Tuesday, April 30, 2013

"Atheism Dilemma – Should We Even Respond to Arguments This Bad?" - Critique

A tweeter with the handle "8-bit Atheist" informed me of his response to my Atheism Dilemma 4 post.  I will refute his comments here.  My words will be in black and his will be in blue.  Any of my content he quoted from will be in italics.

<<Atheism Dilemma – Should We Even Respond to Arguments This Bad?

I’ve found a new theist, Sacerdotus, that tries to engage in theological sophistry.  One of his latest posts is part of his “Atheism Dilemma” series where he responds to atheist arguments.  The only dilemma I see is if time should be wasted by addressing the responses, but the responses are so bad that, while they don’t deserve much time, they also don’t require much time to address.  So I see no harm in it.
This post is how atheists are guilty of the fallacy of appeal to assertion.  The claim is atheist arguments are only accepted because they’re stated repeatedly.  However, I’ll show the obvious that there are reasons, and calling it an appeal to assertion makes as much sense as the theory of gravity is an appeal to assertion because it’s stated often.>>
Sacerdotus replies:
There is no theological sophistry here, only a refutation of particular arguments atheists use which pertain to the appeal to assertion fallacy.  Atheists who read my blog posts always claim them to be bad and what not; however, not one offers to refute them.  We are left to believe that solely because they did not like them, they are bad.  Moreover, the connection between the theory of gravity and appeal to assertion is a non-sequitur.  We cannot assert that gravity exists and functions in the universe, we can detect it.  However, assertions made of God by atheists cannot be tested.  Like with the verbal critiques from atheists of my posts, we are left to merely accept them without evidence.  

<<God is Imaginary

The first assertion is god is imaginary.  Sacerdotus states that the assertion that god is imaginary must prove that god exists in the mind and states that has not been done.
This is patently ridiculous because of course the thought of god exists in the mind.  It is there if god existed.  It is also there if you are wrong and he doesn’t exist.
Atheists say god is imaginary because theists think he is real when he doesn’t actually exist.  That is what it means to be imaginary.  Atheists say he doesn’t exist for various reasons, which I won’t go into here as that’s not the point of this post.
Sacerdotus also says being imaginary would mean god couldn’t affect the real world.  I agree completely, and that is exactly what we’ve seen to be the case.  Miracles don’t happen and prayers aren’t answered.
Moreover, this argument can be applied to any deity and religion.  Atheists think Odin and Osiris are imaginary.>>
Sacerdotus replies:
There is nothing ridiculous with requesting evidence that a said concept is imaginary or not.  No one is disputing that thoughts of God exist in the mind; however, are those thoughts based on a sense of the reality or are they pure thoughts developed by the mind?  This is where atheists fail to provide evidence.  The writer states, "atheists say god is imaginary because theists think he is real when he doesn't actually exist."  This is an example of appeal to assertion.  The writer states that God is not real.  What is his proof?  Where is his evidence?  One cannot make a blanket statement denying existence without providing evidence to support that statement.  Again, we are left to just believe this writer's statement.  This is intellectually dishonest.  If God is indeed not real, the writer must provide evidence that led to this conclusion.  
Moreover, the writer again repeats another appeal to assertion by claiming that prayers are not answered nor are miracles real.  Despite millions of prayers answered daily throughout the world and evidence of miracles, this writer still insists to assert that they do not occur.  I invite the writer to visit Catholic Churches in his area and poll the people to see the numbers in regards to prayers and/or miracles that have occurred in their lives.  
The argument can be applied to any deity; however, a scholar can distinguish between folk gods and a revealed God.   

<<God is a Myth

Atheists make the claim that religions are just myths, the Christian one just as much as any other one with Zeus or Odin.
Sacerdotus responds that myths have authors and atheists haven’t pointed to a particular author of the Christian myth.  If that’s valid, then I guess Zeus, Odin, and Osiris are real.  Or in all cases, they started as oral traditions from several sources that coalesced into religions.
Given that each is a personal god that reflects the people that invented them and has powers to explain what they didn’t understand at the time, it’s pretty easy to see they’re man-made.>>
Sacerdotus replies:
I understand that atheists make claims that religions are myths; however, the problem here is that their blanket statement is not evidence.  Why are they myth?  How do you know?  What is the criteria for a religion to be a myth?  These and other questions are left in the dark, so to speak.  
The difference between Zeus, Odin etc, is that we know they are myths due to their sources.  The writer himself supported my point by stating that, "they [religions] started as oral traditions from several sources..."  This is the point of the argument I made.  Christianity is different in that there is evidence that a man named Jesus who lived, preached, died on a Cross existed.  Not only do we have the Gospels and accounts of early Christians, but also of secular and Jewish historians.  
Not all folk gods are personal.  In fact, many are not concerned with the welfare of man.  Christianity is the only religion where God Himself comes to man to rescue him from himself.  He continues to interact with the Church.  

<<Which God?

