DILEMMAS for the Faithful

Continuing the series, #16 to #22

RELIGION, Uncategorized

DILEMMAS for the Faithful

From my Blogger site, a recent series of articles on the state of the crisis in the Catholic Church [I have different followers on this wordpress site from blogspot].






Prof. Jordan Peterson, psychologist, has become flavor of the decade for the conservative political right with his arguments of reason and logic that decimate the wooly theories of the prog-libs and cultural Marxist post modernists. The catalyst for his rise to prominence on social media was his refusal to indulge in the enforced terming of pronouns for the gender fluid. While in reality there are plenty of such sensible commentators about, it is to his good fortune that he has broken through into the public arena where others remain in relative obscurity  –  it’s not as if reason and logic have just been discovered  –  and those others are considered by the mainstream to be far right nutters or even religious nerds who are not willing disciples of the god of Cool. And that,  – Cool  – is the light in which Peterson is apparently being seen by, of all demographic groups, generation Z. A good thing as far as it goes.

The reasonable average Joe and even your mildly activist keyboard warrior knows bullshit when he or she sees it, but articulating their position so often falls short. Enter the appealing person of Jordan Peterson who has taken up their cudgel. Up to very recent times his crusade on behalf of the bourgeoisie has concentrated on social mores and public policy such as free speech, feminism, gender theory, culture, migration policies etc. But, of late, the revered professor has begun to make public his personal views on religion. He gives every appearance of being on a spiritual journey without defining his beliefs dogmatically. And it would appear that he is taking his cult following with him [and this is not to imply that he is aligned to, or starting a cult, for I could well have said his ‘fan base’]. Should these followers travel the whole journey with him and enjoy the benefit from a resultant truth which is Christian [for he is touted as being a Christian], then that ought be a good result. Peterson believes in God, in Jesus, the resurrection conditionally, and the bible for a start. Why then should I express concern?

Co-incidentally, I posted a YouTube video on facebook just yesterday of Peterson talking with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin and my comment displayed a concern that I had. As I put it, “He appears to be trying to re-invent the metaphysical wheel, and has not yet found his own answer to the perennial question of ‘Why Is There Not Nothing?'” I would have thought a champion of reasoned thinking might have come to some basic answer, albeit that he already is said to have faith, notwithstanding that, as I am too aware, faith and knowledge are developmental and beg to grow. I suggested too that he appeared to be much influenced by Jung and de Chardin.  As circumstance would have it, last night my reading material included articles from The Federalist, and this article was one:

I quote:

“This, combined with his rhetorical approach and that his Canadian accent affects just enough of the exotic to tantalize Americans who assume profundity in such things, is exactly the stuff of a YouTube sensation. If that makes Christianity cool again, or helps skeptical Christians feel good and intellectual about the faith, that can’t be a bad thing. I guess.

More likely, however, Peterson is fostering our cultural Gnosticism. Consider his understanding of God, what he calls his first hypothesis: God is the abstraction of a human ideal formalized over millions of years of human development in the myths and teachings of any religion. Does an actual transcendent deity exist? Peterson leaves this “floating up in the air” (his words, in lecture one), something unfit for rational investigation.”

[The article itself, and the author, begs for critique. But I will leave that for now].

The article is lengthy and I found it disturbing as Gnosticism is antithetical to Christianity. Peterson is also an evolutionist of the type that denies the Catholic Christian doctrine that God created two sentient beings who sought the “knowledge” to be as gods and their sin bastardized the perfection of all things that God had created and so required redemption to be restored as a New Earth as we find in Christ. I fear that Peterson is going the New Age road of the “proud” who ignore the tenets established over thousands of years through Tradition, Revelation and the Bible and embarking on Teilhard’s road of “knowing the essence of God” as Adam sought to do, via the Cosmic Theology of either or both the collective unconscious or collective consciousness that culminates in the “Omega Point”. He is entitled to ruminate and embark on his journey but it is of concern that he is taking many thousands down a dubious road to a belief system that leads away from the very God being sought. I do wish he would stick with social commentary and not publicize his esoteric beliefs.

