” as Margo so exemplifies.

No, this is not an attack on Margo Howard

It’s not just the spiritually ignorant, however, who hold notions devoid of authentic divine revelation and truth concerning faith and morals, but entire generations–of Catholics.

This, I submit, is the great tragedy concerning the Notre Dame scandal-that the Church, (and thus her learning institutions), as the pillar and bulwark of God’s truth on earth has succumbed to secularism, failing not only her own students but her mission, the Margo Howard’s of the world.

Below is an explanation of how:


From Orthodoxy To Heresy: The Secularizing of Catholic Universities

By Michael V. McIntire – newoxford review

Forty years ago the major Catholic universities in the U.S. decided that the Catholic Church needed to reform her teachings, especially that of sexual morality, to conform to the times, and that they should lead that reform. In 1967, at Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, they declared their independence from the Church, exchanged the faith of their founders for an evolutionary heresy, proclaimed themselves to be an alternate magis terium, and transferred control from their founding religious orders to secular boards of trustees. Not coincidentally, by these actions they qualified themselves for lucrative financial grants from foundations controlled by leaders of the Culture of Death.

For forty years the true nature and intent of this revolution has been disguised. As a result, generations of Catholic students and graduates have been and are being ill formed and misled in their faith, or have lost it altogether.

It is time for the story to be told.


The last half of the 19th century saw two currents of intellectual thought advancing contemporaneously. With the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man in 1871, the eugenics movement became the darling of the sophisticated elite of England and the U.S. Around the same time, reformers within the Catholic Church argued that traditional moral teachings must be modernized to conform to modern science and sociology. Both of these viewpoints directly contradicted Church teachings. However, in less than a century, American Catholic universities would accept and unite both of them.


In his January 1899 apostolic letter Testem Bene volentiae Nostrae, Pope Leo XIII warned the U.S. bishops of a heresy sprouting in Catholic hearts in this predominately Protestant country. The heresy asserts that Christianity is a philosophy that has evolved over time and must continue to do so, that truth is relative, and that individual conscience is supreme in establishing one’s standards of faith and morals. Because this heresy resonated so strongly in the U.S., Pope Leo called it “Americanism.”

Pope Leo’s warning went largely unheeded. Only eight years later that heresy had matured and spread throughout Europe as well as the U.S., generating another more profound and more urgent warning from the Holy See. Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope St. Pius X’s September 1907 encyclical, was an in-depth explanation of the heresy, its underlying philosophy, and the deceit by which it was promoted. The encyclical made clear that all of the various heretical views are interrelated and “solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all” (#39). At its core, the heresy holds that religion is a subjective “sentiment” arising solely from an individual’s perceived need for a god, which he then creates and which he “knows” only through his subjective experience. From this root, a number of other errors follow: Truth is relative; Jesus is not divine; Scripture is neither divinely inspired nor true; “faith” has no place in man’s search for knowledge. Pope Pius described this heresy as “the synthesis of all heresies,” naming it “Modernism.” It also goes under the name “evolutionary theology,” and is the root of moral relativism.

What anguished Pope Pius and created the urgency of his warning was not that the Church was being attacked, but that this attack was coming from within the Church. The betrayers, the Pope said, are prominent members of the clergy and the laity, men whom the Pope branded “the most pernicious” of the “enemies of the Church” because they are so difficult to detect, like the “wolves in the sheepfold” of which Christ Himself warned. They are industrious, intelligent men, knowledgeable about the Church and possessed with a mania for reform. Disguised as orthodox Catholics, the Pope warned, “they seize upon chairs in the seminaries and universities,” from which they “scatter” the “seeds of their doctrines” through “books, newspapers, [and] reviews” (#42).

Although the Pope’s warning somewhat attenuated the visible growth of modernism in the American Church for several decades, the heresy did not die. As the Pope had feared, the wolves had clothed themselves like the sheep and remained in the sheepfold, in faculty positions in Catholic universities, where they quietly nourished and advanced the cancer.