The next claim of atheists is to ask which god the Christian is arguing about.  Sacerdotus says atheists are just trying to equate the Christian god with “folk” gods.
Atheists certainly do know the difference between different gods and religions.  What they’re arguing for with the “Which God?” question is which deity does your argument apply to and only applies to?
Most theist arguments only argue for vague deism (and not well at all.)  We need a god to give us morals.  How do you know it must therefore be the Christian god?  The world can’t come from nothing, so it must have been created by a god.  How do you know it must have been created by the Christian god?
Most of that last argument is one big begging the question, from dismissing everything else as “folk” religions, to just assuming there is a god but all those other gods are just attempts at humans trying to describe the ultimate reality of the Christian god.  (How do you know Christians got it right this time and aren’t just as wrong as those other religions because they still can’t accurately describe this supposed ultimate being?)
With the many fallacies including begging the question, burden of proof, and the whole claim these are just appeals to assertion being one big straw man, the only dilemma to atheists is if it’s worth even reading them in the first place.>>
Sacerdotus replies:
The writer is falling for the "which God" assertion in his very reply.  I understand that atheists are inquiring about which god a specific argument is referring to.  However, had the writer read my reply, he would have noticed that God exists independent of how man describes or names Him.  Whatever argument is made in favor of God, is for God even if the God is named differently.  What is being defended is the existence of God, not a particular designation.  
Naturally, a particular person of a particular religion will defend the concept of God via his/her understanding within a said religion.  This does not take away from the fact that there is ONE God.  The difference between Christianity and other religions is that God actually became one of us and founded the Catholic Church.  No other religion can claim this, not even Islam.  All religions that have a god or gods have the right idea - there is a God.  The rest of the religion is just man's attempt to organize his belief around that God by applying experiences of living as a human in the natural worlrd.  This is no longer needed since God came as Jesus Christ and revealed what it is that we must do in order to win favor with Him.  This is why the "Christian God" has authority in the world among billions.  This God is the only one that actually came to us.  This is because this God is God.  Other gods are man's attempt to describe the "Christian God."  In reality, He is simply God and does not belong to any religion.  When a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, Hindu and so on prays, only One God is listening.  
The writer makes many claims of fallacies, but fails to address them.  Until he addresses each and provides logical refutations, his arguments do not hold.  He succumbs to intellectual sloth. 

<<[Update 2013-04-30 0714 (like a minute after initial post)]
I just noticed a comment from Sacerdotus on his post that the burden of proof is on atheists because they’re the ones making the claim of god being imaginary or a myth.  This is shifting the burden.  The atheist saying that as a result of their argument that there hasn’t been proven to be a god.  The original burden is still on the theist.
Sacerdotus replies:
My comment must be read in context.  Yes, in this case where atheists make these claims/assertions, the burden falls on them.  If an atheist asserts that God does not exist, God is a myth and so on, those claims must be supported with evidence.  Even in debates, Hitchens and others offer their arguments in support of atheism, why can't common atheists do the same?  Why do they hide behind the shifting of burden?  

Therefore God exists and Christians go Bad

No, this is not a post about refuting atheism.  It is about a fundamentalist Protestant named Richard Bushey who invited me a few months ago to his Facebook group entitled, "Therefore God exists."

He also has a blog with the same title.  The group is supposed to be about theological discussions; however, I found it to be extremely hostile to Catholicism and academically ignorant.  Nevertheless, I tried to give the Catholic Church's view on particular ideas even if it rubbed these fundamentalists the wrong way.

Some of the people who posted are extremely uneducated and so stubborn as to persist with ideas that are contrary to history and Scripture.  I understand each denomination has its ideas on Scripture, but there comes a point where Scripture speaks for itself and there is no need to add to it.

It came to the point that Richard felt the need to attack me by calling me arrogant merely for countering his arguments that made no sense and distorted history.  He and others are under the false belief that Catholicism mysteriously appeared some time after the reformation and that no such Church existed in the 1st century.  Furthermore, the many attempts to deny the Catholic Church's role in the formation of the Bible was just laughable.  These are obviously an uneducated bunch.  All historians are in agreement that the one and only original Church that can be traced to Christ is the Catholic Church.  Moreover, it is known in the academic world how the Bible came to be due to Pope Damasus I.  This is a fact that can be found in any history book and history course in any school around the world.

Here is an exchange that took place a while ago:  http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/02/anti-catholic-dialog.html 

The views that Bushey and others there share stems from the anti-Catholic rhetoric during the reformation.  When I tried to explain to them that their views are not reflective of history, they resorted to attacks against me and the Church.  I was eventually banned from the group.

It is obvious that Bushey and his friends do not have the intellectual confidence to engage Catholic views and resort to tactics similar to that of Rubicondior who only wants to be heard and ignores other ideas.  I was a threat to them because Protestantism cannot be defended via Scripture.  The idea of Scripture alone stems from Luther, not Scripture itself.    

Moreover, most of them do not accept Evolution.  This is absurd!  God is about truth and we all must accept the fact that Evolution is happening.  There is no disputing this biological fact.

It is sad to have these people misrepresent Christ and Scripture.  We must pray for Christian unity.

The Bible is not open to private interpretation.  When this happens, Christians go bad and new.  

Sacerdotus vs Simeon Nkola

Recently, a Protestant twitter user engaged me in a dialog and challenged any Catholic to debate him.  I accept his challenge.

Only Simeon will be allowed to comment on this blog post.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Woman Ordained a "priest"

Recently, a woman from Kentucky was "ordained" a priest.  Rosemarie Smead, 70 was ordained by a dissident faction that functions outside of the Catholic Church.  This faction claims to be Catholic but it is not.

Smead is a former Carmelite nun who obviously joined the order for the wrong reasons and one of those reasons is showing now in her persistence in pushing for change in the Catholic Church.

The ceremony is obviously for publicity and has no validity at all.  The Catholic Church cannot ordain women.  This is just not possible anymore than a man giving birth.  This does not mean that women are some how inferior to men, they are not.  It just means that men and women have distinct roles in the Church which are ordained by God in His infinite wisdom.

Priests represent Christ who is the groom.  The Church is His bride.  It would be illogical to have a female serve the role of a groom with the Church as a bride. This would be a lesbian relationship!

In any event, these women pushing for changes in Holy Orders are just doing it out of vanity and ambition.  They are reducing the Sacraments to a mere opportunity to promote radical feminism.  The Sacraments are meant to transform us into the image of God, not us transform them into our image.