The substance of Gnosticism and the theories of Jung, of whom he is a devotee, are too much for this article but I refer readers to search the personalities and beliefs mentioned, and I recommend the article link above from The Federalist. Should a reader do so then I also refer him to look at the bio of Richard Noll too. Noll was a critic of Jung’s theories and wrote a relevant book. Prof. Peterson launched an attack on Noll, claiming that the book cover had Nazi images. It did not, and Peterson later issued an apology, so our hero is very touchy about his affinity to Jung.

We can know God here and now in various ways, experientially, by Grace, from Jesus words and actions, through prayer and so on. But, the Divine essence is indeterminate for humans, and were it not then there would be no need for faith or even maybe free will. Traditionally, theology concerning the knowability of God has been to define Him by what He is not, and somewhat by what He is, and it is only pride that thinks God can be discovered through esoteric knowledge. The temptation to eat of the tree of knowledge was too much for Adam, and it is still insistent for us. My hope is that a seemingly good man finds joy and peace for his soul in the truths of Jesus, and comes to know the efficacy of God’s Grace in his life because cosmic theology and Gnosticism denies the personal Father-God who has a real and tangible love for every soul he has created. I leave readers with just one of Peterson’s videos with his esoteric theories.

Glory be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.



I don’t need to think how I might compose an introduction to the following post from VIGILANT CITIZEN. It speaks for itself. I did see a small article about this new franchise some days ago and planned to return to it to establish its veracity and perhaps post on it. And how would you be? My previous post looked at blasphemy in a clothing ad. and now this. So I am now prompted to dig up some more that occurs in the so-called art world, so look out for it  –  not because of any sensationalist factor, but because all this points to a trend of attacks against Christianity that society should be aware of to make some conclusion about where we are heading…….. and that, whether one is a Christian or not. So prepare yourself, because this is awful. [Have to wonder if an Ally Akbar Ice Cream Co. will be next. I don’t think so]!!

Sweet Jesus: The Disturbing Marketing of a Trendy Ice Cream Franchise


The marketing surrounding Sweet Jesus is based on satanic symbolism combined with children in creepy and questionable situations. 

Sweet Jesus is an absurdly popular ice cream chain that’s been around for a few years and is quickly expanding in Canada and the United States. Deemed “Toronto’s Most Overrated Ice Cream” by the Globe and Mail, Sweet Jesus nevertheless attracts huge crowds on a daily basis. The chain has been enjoying lots of media coverage and because its stores are custom-made to be “Instagrammable”, Sweet Jesus is all over social media.

The chain does not only serve ice cream to its customers: The “experience” also involves intense imagery and Biblical references. This peculiarity even prompted a lengthy article on Medium that analyzes the “Christian symbolism” of the shop. While the article is very in-depth and used all kinds of references, it completely missed one point: The symbolism is not Christian, it is satanic. But it was close … satanic symbolism is based on the inversion and the corruption of Christian symbols and Biblical references.

The logo consists of the words Sweet Jesus combined with two satanic symbols: An inverted cross and a lightning bolt.

These two symbols are an important part of the imagery of the Church of Satan.

An altar of the Church of Satan with inverted crosses.

To those who say: “The inverted cross is not satanic, it is actually the Cross of St Peter. I read that on Wikipedia”. Nope! In this context, it is satanic. Satanic Black Masses are all about the inversion of Christian symbols to represent a diametrically inverted philosophy.

The symbol of the lightning bolt is also prevalent in satanism. It most likely originates from the Bible passage where Jesus said: “I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven”.

The sigil of Anton Lavey (the founder of the Church of Satan) features a lightning bolt inside an inverted pentagram. A sigil is a symbol used in ceremonial magic to represent the magician’s outcome (and to summon demons).
A Marilyn Manson promo poster. He’s a member of the Church of Satan.

These two symbols make up the logo of Sweet Jesus.

The Sweet Jesus logo in front of a shop.
It’s also on their cups
Inverted cross, lightning bolt, pyramid, eyeballs. Remember when eating ice cream was not a satanic ritual?

The marketing of the brand is all about ridiculing Jesus combined with satanic symbolism.