The Eugenics Movement

Following the publication of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theories in The Origin of Species in 1859, and his application of those theories to mankind in The Descent of Man in 1871, the evolutionary philosophy he advocated became the cause celèbre of the wealthy sophisticates of England and the U.S., where it caught the attention of John D. Rockefeller. Reduced to its essentials, Darwin’s philosophy holds that man, who has naturally evolved from lower life forms, has now attained the ability to control and accelerate his further evolution into a more perfect species through controlled breeding, just as he has done with cattle and plants. The name given to this proudly atheistic movement was “eugenics.” Darwin and his disciples proposed to achieve this “noble” aspiration in two ways — first, by applying Darwin’s rule of “survival of the fittest” to eliminate the weak, disabled, and undesirables; second, by creating stronger, more intelligent humans through controlled breeding and manipulation of genetics. The means to these ends were to be contraception and abortion, forced sterilization, euthanasia, and genetic manipulation, to be accomplished by “education” if possible, but by compulsion if necessary.

The eugenics cause captured the attention of John D. Rockefeller when he was seeking a philanthropic identity. His son, John D. Rockefeller Jr., became a zealot for the cause, which he promoted by creating and funding hundreds of trusts, foundations, bureaus, and institutes devoted to eugenics. He lavished funds on universities for eugenics research, on eugenics advocates such as Margaret Sanger, and on German eugenicists and institutions that built the labs used in the Holocaust. He drew Protestantism into his camp by creating and funding the Federal Council of Churches, which later merged into the National Council of Churches.

In the 1930s his son, John D. Rockefeller III, dedicated his entire philanthropic life and his millions to the promotion of birth control, which he pursued with such fervor that he became known as “Mr. Population.” Predictably, the Rockefellers’ money and influence attracted other influential names to the cause so that, by the early 1950s, the trustees, directors, and advisors of the Rocke fellers’ vast network of trusts, foundations, and institutes included top executives of the nation’s largest media outlets, banks, industries, and government. Later, this list would include the name of the president of one of the nation’s most visible Catholic universities.

After World War II, when the horror of Germany’s “eugenics-oriented” society was exposed, the eugenicists changed their marketing strategy: The term “eugenics” was dropped. In 1952 Rockefeller III established “The Population Council” to promote birth control under the euphemism of “population control.” With religious fervor, population control was promoted as an “environmental” issue essential to the preservation of mankind, under the alarmist banner that the earth had neither the space nor the resources to sustain the growing human population.

By the end of the 1950s, the campaign had persuaded the major Protestant denominations to accept contraception as a moral practice. But the Catholic Church stood her ground. In those days, faithful bishops courageously proclaimed Catholic truth — and Catholics listened.

The Alliance

By the early 1950s, both the evolutionary theories of eugenics and the heresy of evolutionary theology were prominent in American culture. In those postwar years, secular universities were growing in wealth, power, and reputation, largely through funds from foundations controlled by members of the American Eugenics Society. Catholic universities, because they were Catholic, were excluded from this cornucopia. In 1961 that changed.

Within many Catholic universities were prominent faculty who publicly criticized Church teaching on sexual morality and advocated their “reform” to conform to the times. These dissident voices, coupled with their universities’ yearning for a place at the table of foundation funding, gave Rockefeller the opportunity to neutralize the Church’s opposition to his eugenics agenda. The initial gesture came, unexpectedly, from the University of Notre Dame.

Among Notre Dame’s vocal dissenting theologians was Fr. John A. O’Brien, C.S.C. When Rockefeller’s Population Council and Planned Parenthood invited him to a conference to discuss ways to promote contraception, the invitation was answered from the assistant to Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, Notre Dame’s president, who offered Notre Dame’s campus as the venue for the conference, provided it was funded by a foundation grant. Rockefeller agreed to the funding on condition that only Catholics who believed as Rockefeller did were to be invited, a condition to which Notre Dame brass readily agreed. Notre Dame went further, arranging that the conference be unpublicized to avoid opposition from the bishop and loyal Catholics. Planned Parenthood’s list of Catholics with acceptable views on contraception included Fr. Hesburgh, who chaired the first conference. Two follow-up conferences were held expressly to formulate a document justifying a reform of Church teaching on contraception which would then be widely published. All the conferences were held on Notre Dame’s campus and all were funded by foundation grants.