The women "ordained" were not ordained.  They do not have the power to confer Sacraments or to bless.  The matter for Holy Orders is the male body.  Without this, Holy Orders cannot take place.



Friday, April 26, 2013

Why the Priesthood?

I get asked a lot, why join the priesthood?  Many have known me as an atheist.  This 360 does not make sense to them.  How can an atheist with a love for the sciences consider God or even the priesthood for that matter?  This is a question that really does not have an easy answer.

Considering the priesthood is not an easy choice.  This is why discernment is necessary.  A male thinking of becoming a priest must not do so only because he "feels" called.  There is much more involved in a vocation than a mere sensation.  The decision must be one made with good faith, reason, good conscience and full consent.

A guy can find himself going through all kinds of sensations and even doubts when considering the priesthood.  We are guys and we are wired to do many things, for example, find a female to start a family with.  This is a drive that is not easy to live with while living a celibate life.  The attraction to the opposite sex is also another sensation that cannot be turned off.  In today's age where women's fashion has forgotten the definition of modesty, it can be very hard to steer arousal into grace's path.  A guy must be careful that he does not come across as flirtatious as well.  This is very difficult to do since the simplest of gestures such as a smile can be interpreted many ways.  Similarly, younger priests who are in shape must be careful not to make himself a billboard of masculinity and sexuality.  He should be aware that a youthful body that is in shape can cause arousal in women and in men who are homosexual.  Modesty is a must.  We cannot become an occasion of sin to others.  This is why a prayer life is important.  Nothing cannot be done without prayer.  God is the designer of the male body.  Only He can show us how to control this "machine."

Any seminarian or priest who thinks he can serve in an area and not be affected by the presence of women is only deluding himself.  Moreover, if the seminarian or priest is homosexual (who should not join the priesthood in the first place), it will be even more difficult since homosexuals seem to have a big problem with self-control in regards to interacting with an attractive male.  Imagine a seminarian or priest who has homosexual tendencies living with other men.  This is a recipe for disaster and why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said "Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation."  

Then there is the drive to be "someone" in life.  This drive may even bring about other sensations such as jealousy or envy against those who have a family or a good paying job.  Things like this happen.  I have met older priests who regret being ordained.  They have felt that they did not "succeed" in life while others they knew did in accordance to the world's definition of success.  This is unfortunate indeed because the priesthood is not a career nor an opportunity to become a "made-man," so to speak.  Those called to the priesthood should not join it thinking it to be some profession.  Clericalism is something in the Church that has tarnished the image of the priest.  In many cases, the priest has become a 9-5 job.  I have seen priests ignore visits from parishioners in order to watch a game, go out to the movies or do absolutely nothing.  All of this was done in the name of "I'm off duty."  Priests are never off duty!  The priesthood is a way of life.  Even while on vacation, a priest should be ready to administer any rites if the need arises such as with the case of the terrorist attack in Boston.

Being a priest is not easy.  Similarly, being a seminarian is not something that goes smoothly.  Doubts will arise, frustrations, regrets, sometimes one may remember times in the world that brought happiness such as times with family or friends, or even nostalgia of a relationship with a girlfriend.  All these things and more happen and are part of the human experience when it confronts a supernatural one.

If you are a guy reading this and may be considering the priesthood; or perhaps you may be a seminarian or even ordained; my advice is to not give up.  Take your struggles and offer them on the cross with Christ.  God will not give you any thing you cannot handle, so trust in Him.  He will give to the grace to handle each hardship.  Yes, you will suffer, yes you will feel deep emotions, disappointments and so on, but in the end it is all worth it.  The mere fact that Christ is entrusting you His priesthood says much.  

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Atheism Dilemma IV

Since my Atheism Dilemma series of posts have been so popular, I have decided to continue writing more posts.  These posts exist to show the incoherence of atheism as a belief system.  In this post, I will focus on the Atheism Dilemma of Appeal to Assertion.

An Appeal to Assertion is a fallacy that entails a premise to be true just because it was stated and repeated.  Atheists are guilty of this fallacy.  They assert many things regarding God, Faith and Religion.  Here are a few and my response to them.

Assertion:  God is Imaginary
Many atheists claim that God is imaginary or exists solely in the imagination of the human person.  At first, the assertion seems coherent; God is invisible, no one can hear Him, see Him etc.  Kids have imaginary friends and these friends seem to have this characteristic of invisibility.  However, there is a problem with this assertion: proof.

In order for this assertion that God is imaginary to be taken seriously, the one making the claim must provide evidence of this.  For God to be imaginary, God must be shown to exist in the synapses within the Thalamus and Neocortex.  To date, no such evidence of this exists.  Moreover, imaginative beings cannot affect the material world.  God as an imaginative being cannot heal, answer prayers or manifest Himself in the external world outside of the human brain as an agent that can manipulate matter.  

Assertion:  God is a myth
Atheists assert that God is part of mythology.  While gods such as Zeus, Thor and the like are considered mythology, atheists include the God worshiped by monotheistic religions are part of mythology.  Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus are all considered mythological beings.  The problem with this assertion is that there is no proof.

In order for something to be considered mythology, it must have a human origin. Mythology is a collection of stories or apothegm that originate from an author or authors.  We know that mythological gods have an origin in specific authors and can classify them as such.  In order for God to be classified a myth, an author or authors must be present.  In other words, for God to be a myth, He must have His origin in human authorship.  No atheists have provided evidence that God was authored by a particular human author.

Assertion:  Which God?  There are many Gods to choose from, they all cannot be right.
When theists mention God for a particular reason, atheists often respond: which God?  They do this in an attempt to equate God with other folk versions of gods.  This is done to present God as a deity competing with other deities.  The problem with this assertion is that there is a clear lack of comprehension between folk religion and revealed religion.