That’s funny because Jesus bore his cross before he got crucified. Also, gluttony is considered to be one of the seven deadly sins by some Christian denominations.
That’s funny because Jesus … whatever.

Other ads combine Christianity with thinly veiled sexual innuendos.

“Let Sweet (lightning bolt) (inverted cross) Jesus into your mouth” … Um, no thanks.
“Love is patient, love is kind” is the beginning of a popular Bible verse. It is followed in this ad by “but you can’t lick it so who cares”. The popsicle stick is held in a phallic matter. There are satanic symbols on the chalice. But who cares.
This ad cites the commandment about using the Lord’s name in vain … followed by using the Lord’s name in vain. And of course, satanic symbols on the commandment tablet.

Here’s another “project” by the same graphic designer. Since it is not an ad selling ice cream, it is a little more … blatant.

Another creation by graphic designer Murilo Maciel.

Although none of this would EVER exist if it ridiculed any other religion, one can still dismiss the above as an attempt at being “edgy and clever”. However, there’s more.

Sweet Jesus also created ads involving children. And they’re creepy. Not fun creepy. They confirm that this is not simply about being “edgy” … there’s a connection with the darker, more sinister side of the occult elite: Preying on children.

Using Children

Most of the marketing surrounding Sweet Jesus involves fashion magazine-style photoshoots involving children and ice cream. One might think: “Well, that’s normal enough, right? Children love ice cream.” But these pictures involve children in a creepy way. At best, the pics “adultize” children. At worse, they sexualize them.

This kid is dressed like a sailor and he’s doing all kinds of adult things: Smoking, wearing tattoos, drinking coffee from a cup with a satanic logo. But, more importantly, why does the kid have a bruised eye? Child abuse?
This picture is very creepy. First, the entire thing is reminiscent of the horribly exploitative world of child pageants. This blond girl looks eerily similar to JonBenet Ramsey – the child pageant star who got savagely murdered in bizarre circumstances. Also, the girl has pink stuff around her mouth reminiscent of blood. To make things even more disturbing, the girl has bunny ears – not unlike Playboy bunnies.


The company’s IG page featured this “behind the scenes” pic of the above picture, along with the borderline creepy comment “Tough day at the office, eh kiddo.”. The other comments got real.
These two boys have strange animal masks on their heads. You know who else loves to wear strange animal masks?
These guys! (This is a picture from the Church of Satan website).
This girl has one eye emphasized by a magnifying glass – effectively doing the one eye sign. The magnifying glass’ handle is actually an antler.

In occult circles, holding animal horns or antlers represent drawing power from Baphomet.

Occultist Marina Abramovic holding the horns of a goat. Powerful occult meaning.
This girl has a “crown” made of what looks like tiny antlers. She looks like she has blood all over her hand and she is also sucking on her thumb. No.
A shirtless kid. He has the satanic symbols right on his glasses. Nope.
People from Sweet Jesus donating to “Sick Kids” … Not before they teach the kids how to throw up the devil horns, though.

In Conclusion

Associating the decadence of deserts with the devil is nothing new. However, Sweet Jesus takes thing way further. It is not simply about “edgy images”, it is about an entire culture that is perfectly in line with the occult elite.

As seen in previous articles on this site, a main agenda of the occult elite is the normalization of powerful satanic symbolism, which is based on the corruption and desecration of Christian symbols. But that’s just the surface of it. The marketing of Sweet Jesus also subtly implies the corruption and desecration of children. This is where things stop being “cool and edgy” and the ugly head of pure evil sticks out.

And there’s nothing sweet about it.


Jesus In Jeans.

Advertising, Strasbourg: it is permissible to use Jesus and Mary on posters and on the web

IN SHORT:  A Lithuanian court fined the company responsible for depicting Our Lord and Our Lady in a clothing ad. [around $1000 Aud.], following a complaint from a Catholic group [there can’t be too many of those in Lithuania]. The company appealed to the EU court of Human Rights which subsequently over-ruled the Lithuanian court and ordered them to repay the company. Such is the totalitarian power of the EU that it can over-rule the self-determination of a sovereign state.

