Liberal US Cardinals Attack Trump Policies

On January 19, 2026, three prominent U.S. Catholic cardinals—Blase Cupich (Archbishop of Chicago), Robert McElroy (Archbishop of Washington), and Joseph Tobin (Archbishop of Newark)—issued a rare joint statement sharply criticizing aspects of U.S. foreign policy under the current administration. While the statement primarily focused on militaristic approaches, including recent actions in Venezuela, threats regarding Greenland, and cuts to foreign aid, it ties into broader concerns about human dignity that these cardinals have consistently linked to immigration policy.

The cardinals called for a "genuinely moral foreign policy" that treats military action only as a last resort and prioritizes human life, dignity, and peace. They warned that America's "moral role in confronting evil around the world" is under serious examination amid what they describe as a profound debate not seen since the Cold War. This comes shortly after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) condemned mass deportations and dehumanizing rhetoric toward immigrants in November 2025.

These three cardinals are widely recognized as figures in the more liberal/progressive wing of the U.S. Catholic Church. They have been vocal allies of papal priorities under both Pope Francis and the current Pope Leo XIV (the first U.S.-born pope), particularly on issues like migrant rights, social justice, and humane treatment of immigrants. Cardinal McElroy, for instance, has previously described indiscriminate mass deportations as "incompatible with Catholic doctrine" and morally repugnant, emphasizing the dignity of every person regardless of legal status.

Their latest statement echoes ongoing Church criticism of strict immigration enforcement measures, including mass deportations, which Pope Leo XIV has indirectly challenged by questioning "inhuman" treatment of migrants in the context of pro-life consistency. The cardinals' intervention highlights tensions between current U.S. policies and Catholic social teaching, which insists that nations have a right to secure borders but must uphold the fundamental dignity of all people, including immigrants and refugees.

This rare collaborative critique from three of the highest-ranking U.S. cardinals underscores the Church's commitment to advocating for compassionate policies amid heated national debates.

Many Catholics question why they have not spoken out like this against abortion and so-called Same sex marriage.  

Sources and Links:

- Joint Statement by Cardinals Cupich, McElroy, and Tobin: [Archdiocese of Washington](https://adw.org/news/joint-statement-morality-u-s-foreign-policy-english/)

- Reuters coverage: [Top US Catholic cardinals question morality of American foreign policy](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-us-catholic-cardinals-question-morality-american-foreign-policy-2026-01-19)

- The Associated Press via various outlets (e.g., KSAT, KCRA): [US Catholic cardinals urge Trump administration to embrace a moral compass in foreign policy](https://www.ksat.com/news/national/2026/01/19/us-catholic-cardinals-urge-trump-administration-to-embrace-a-moral-compass-in-foreign-policy/)

- The Hill: [America's top Catholic clerics denounce militaristic US foreign policy](https://thehill.com/homenews/5695684-catholic-cardinals-us-foreign-policy)

- USCCB Special Message on Immigration (November 2025 context): [US Bishops Issue a “Special Message” on Immigration](https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/us-bishops-issue-special-message-immigration-plenary-assembly-baltimore)

- Additional background on cardinals' views: Reports from Catholic News Agency and National Catholic Register on prior statements regarding mass deportations and immigration.

Marine Daniel Penny Kills Homeless Mentally ill Jordan Neely With Chokehold

Recently, the news has been focusing on a case that happened in New York City. A homeless man with a criminal history and arrest warrant entered a subway. The early reports claimed that he attacked riders and threw garbage at them. This prompted Daniel Penny,24 and a veteran of the Marines to put him in a chokehold. Other riders joined in holding down Neely. Neely eventually passed away. 

The coroner ruled his death a homicide.  Penny was interrogated by police and was then released. This brought many to protest calling on the arrest of Daniel Penny and others involved. The Manhattan district attorney is investigating and will bring everything before a grand jury to see if charges are warranted.