While there are over 3,000 different designations and descriptions of gods in human society, this does not mean that God is automatically disqualified.  Man has always had belief in a supreme being or creator.  This is a common trait found in every culture throughout the globe.  We are even wired to have belief in God via the VMAT2 gene.  Throughout human history, man has attempted to define and classify this ultimate reality of a supreme being.  Man has used language with its limits in order to describe God.  Some defined God via their understanding of nature or natural phenomenon.  Others defined God via what is experienced in human life such as emotions, sex, pleasure, and so on.  These gods are all manifestations of the limited ability of man to describe the ultimate reality of God.  There is only one God and man in his limited capacity has tried to define him based on the limits of human experience and language.  The 3,000 + gods we know are how man has attempted to describe the one reality called God.  

These are some examples of assertions made by atheists that are fallacious and said due to lack of education.  When one critically examines the assertion and compares them with facts, one will see how easy they are to refute.  

Appealing to assertions may be a quick method to stump theists who are not well prepared in arguing logically; however, they backfire when cross-examined.  Atheism has another dilemma here that does damage to the claim that atheism adheres to logic and reason.  It is obvious that atheism possesses neither of these.  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Kermit Gosnell

You probably have seen me tweeting blog postings regarding taking over twitter with the Pro-Life message.  Well those blogs had to do with this sick individual named Kermit Gosnell.

Despite having the first name of the adorable puppet frog, Gosnell is far from adorable.  He was an abortionist who did horrible things to children and women.  Naturally, as an abortionist he killed unborn children; however, he took it further and killed them outside of the womb as well.

It is crazy how laws work - abortion laws in particular.  In the United States of America, if an abortionist kills an unborn baby within the womb, this act is a "legal medical procedure."  However, if the unborn child is born or completely removed from the womb and is killed by the abortionist or anyone else, this act is called "homicide."  It makes absolutely no sense since the only difference is the location (in/outside the womb).  It boggles the mind knowing that lawyers and judges who go through rigorous educational programs to earn their law degrees and pass the bar are capable of formulating absurd laws.

Gosnell operated his abortion mill in a manner worthy of a horror film.  Nurses described dead babies in freezers, blood all over the place, and garbage bags full of dead babies.  They also described how Gosnell would snip the spines of babies with scissors, snap their necks and even dismember them while outside of the womb.  A nurse even described seeing a baby swimming in a toilet bowl trying to get out, another said the baby screamed like an "alien."

What's interesting is that the media has been silent about this story since it first broke out.  Not one report was made.  The reason is obvious, this case shows the evil that is abortion.  If people knew the details of what was going on in this clinic and realize that this happens in every clinic, there will be a mass protest to end abortion on demand at once.

We are talking about babies here!  Human babies!

A couple of years ago a Chinese woman was arrested for posting videos of her stepping on kitten's heads and crushing them.  She even did it with high heels!  However, here is this doctor snipping the spines of babies and no coverage on the media.  I love kittens, they are cute and adorable, but a human baby has more intrinsic value than a kitten.

Today a judge dropped three of the charges claiming that there was no proof that the babies were born alive.  This begs the question:  Why would Gosnell and his staff snap the necks of dead babies?  This judge obviously does not have critical thinking skills.

I will update this blog post as I learn more on the case... stay turned!





****UPDATE Mary 13, 2013****


Gosnell was convicted of murder in the first degree.  He could be sentenced to death.  

Source:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Monday, April 22, 2013

Happy Earth Day

Happy Earth day! Today we remember our great and beautiful home. Our "spaceship" flying around in the solar system 365 days a year.

The above is a photo from space using high definition technology. Isn't she a beauty? Just looking at this picture puts me in to a contemplative mood.

The Earth is so small, so fragile in a sense, yet so important to us all.

This planet unfortunately has gone through a lot of abuse, not from earthquakes, storms, asteroids or solar flares, but from a creature that lives on it that sometimes thinks it is God. This creature is the Human being.

We must care for our home. We must stop polluting it and destroying it. Numbers 35:33 says, "Do not pollute the land where you live..." The book of Jeremiah has a few more verses that speak about humans defiling the Earth. In Genesis 1:26 God commands man to care for the Earth and all living things.

We must develop technology that does not destroy the environment. We must throw garbage not on the streets or fields, but in their right place. We must recycle items so that they won't end up in landfills.
We must conserve water and not let it run without use.

I hope you take this time to pledge to save our planet not only for us now but for future generations to enjoy.

May God bless and protect His planet Earth. We Thank Him for creating it and us.

God is quite an artist I must say. :)



Sunday, April 21, 2013

Rubicondior is a Liar

I was hoping atheists on twitter would have the integrity to verify Rosa's claims about me; however, they have only shown themselves to be ignorant, blind obedient leeches.

A true skeptic questions every thing. Atheists on twitter only look to attack and berate Christians and never question even atheist ideas or claims.  They are biased.  

Since none of you are brave to do it, I will question Rubicondior and challenge him to provide evidence for the claims about me.

Rosa uses an article about someone entering the Franciscan order:
Objection:  Picking a random article from the internet is not proof that this individual is me. You have to show people my driver's licence, social security card, passport, birth certificate or other identification.

Challenge:  Please show us a letter from this seminary stating that this individual is me, was expelled etc. Also show my driver's licence, social security card, passport, birth certificate or other identification and how I and the person in the article are the same person.  Until you do so, your claims are false and libelous. 

I invite all those reading this to verify for yourself by contacting the seminary:

St. Joseph's Seminary
201 Seminary Ave Yonkers, NY 10704
(914) 968-6200

I have nothing to hide. If you believe Rosa, you are mentally disturbed as well.