In the summer of 1965, after the conferences had ended but before the preordained report was finalized, Fr. Hesburgh arranged a private audience for Rockefeller with Pope Paul VI in an unsuccessful effort to sell the Pope on the value of contraception and his newly perfected IUD, after which Rockefeller arrogantly offered to draft a papal encyclical on the subject — an offer which the Pope, of course, declined.

That fall, seven months after the Population Council conferences had concluded, the hand-picked conferees signed and publicized a proclamation attacking the Church’s teaching on contraception. Popularly called “The Notre Dame Statement,” the document declared that the Church’s teaching was out of date and inconsistent with modern psychology and sociology, and that the morality of contraception was not based on divine law but solely on one’s opinion. The Statement asserted that it was wrong to teach that contraception was objectively sinful, and that Catholics who so believed had no moral right to impose that view on others. Thus was inaugurated the “personally opposed, but…” philosophy.

The Notre Dame Statement was a direct attack on the Magisterium of the Church. To accept it is to accept moral relativism and to deny that the Catholic Church teaches divine truth. Nevertheless, the Notre Dame Statement was enthusiastically endorsed by both the secular and the Catholic media. It did not matter that, in December 1965, the Second Vatican Council concluded without making the reforms called for by Rockefeller and the Notre Dame Statement. All that mattered was that some prominent theologians and academics had issued the Statement, which Catholic colleges and universities immediately embraced and began to teach as an acceptable moral code for Catholics. Thus was “Cafeteria Catholicism” legitimized.

Notre Dame demonstrated that a Catholic university willing to compromise its principles could qualify for lucrative foundation grants, for which its president was rewarded with a position on the Rockefeller Foundation Board of Trustees (he would later serve as its chairman).

The Land O’Lakes Statement

The heretical seeds of modernism that had long been nurtured in U.S. colleges and universities broke ground with the Notre Dame Statement. Only two years later, the bitter fruit was produced. On July 23, 1967, at Notre Dame’s retreat center in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, the executives of the major Catholic universities in the U.S. and their sponsoring religious orders met, signed, and adopted a revolutionary document entitled “The Land O’Lakes Statement: The Nature of the Contemporary Catholic University,” which has subsequently been referred to simply as “The Land O’Lakes Statement.” The signing universities were Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, Seton Hall, Catholic University, St. Louis University, Fordham, the University of Puerto Rico, Pontifical University of Peru, LaValle University, and the University of Sherbrooke, Canada. Significantly, the Land O’ Lakes Statement was also signed by the Assistant General of the Society of Jesus and the Superior General of the Congregation of Holy Cross, both of whom were based in Rome. Signing the document for the University of Puerto Rico was the Rt. Rev. Theodore E. McCarrick, later to become Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, D.C.

Contrary to the disinformation from its apologists, the focus of the Land O’Lakes Statement was not academic freedom. Its focus was solely and exclusively the manner in which Catholic universities would deal with questions to which “science” was incapable of providing answers; questions of faith and morals; questions traditionally addressed by philosophy and theology; questions ultimately involving the relationship between faith and reason. In these contexts, the Land O’Lakes Statement declared the universities’ independence from the teaching authority of the Church, which put them in schism, and replaced Catholic theology with heretical modernism as their governing doctrine.

Land O’Lakes as Schism

The Land O’Lakes Statement declared the universities’ independence from the Church in its first paragraph, which states that “the catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself ” (emphasis added). The reference to “lay” authority is disingenuous. In forty years of application, no university has ever claimed “autonomy” from “lay authority,” least of all from the “lay authority” of foundations that impose anti-Catholic conditions on financial grants. The only yoke of authority these rebellious institutions intended to cast off was the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. In his book Contending With Modernity: Catholic Education in the Twentieth Century (Oxford Univ. Press, 1995), Philip Gleason wrote that the Land O’Lakes Statement was never intended to be anything other than “a declaration of independence from the hierarchy” of the Church.