And readers will anticipate my next point: according to the EU the ad. is not inciting hate and religious symbology is up for grabs. So, why will NO country in the world permit even the public propagation of a benign image of Mohammed, let alone for advertising, satire or animation? Okay, that’s a rhetorical question as we all know why, but what’s good for the goose is obviously offensive to the gander.

Here is the article for those with too much time on their hands……….

from this mob:

ROME – The European Court of Human Rights legitimizes and defends the use of religious symbols in advertising and condemns Lithuania for having fined a company that used Jesus and Mary on posters and the internet to sell clothes. According to the judges, the fine imposed for “offended public morality” violated the right to freedom of expression of the company.

The facts date back to 2012 when a Lithuanian company that produces clothes launches an advertising campaign using the photo of a man and a woman with a halo, he in jeans and tattooed, she with a white dress and a beaded necklace, accompanied by phrases “Jesus, what trousers!”, “Dear Mary, what dress!” and “Jesus and Mary, what do you wear!”.
The advertisements triggered a series of protests sent to the National Agency for the Defense of Consumer Rights.

The latter, after asking the opinion of the self-regulating body of the advertising specialists and the Lithuanian episcopal conference, concluded that the advertisements did not respect religion and therefore were a violation of public morals and imposed a fine of 580 euros on the company. .

In today’s ruling, which will become final within 3 months if the parties do not appeal, the judges affirm that the national authorities have a wide margin of maneuver on similar issues especially in cases involving a commercial use of religious symbols.

However, the prosecutors point out that the advertisements in question “do not appear to be gratuitous offensive or profane” and “do not incite hatred”, and therefore the authorities are required to provide relevant and sufficient reasons why they would be contrary to public morality. Instead in this case the reasons given by the authorities “are vague and do not explain with sufficient accuracy why the reference in advertisements to religious symbols was offensive”.

In particular, the Court criticizes the authorities for having judged that advertisements “promoted a lifestyle incompatible with the principles of a religious person” without explaining what the encouraged lifestyle was and how the photos and captions in question were favoring it. . The judges are also critical of the fact that the only religious group consulted to judge the case was the Catholic group.

The sentence states that the Court of Strasbourg considers that “freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the individual self-realization of each person”. It also “extends to ideas that shock, offend or disturb”. He also emphasizes that the Lithuanian authorities have held publicity contrary to public morality because they have used religious symbols “for superficial purposes”, “distorting their main purpose” and being “inappropriate”.

However, for the Court these findings are “vague and insufficient to explain why the reference to religious symbols in advertisements is offensive, if not for the fact that the purpose is not religious”. Moreover, for the judges, the images “do not seem gratuitous offensive or profane, nor do they incite hatred for reasons of faith or attack a religion in an abusive or gratuitous way”.

The court concludes that the local authorities have not “reached the right balance between the protection of public morals and the rights of religious people on the one hand, the right to freedom of expression of the company on the other”. The positions they expressed, he justified, “show that they have given

total priority to protect the sentiments of religious people, without taking into consideration the right to freedom of expression of the company. “Vilnius, therefore, will have to compensate the company with 580 euros.



Remember this email from John Podesta which was one of those among the thousands revealed by Wikileaks that were on Hillary Clinton’s server?

Re: opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing . . .

[And Podesta adds]……….
[Sandy Newman replies]………
Whether you remember it or never knew it existed, there it is, calling for a change on the Catholic Church stance on contraception, “gender equality”, and to make the Church more democratic. So then, such suggestions are not made frivolously for there is an indication that Podesta and those mentioned have some influence or power to enact changes through contacts or at least that they have the power to influence; [presumably this influence would be on the American prelates, especially cardinals and those bishops who might attend a conclave].
And what has happened since this email exchange? First: Jorge Bergoglio was elected Pope 6 months later following the very strange resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, the first papal resignation in 400 years, while he still resides at the Vatican and wears the unique papal whites. Second: Marriage “equality” laws have been passed in the US and in Australia. Third: Multiple appointments have been made by Francis in favor of liberal clergy while conservative holders have been sacked. [Although Cdl. Pell, a traditionalist, was appointed to clean up the financial area, he has had to take much time out because of a possible witch hunt against him over pederasty allegations, but I am not implying that this has been deliberately orchestrated]. Four: The Pope issued an encyclical, Amoris Laetitia, which allegedly allows divorcees and those in possible unorthodox living situations to receive sacraments such as the Eucharist. This, if you are unfamiliar with RC affairs, is currently causing extreme angst, confusion and controversy.
Clearly, the trend of the Church has been to modernize and reform during this reign of Francis which has generally been criticized by many for his liberal tendencies especially in regard to ecumenist moves towards other faiths such as Islam and Judaism, while the Vatican even minted a commemorative stamp of Martin Luther.
During the Obama years, we saw his and his administration’s enmity towards the Church, while Obama himself and Francis appeared most cordial. [I will leave the reader to research such evidence]. However, on the election of Trump, Francis was most critical and negative [e.g. the row about the ‘wall’, migration and borders]. Additionally, in recent years, the American Conference of Catholic Bishops has donated millions to agencies which carry out abortions and distribute contraceptives. [For details on this, the reader can go to the detailed article by Michael Hichborn following]….
So, are Podesta’s “aims” in play? Certainly a case can be made for discussion or possible investigation. The aims of “gender equality” and reform are in progress, but what of the matter of the Church’s acceptance of contraception? Directing funds to agencies which promote artificial contraception hardly prove a change in doctrine on the matter. True, but now we come to the flagship document on the Church’s teaching  –  Humanae Vitae  – which prohibits artificial birth control. Well, there now appear to be definite moves to re-interpret this document. Here is a very recent excerpt from an article, among others, on the thin edge of the wedge to change the doctrine ………….
“But precisely, “everything depends on how ‘Humanae vitae’ is interpreted”, does not fail to sow Pope Francis every time :. Because “the question is not that of changing the doctrine, but of going deep and making pastoral care take into account situations and what people can do”.

Said and done. To give an authoritative appearance to the new interpretative paradigm of “Humanae vitae”, with an explicit free way to artificial contraceptives, a theologian of the most accredited among the current pope, Maurizio Chiodi, professor of moral theology at the theological faculty of northern Italy and a member of the fresh nomination of the Pontifical Academy for Life, already author in 2006 of a book, “Ethics of Life”, which supported the lawfulness of artificial procreation.”

The complete article in Italian is here ……..


So far, a trend within the Church accords with the Podesta email exchange, but a question arises. Is my title justified that there is “A Deep State Catholic Spring?” albeit that it is a question? Surely Podesta and Co. do not have such influence over the Deep State. Or do they? After all, he was Hillary’s confidante, and he mentions Catholic organizations he obviously has some part of. The Waspish nature of the American oligarchy and elites is known to be anti-Catholic and has been since Foundation. But, let the speculation be done for here is evidence in a declassified document which appears real and factual.

An intro and typed copy is followed by a pic of the document which testifies to the Deep State’s direct interference in Catholic affairs………..

A telegram to the State Department of the United States of America originally “Secret” and now, declassified.
It reveals the suggestion that the Deep State in the USA manipulates American Cardinals on the election of the new Pope following the death of Pius XII.
Do we think that this only happened in America?
What does it say now about the “Siri Theory?”
What does it say about Marcantonio Colonna’s revelation of the CIA monitoring of the conclave of 2013 of the Obama backed Jorge Bergoglio?

From: Rome
To: Secretary of State
No: 1166, October 11, 2PM

Limited Distribution.





politics, RELIGION, Uncategorized

A Very Modern[ist] Monk

A little bit political [in an anti-Trump kinda way], a little bit anti pro-lifers [they are pseudo prophets], a little bit sweary, and ……… well, here are a few of his tweets:


Fr. Horan seems to be bff with Fr. Martin, whoda thunk it?

And not too keen on whitey ………

Doesn’t like those pro-lifers at all ……..

Apparently AGW is science fact and Laudato Si is an infallible document now……[in his exuberance for “we’re all gunna die” climate change he made a wee typo]:

And just a little bit sweary………..

Let’s all share the agape.