Rosa's story is inconsistent:

  1. Rosa finds a profile on classmates with a chi rho and the name is Manuel and he says this kid is me because of the chi rho avatar. This classmates profile is of a high school kid. 
  2. Then Rosa states that he found a myspace profile that belongs to me. 
  3. Then Rosa said I was in St. Joseph's Franciscan Seminary which doesn't exist. 
  4. Then Rosa says I am an adult mentioned in an article and am no longer the minor on classmates. 
  5. Then Rosa says I was in St. Joseph's Seminary and am a Franciscan, but was expelled. 


  1. How can you claim a kid on classmates is me and then change and say an adult in an article is me?  
  2. Where is your proof that I own this account or that the individual in the article is me? 
  3. Furthermore, St. Joseph's Seminary has no record of this individual. Everyone can contact them and verify this. I invite them to.
  4. This seminary is for the Archdiocese of New York, not the Franciscan order. Only men preparing for the diocesan priesthood go there. 
  5. The only Franciscans who study there are the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. They do not have a record of this individual either. 
For verification, contact:

Fr. John Paul, CFR
St. Joseph Friary 523 W.142 St.
New York, NY 10031
(212) 281-4355 

It is obvious that Rosa is making this up as he goes on.  If you are an atheist on twitter and believe this, you are gullible and extremely stupid.   

I challenge each atheist on twitter to question Rosa and find the truth.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Happy 90th birthday Mother Angelica

Today, April 20th a woman would be born who would do much good for the Catholic Church in regards to media.  Born Rita Antoinette Rizzo in 1923, she would join the Franciscan order as a Poor Clare of Perpetual Adoration in 1944 and would take the name Mary Angelica of the Annunciation.

In the 60's, she would move to Irondale, Alabama and found a community of sisters there.  Mother Angelica would tape programs for television networks in the 1970s.  However, when one of the networks refused to air a controversial program, Mother decided to stop producing her a program and founded her own network.

On August 15, 1981 EWTN or the Eternal Word Television Network was founded in a garage with the budget of only $200.  Many thought that this network would not last, but it did and grew in such a way that defies the normal growth of a television network.  By the late 80's, the network was broadcasting for 24 hours.  In the 90's, the network would go global and would have WEWN, its short-wave radio version.

As the internet became more accessible to the general public, EWTN went online with www.ewtn.com.  It began to broadcast on there as well and provided more resources for those interested in the Catholic faith.  Many people have joined or returned to the Catholic Church because of EWTN.  EWTN provided a channel where people can learn on the Catholic faith, call in to have questions answered and have a sense of connection with the global Church since secular media hardly covers Papal events.

EWTN and Mother Angelica did face some controversies due to fallen human nature in the Church.  Some bishops, in particular Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles took to heart Mother Angelica's blunt attitude.  They saw her as trying to overthrow the bishops.  Cardinal Mahony tried to get Mother Angelica off the air, but failed to do so.  Mother Angelica would then hand over authority and possession of the network to lay people after an attempt was made to take over the network because as a religious, Angelica falls under the authority of the Church.

Some have accused EWTN of being pre-Vatican II orientated and teaching errors; however, Pope Benedict XVI awarded the network and Mother Angelica the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice Award.  Others claim Mother is rude, arrogant, uncharitable and condescending.  Mother Angelica has battled health issues since her days as a novice.  She had a back brace for a while until she was cured when a visionary visited EWTN.  Mother would then suffer a stroke which would take away her voice.  She eventually retired from the network and is recovering the best she can.

I want to wish Mother Angelica a happy 90th birthday.  She is a blessing to the Catholic Church.  In my opinion, if bishops and priests were more like her, we would not have the problems we have today.  Mother is a true evangelical in the sense of evangelizing the world, not denomination.  The fruit of many conversions and vocations is testament to this religious sister's faith, prayers and hard work.      


Friday, April 19, 2013

Stupid Tsarnaev Bros

Yesterday an MIT campus officer as gunned down in his patrol car.  The news was trending all over.  Afterwards, a 7 eleven stop was robbed and an individual was car jacked.

The police responded to the incident thinking it to be a typical call; however, little did they know that they would be confronting the two suspects of the Boston Marathon.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev and brother Dzhokhar were finally identified and faced head on.  Both were students in the Boston area and are identified on social sites as Muslim.  These brothers while knowing how to smuggle bombs into a secure event, were not smart enough to prevent their faces from being photographed. 

Tamerlan, 26 began to shoot at police and threw bombs at them while younger brother Dzhokhar, 19 fled on foot. Tamerlan was killed and now a manhunt for the younger brother like never seen before in the United States is taking place.  Boston is in complete shut down.  Officials have ordered the public to remain home and only open the doors to police officers searching for Dzhokhar.  Mass transit has also been shut down.  

No one has been found yet.  There have been reports of a car approaching Connecticut and officials there were warned; however, nothing more has been reported on this.

The family of the brothers claim to not have known about their relative's activities.  The uncle even voiced his anger stating that they have brought shame to their family and ethnicity.  

Please be careful and call the FBI Hotline 1-800-CALL-FBI if you have any information regarding Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. 

***UPDATE 8:50PM***  19 year old Dzhokhar was apprehended at 67 Franklin st in Watertown, MA.  He was found in a boat injured and bloody.  The home owner noticed the tarp on the boat was tore and went to investigate.  He found a man all bloody in the boat.  Dzhokhar is alive and has gunshots to the neck and leg.  (source: http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2013/04/19/67-franklin-street-in-watertown-becomes-americas-most-infamous-address/





Anniversary of Pope Emeritus' Election

Today April 19, is the anniversary of the election of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger to the Chair of Peter.  He would choose the name Benedict XVI.  He was elected in 2005 shortly after the death of Blessed John Paul II the Great.  