Land O’Lakes stated that “the critical reflective intelligence” of the Church is now found, not in the Magisterium of the Church, but in the “modern catholic university,” in which is vested the duty to judge Church teachings and promote their reform. In “University Identity Crisis,” a 1996 analysis of Land O’Lakes published in Crisis magazine, Kenneth D. Whitehead put it bluntly: The essence of Land O’Lakes, he wrote, is “a decision not to be Catholic…. These Catholic colleges and universities are in effect declaring that they simply decline to be Catholic as the Church defines that term.” Under Land O’Lakes, he said, “it is the Catholic university itself that now is to decide what is, and what is not, ‘Catholic.'” Fr. Hesburgh, to whom the primary authorship of the Land O’Lakes Statement is attributed, boldly admitted as much when he wrote in America magazine in 1986 that a true university cannot allow the Vatican to define what is and what is not authentic Catholic teaching.

In Church parlance, the word historically used to describe such a broken relationship with the Church is “schism.” Feminist theologian Rosemary Ruether openly applied this term to Land O’Lakes, writing in a 1980 article in Journal of Ecumenical Studies that Land O’Lakes created “an internal schism…. between two magisteria, the magisterium of the professors and the magisterium of the pope and the hierarchy.” Msgr. George Kelly, an apologist for the Church, agrees with her. Msgr. Kelly wrote in The Catholic World Report in 1995 that Land O’Lakes has “largely succeeded in creating a two-headed church,” rooted in Catholic colleges and universities, one of which is “an anti-church…in which the definitive teaching of the magisterium can be, and often is, contradicted, doubted or explained away. This ‘second magisterium,’ as it has sometimes been called, has its base in the Church’s college system.”

Land O’Lakes as Heresy

The “contemporary catholic university,” as defined by Land O’Lakes, is neither contemporary nor Catholic. The Land O’Lakes Statement is nothing more than an acceptance of the tenets of modernism as described by two popes a century ago.

Students of the Land O’Lakes Statement and its effects are in agreement that the intent of Land O’Lakes was to replace orthodox Catholicism with liberal modernism as the defining philosophy of Catholic higher education. As Gleason put it, the intent of Land O’Lakes was to make clear that “the Church’s cold war with modernity was definitely over.” David O’Brien, in a 1998 analysis of Land O’Lakes in Boston College Magazine, wrote that Fr. Hesburgh and his colleagues believed that the time had come for Catholic educators to accept modernism instead of challenging it, as the Church has historically done.

Land O’Lakes declared, “There must be no theological or philosophical imperialism.” Theological imperialism refers to the belief that the Catholic Church is the true Church through which the fullness of God’s Truth is revealed and proclaimed. According to O’Brien, the framers of Land O’Lakes believed that the religious principles of their universities’ founders were out of date. Their intent was to give “learning” priority over “growth in faith and morals,” and to downgrade theology to just another academic discipline without special emphasis or status. This is why courses in Catholic apologetics are no longer offered on most Catholic campuses.

Land O’Lakes describes in some detail how a “contemporary catholic university” is to facilitate the “experience” of religion. Basically, anything and everything goes — except, of course, “theological imperialism,” which is absolutely prohibited. Nothing is to be “outlawed,” and there are to be “no boundaries and no barriers.” The university’s primary characteristic is that it be “modern” in the “full sense of the word”; its mission is to provide an “education geared to modern society.” Students learn to “understand the actual world” by being exposed to all aspects of it, free from doctrinal moral constraints. Religion is experimental and experiential: Students will “find the meaning of the sacraments for themselves.” They will “express [their] Christianity in a variety of ways and live it experientially and experimentally,” and will discover for themselves “new forms of Christian living.” Tinkering with Catholic liturgy is encouraged. Land O’Lakes proclaims that the “best” liturgies are those that are “creatively contemporary and experimental.”