Pope Benedict XVI would serve the Church as Pontiff for 8 years before announcing his retirement.  He is now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.  Thank you Pope Emeritus for your service as Pontiff, and continued service to the Church in a monastery.   

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Comorbidity Is Self-Evident

The comorbidity of Rosa Rubicondior is becoming more and more apparent I'm afraid.  I think Rosa is finally giving up.  Perhaps my call to report her for child abuse is finally activating whatever moral compass was left within her hollow existence.

In any event, via another individual I offered Rosa a deal that would get her out of trouble with the law and social media as well as help her save face after her defeat.  Rosa refused and now must deal with the numerous reports being sent in by my readers.  Child abuse is no laughing matter and Rubicondior will feel the heavy weight of the law soon enough.

Rubicondior in an air of defeat has posted this:


My response will be in black and Rosa's words will be in blue:


What To Do With A Spent Loon?

Regular readers here and followers of the #atheism hashtag on Twitter will have heard of 'Sacerdotus' which is one of the many pseudonyms of an unemployed narcissistic, probably psychotic loon who spends most of every day boasting about his academic qualifications, claiming to hold various university degrees, tweeting and blogging about how he's about to 'destroy Atheism' and fantasising about being a Catholic seminarian about to qualify for the priesthood, whilst simultaneously displaying his crass ignorance about almost everything. In fact, he was expelled from St Joseph's Seminary, New York shortly after 2003 because of gross misconduct, thus ending his clerical career and simultaneously rendering himself unemployable.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

Ad hominem after ad hominem, that is all Rubicondior could offer unfortunately.  All this energy could have been well spent in presenting strong arguments in favor of atheism.  Nevertheless, Rosa made my ministry easy by presenting atheism as nothing more than a circus of the socially aloof.  It is a haven where morons can become fictional characters - as you see Rosa using a fake name and image of a halloween mask - and post away their delusions that feed their need to feel significant and wanted.

Notice that Rubicondior has much to say of me but does not back this say with evidence.  Even commentators on Rosa's blog request for evidence of her claims but as usual, Rosa is mum.

I will post the questions that someone posted which Rosa does not answer for obvious reasons:

<<Readers may also be aware that he has developed something of a psychotic obsession with me, inventing lurid tales of child abuse and terrorist activities and posting them on his blog. He also, rather pathetically, desperately tries to convince people that I have declined to debate him despite the fact that the record of his public display of cowardice in running away from my challenge to him to engage me in open debate can still be read inDebate: Is There Scientific Evidence Only For The Christian God?. I had challenged him to establish his claim to have scientific evidence proving the existence of the Christian god. The topic of the debate, which, had it been won would have established his claim, together with simple terms for ensuring transparency and unbiased moderation, and reducing his opportunity for his usual obfuscation, avoidance and quibbling over the meaning of words as a diversion, was laid out for discussion. As expected, his boasting proved to be empty and he refused to even discuss the terms, let alone producing anything resembling the scientific evidence he claimed to have or engage in anything resembling meaningful debate. It seems that the idea of open debate in a neutral forum is terrifying to him.>>

Sacerdotus replies:

Psychotic obsession indeed... we can see your projection and displacement here Rosa.  I never knew of you until you messaged me August of 2011.  You then blocked me while I was answering your questions.  When I posted on my blog the experience, this is when you came back for more.

You can write all you want and tell your own version, but I prefer the readers to see the proof themselves: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2012/10/poor-thingchoking-on-defeat.html   Everything is documented in this post.  Your own tweets, your acceptance and your dilly dally and eventual forfeit of the debate.

If someone invites you to debate and you accept the terms and begin to debate, you CANNOT go off topic and then present your own terms in the middle of a debate you already agreed to.  Have you not learned anything about contracts?  Once you accept a contract, you are bound by it.  You accepted my challenge to a debate with its terms, posted rants and then forfeited.  It is all documented Rosa.  Your pathological lying is also noticeable I might add.

Now, I have been constantly inviting you to debate me, even made a petition and you still run away.  Out of anger, you decided to pick a kid off the internet and label him as me in order to channel the shame you received and present it back at me as an expose of a "fraud."  This failed because you were reported to authorities for child abuse and people can verify that this information about me is false.  Notice how you do not answer this individual's questions regarding proof of your claims on me.

<<Following that public humiliation, 'Sacerdotus' went on a spree of abusive posts on Twitter, setting up impersonations of my account to post sexually explicit obscenities, campaigning to have me banned from Twitter, accusing me of being behind a conspiracy to have all Christians banned from the Internet, and issuing threats of violence resulting in Twitter intervening to take down all his accounts and any new ones, pending an undertaking to observe the rules he signed up to on joining. He was placed on special monitoring to ensure compliance. At the same time there were several crude and inept attempts to hack my Twitter account by changing the password.>>

Sacerdotus replies:
You made your bed and now you are laying in it Rosa.  You should have accepted your shame and moved on instead of escalating this into a circus.  I gave you a fair chance to debate me and you blew it by behaving like a moron.  That is not my fault.  I did not make any accounts posting sexually explicit things nor did I hack you.  This is part of the paranoia you created in your disturbed mind.

<<In the traditional style of a deranged psychotic, he frequently claims to have provided reports to the FBI, NYPD and something called 'The UK Authorities' on my 'terrorist' activities allegedly provided by his many 'contacts' who he says are watching me, presumably imagining 'The UK Authorities' would need his assistance and that of his team of 'contacts' if any of this were true. No doubt in pre-word processor times these 'reports' would have been written in green ink and signed "A Consernd Cityzen".>>

Sacerdotus replies:

Under the law, I and others have to report child abuse.  The instant I learned that you picked a random child off the internet and began to abuse him in order to attack me, this is when I drew the line and began to expose you for the sick individual you are.  I will not stop until you are prosecuted.  You should never abuse a child!  Your issue is with me, not anyone else.  Reports will be made against you until you are prosecuted or you remove all mentions of this child.  Welcome to the real world where laws exist.  

<<So, having initially spotted 'Sacerdotus' as an inept, infantile fraud ripe for plucking, so to speak, and recruited him to help me discredit religion in general and Catholicism in particular, by putting him on a public stage for all to witness his dishonesty and ineptitude in the name of Jesus and Catholicism, what to do about him now?>>

Sacerdotus replies:

Back your talk up with evidence Rosa.  Stop spewing your mental instability publicly.  Why won't you answer the questions people ask you?  Don't you know anyone can contact St. Joseph's seminary and inquire?  You cannot be that stupid, can you?  A reporter with a hot story does not keep the details.  Why not share them?

<<He has just spectacularly failed yet another simple challenge in which he only needed to answer an easy question exploring a fundamental tenet of Christianity (see here). It's now become something of a sport on Twitter to challenge 'Sacerdotus' to a debate to see what excuses he will come up with next, or even if he will acknowledge having seen the challenge.

I have many more such questions which would also show his cowardly disingenuousness, but is there any point to this? Does it help further the cause of Atheism and to discredit Catholicism more (is that even possible after all the recent scandals?) to continue to expose this sad fraud who probably has a personality disorder or Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and is possibly mentally ill, and who has probably outlived his use-by date as an example of the harm religion does to people?

Or should I just ignore him from now on, consigning him to the obscurity he probably fears most, bearing in mind that the reactions he gets on Twitter are probably his only means of self-affirmation and the only way he has to measure his perceived importance to the world, no matter how distorted that perception is?>>

Sacerdotus replies:

I answered your question.  Notice how you cannot counter it and instead resort to ad nauseum.  Your questions are easy to answer and this is why you hate me so much.  I am the only individual who has taken you to task and mopped the floor with your nonsense.  Your time of picking on uneducated fundamentalists is over.  Once you stepped in my shadow, you stepped into my large footprint of academia.

Your readers may be atheists, but I do not think most of them are as stupid as you want them to be.  They can see my answers and my attempts to get you to debate me.  Those who support you do so in order to avoid making you look bad.
  • No one takes you seriously Rosa, when will you realize this?  
  • Why are you afraid to debate me?  
  • If I am such an easy challenge as you claim, then why run from me?  
  • Why block and hide behind your blog and immature friends?  

  • Do my degrees scare you?  Is my wit too much?  
  • What exactly are you afraid of?  
  • If I am a fraud, then where is the proof?  
  • Where is the letter showing my name as that of the child you abuse?  
  • Where is the letter from the seminary showing my supposed expulsion?  
  • Why are you hiding this information?  
  • If you have information that will "expose" me and get rid of me for good, why not show it to every one?  

No one will fall for your stupidity Rosa.  This is why you have to be prosecuted by the law.  You need to be shown that life is serious and not a game on the internet.

<<I have prepared this little questionnaire. I will leave it up for a week. Please let me know your thoughts.

Now 'Sacerdotus' has spectacularly failed another simple challenge from me what should I do?
Keep exposing him as a fraud by putting up more challenges for him to flunk every few weeks or months?

Leave the infantile fool alone now and ignore him?

Keep baiting him because he is such a good argument for Atheism?

pollcode.com free polls>>

Sacerdotus replies:

Your silly questionnaire shows your fear.  It is laughable how I brought down the "mighty" vocal atheist.

[Update 19 April 2013]

Voting is now closed.

With the vote being 55:45 in favour of ignoring the infantile fool, serial Internet abuser and sociopath, Manuel de Dios Agosto, aka @Sacerdotus, in future he will now be ignored by me no matter what username he uses. I suggest others do likewise as that would seem to be the only way to help him control his psychotic behaviour.

It just remains for me to thank him for the sterling work he did for me, albeit unwittingly, in helping to discredit religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Would Manuel be the obnoxious little excrescence he is today if it hadn't been for the Catholic Church? Nice one Manuel.

PS. Just one last thing, for anyone who is tempted to believe Manuel's denial that he is the Manuel de Dios Agosto who was expelled from St Joseph's Seminary, and his claim that Manuel de Dios Agosto is a young child: here is the account by Claudia McDonnell of the announcement by Bishop Garmendia of New York in New York Catholic that Manuel de Dios Agosto was to be admitted to a Franciscan seminary. The Franciscan seminary in New York is St. Joseph's. The New York Catholic site was archived on 2 February 2003 so clearly this announcement was made more than ten years ago. Manuel left the now closed (for low academic standards) Grace H Dodge school in 2000 when he would have been 16. There is no formal lower age limit for admission to seminary but this is not normally before age 18, which would mean Manuel entered seminary in 2002 - consistent with the site being archived in 2003. Assuming Manuel was indeed 18 years-old at the time, this would make him 31 years old now. Although very clearly mentally still a minor, Manuel is chronologically not the minor he likes to pretend.

Sacerdotus replies:

Rosa, picking a random article from the internet is not proof that this individual is me.  You have to show people my driver's licence, social security card, passport, birth certificate or other identification.

Moreover, please show us a letter from this seminary stating that this individual is me, was expelled etc.  Until you do so, your claims are false and libelous.

I invite all those reading this to verify for yourself that this person is not me and never attended this seminary:

St. Joseph's Seminary
201 Seminary Ave Yonkers, NY 10704
(914) 968-6200

I have nothing to hide.  If you believe Rosa, you are mentally disturbed as well.