And so, at the “contemporary catholic university” described in Land O’Lakes, moral relativism is the rule; individual conscience is the determinant of “right” and “wrong”; religion is a subjective sentiment; God is known through one’s experience; faith and reason are separate and distinct; faith adds nothing to reason.

One cannot exaggerate the destructive impact of this culture of relativism on the transmission of the Catholic faith, a culture that has been deliberately cultivated by the Land O’Lakes Statement. Twenty-eight years after Land O’Lakes became the article of faith for Catholic universities and colleges, Msgr. Kelly observed that, at most of them, “the most serious and fundamental teachings about the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, the nature of the Church, the priesthood and the Eucharist” are disparaged and reduced to “optional theological opinion.” Is it any wonder, then, that the results of recent surveys of graduating seniors at Notre Dame, published in 2004 in Notre Dame’s Scholastic magazine, disclosed that the students who lost some or all of their faith while at Notre Dame (37 percent) outnumbered those who grew in their faith (16 percent) by more than two to one, or that for the overwhelming plurality (46 percent) the “Catholic identity” of that institution was simply irrelevant. There is no reason to believe that similar surveys at other “contemporary catholic universities” would be more positive.

The Growth of Land O’Lakes

The Land O’Lakes Statement was implemented immediately. Within six months of its drafting, the religious orders that owned Notre Dame and St. Louis University had given away governance of those universities to self-perpetuating boards of trustees, the majority of whom are lay men and women over whom the religious orders have no control. By 1972 nearly all Catholic colleges and universities had followed suit. This is why appeals to fundamentals of the Catholic faith are largely ineffective; they do not affect the bottom line. However, the name “Catholic” is still a positive asset that attracts money and students from those who still believe that the university stands for Catholic truth.

The Vatican has never approved the Land O’Lakes Statement — not that it matters. In 1976 the Land O’Lakes Statement was formally adopted by the National Catholic Education Association (NCEA), which purported to represent 223 Catholic colleges and universities.

In 1990 Pope John Paul II promulgated Ex Corde Ecclesiae (ECE), his apostolic constitution on Catholic universities, which defined the nature and purpose of a Catholic university and established measurable standards such a university was to follow. It was dead on arrival in the U.S. Vigorously opposed by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the College Theology Society, the liberal Catholic media, and the universities themselves, ECE has had no impact on the corporate owners of the rebellious colleges and universities that have prospered under the Land O’Lakes philosophy. After eighteen years, the U.S. bishops who have the responsibility to enforce ECE have yet to summon the courage to do so.


With the Land O’Lakes Statement in 1967, which sprang from an alliance with the Culture of Death, the major Catholic universities in America discarded orthodox Catholic teaching as their raison d”tre and replaced it with heresy. Since that time, two generations of Catholics have graduated from America’s Catholic institutions of higher learning without knowledge or understanding of their faith, believing that one can be Catholic while disbelieving or even opposing Church teaching. Yet these generations of ill-formed, sometimes disbelieving, and often rebellious Catholic graduates are touted as the leadership and the future of the Catholic Church in the U.S. Small wonder, then, that the Church in the U.S. is experiencing a crisis of faith. Laity are uncatechized, clergy are unwilling to instruct them, and quisling bishops are afraid to proclaim the Gospel. A case can be made that a substantial factor causing all of this was, and continues to be, the betrayal of the faith by Catholic academics with the Land O’Lakes Statement in 1967, which has metastasized like cancer throughout the Church ever since.

As Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, has noted, heresy is cured by “obedience and repentance.” The sooner the history and causal relationship between Land O’Lakes and the secularization of Catholic universities is known and accepted, the sooner this cure can be applied by attentive Catholics, concerned alumni, and courageous bishops.


Michael V. McIntire is a 1957 graduate of the University of Notre Dame. During the turbulent 1970s, he joined the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School as Associate Professor of Law, where he witnessed the beginnings of the secularization of that university. An Oblate of the Order of St. Benedict and an RCIA catechist, he lives and practices law in Big Bear Lake, California.