Thank you for proving that you have absolutely no evidence for your claims.  You chose a random individual from the Bronx and said he was me.  This shows you are mentally ill and suffering from schizophrenia.  Schizophrenics are often delusional and suffer from paranoia.  They feel that people are out to get them and create fantasies in their heads.

Thanks also for providing evidence for this seminary so they can bring charges against you.  No institution likes to be slandered.  

Let's back-track on how you have changed your story:

  • You find a profile on classmates with a chi rho and the name is Manuel and you say he's me because of the chi rho.  This classmates profile is of a high school kid.  
  • Then you state that you found a myspace profile.  
  • Then you said he was in St. Joseph's Franciscan Seminary which doesn't exist.  
  • Then you say he is an adult mentioned in an article and is not a minor.  
  • Then you say he is in St. Joseph's Seminary but is a Franciscan.  

Rosa, you are constantly changing your story.  Let's analyze this:

  • How can you claim a kid on classmates is me and then change and say an adult in an article is me?  
  • Furthermore, St. Joseph's Seminary has no record of this individual.  Everyone can contact them and verify this.  I invite them to.
  • This seminary is for the Archdiocese of New York, not the Franciscan order.  Only men preparing for the diocesan priesthood go there.  
  • The only Franciscans who study there are the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal.  They do not have a record of this individual.    

It is obvious that you are making this up as you go.  You need help!   

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Boston Victims - Let Us Not Forget

Here are the three people, Martin Richard 8 years old, Krystle Campbell 29 years old, and Lingzi Lu 23 years old who lost their lives due to senseless violence during the Boston Marathon.  Let us pray for their souls, for their families and those close to them as they heal from this loss of life.

**Update April 19, 2013**  To this post I want to add Officer Sean Collier who was gunned down by the perpetrators as they tried to make a getaway at MIT on Thursday April 18, 2013.  Collier was a campus police officer who was ambushed and killed by these cowards.

These young souls had a whole life ahead of them which was cut short because of some deranged individual who for whatever reason decided to commit this horrendous act against humanity.

  • Lingzi Lu of China was studying mathematics and statistics at Boston University and was scheduled to graduate in 2015.  
  • Krystle Campbell was a restaurant manager in Medford, Massachusetts   
  • The youngest of the three, Martin Richard of Dorchester was a 3rd grader at a charter school there.  
  • Sean Collier, 26 was a campus police officer who loved his job.  He saw his job as his "calling" in life.  

A photo I saw brought tears to my eyes.  It seems to be prophetic.  The photo shows young Martin Richard in his classroom holding a sign that if everyone on Earth followed, we would not have these senseless massacres occur.

"No more hurting people.  Peace"

This little baby boy had it right even at the tender age of 8.  I hope people will listen to your words Martin.  Let us remember Martin and bring about a world that reflects his words of wisdom.  Let us honor his memory and the memory of all victims of violence by pledging to spread love and tolerance around the globe.  

Eternal rest grant to these victims O' Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them.  May they, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.  Amen

Pro-Life Take over of Twitter Part II

**Update- We are doing it again**

The trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell is taking place.  Gosnell is the abortionist who killed hundreds of babies as well as women in his abortion clinic.  He jammed scissors into the necks of babies and snipped their spinal cords.  His actions are just horrendous and show how evil the human being can become when it is desensitized due to abortion.

The media has been silent on this case so we in the Pro-Life movement will take over twitter to get the message across to all about the evils of abortion.

See:  https://www.facebook.com/events/440055226080593/

I call on all my Pro-Life brothers and sisters, Catholic and Non-Catholics, Religious and Secular, all those who value human life to take over Twitter today,
Wednesday April 17, 2013.

Tweet with the hashtags

Let us inform the world since the media has become silent.

Read more about the case:


Google "Kermit Gosnell"

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Stand With Boston

Americans never fail to support each other in times of disaster.  Whether the disaster is natural or originating from man, Americans will unite behind those affected.  Shortly after the attack on the Boston Marathon, Bostonians offered room and board to those affected.  The outpouring of help, prayer and love is inspiring.

Even the New York Yankees showed their solidarity with 100 + year old rivals the Boston Red Sox
by posting on their marquees the Boston logo as a sign of unity.  They even played "Sweet Caroline" after the 3rd inning which is a song played at Fenway park during Red Sox games.  This is a great gesture that shows that rivalries in sports are nothing, we must care for one another.

President Obama will attend an inter-faith prayer service at Holy Cross Cathedral on Thursday and will hopefully call on all Americans to pray.

The attack yesterday was a horrific one indeed.  Many questions still remain.  We now know that the bombs were pressure cookers filled with nails and other sharp objects.  No one has been arrested yet and the trail seems cold.  The FBI and local authorities are requesting everyone who was present to hand over their videos or photos of the event.

In any event, we must focus on those who are suffering by praying for them and helping them recovery from this tragedy.  Many will have scars, not only physically, but also mentally.  This isn't something one can overcome over night.











Catholic Church (759) God (406) Atheism (343) Jesus (342) Bible (310) Jesus Christ (286) Pope Francis (230) Atheist (228) Liturgy of the Word (192) Science (152) LGBT (146) Christianity (139) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Gay (78) Abortion (75) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Physics (53) Liturgy (52) Philosophy (52) Christian (50) Vatican (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (44) Christmas (43) New York City (41) Psychology (41) Holy Eucharist (36) Politics (34) Women (34) Biology (31) Supreme Court (30) Baseball (29) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Health (22) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Evil (20) First Amendment (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Theology (19) Christ (18) Death (18) Apologetics (17) Astrophysics (17) Child Abuse (17) Evangelization (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Police (16) Priesthood (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) academia (9) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) CUNY (7) Cognitive Psychology (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Holy Trinity (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Hispanics (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)