The case has divided Americans with some believing Daniel Penny is a hero and others saying Jordan Neely did not deserve to be killed. Those that argue that Penny is a hero are mostly from the right-wing conservative faction in American politics. They view Penny's action as self-defense and claim Neely was violent and a threat to people in New York City and deserved what he got. Those who support Neely say that he was homeless and simply asking for food and water. He had mental illness and often had outbursts due to a lack of medication and overall treatment. The city failed in helping him. They claim he is also a victim.  

We are now in a situation where people are bringing in politics and race. On social media, we are already seeing people attack blacks claiming they are the cause of violence and focus on Neely's criminal record assassinating his character in order to deflect from his mental illness, homelessness situation, and the lack of help from the city of New York.  We also see people attack Daniel Penny because he is Caucasian calling his chokehold move on Neely a "lynching."  It is sad that it has come to this. The racism is in fact clear as day.  We are seeing a white vs back narrative subliminally presented in the arguments on both sides. People are forgetting the facts of the story.  Did Neely deserve to be chokehold to death? Did Daniel Penny and others do the right thing and did they act in self-defense?

Based on what we know, the answer to these are not so easy, but the law can help.  In New York and 14 other states there is a duty to retreat clause. This means that citizens have a duty to escape or get away from a violent situation if the opportunity is there. If there is no option to retreat, then citizens can use force, even kill the assailant.  The duty to retreat does not apply to citizens when they are at home in New York and at home, place of work and car in other states.  The law varies from state to state. This is why it is important for people to educate themselves.  Many times people, particularly conservatives, think that it is okay to kill someone who attacks you. They claim it is a "right" to self-defense. This is not true. One cannot just kill an attacker and claim self-defense.  Since this case between Neely and Penny happened in New York City, we will focus on the law in New York State. You can read more about laws in other states here (https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/21/duty-to-retreat-35-states-vs-stand-your-ground-15-states/).

In New York state, Artcile 35 of the penal code states:

  (c) The physical  force  involved  is  the  product  of  a  combat  by

agreement not specifically authorized by law.

  2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person

under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

  (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or

about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the

actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with

complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the

necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no

duty to retreat if he or she is:

  (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

  (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police

officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to

section 35.30; or

  (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing

or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape,  forcible  criminal

sexual act or robbery; or

  (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing

or  attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that

the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of

section 35.20.

- https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.php   

So, as you read, there is a duty to retreat.  Daniel and the others had to retreat and not engage Neely unless there was no option to retreat. In light of this, Daniel Penny and the riders involved need to be charged for killing Jordan Neely. He broke the law (duty to retreat clause) of NY state. Screaming out for food, and water, or even throwing garbage does not warrant being choked to death.  Nor does having a criminal record.  Citizens cannot take the law into their own hands. This is not self-defense. Daniel and others had a duty to retreat.

Subway cars have end doors where people can move between cars.  They have emergency brakes that stop a moving train, allowing for exiting.  Attached are photos.  Moreover, cars have emergency windows that can be removed to exit.  There is no excuse.  The MTA offers guidelines here mentioning the emergency windows and how to exit a subway car, see: http://new.mta.info/document/76901.  If not charged, this will empower people to kill others for any outburst, whether mental illness related or not. Even autistic people will be in danger depending on where on the spectrum they are on and if this causes them to behave violently. People will kill others just for being bumped on a train, bus, or sidewalk.  We cannot have this in a civilized society where the rule of law supersedes.  Jordan Neely had mental illness and was not helped. He could not help how he behaved due to it.  He did not deserve to be killed.  Attacking his character does nothing but turn the attacker into a despicable human being lacking morals and compassion.  Justice must be served.  The rule of law must matter.

In 2017, I served on a trial where a young man killed an elderly man with a metal pipe in the South Bronx. In the video, we saw both men arguing. The young man walks out of the store and the elderly man goes to the back of the bodega and grabs a pipe going after the young man.  We see another cell video of both arguing outside and the young man hitting the elderly man with a pipe.  Many of the jurors thought the younger guy was defending himself. However, I brought up the duty to retreat clause and before deliberation, the judge told us the law.  

I remember this when studying paralegal in high school.  We did internships at the Bronx Court House on the Grand Concourse and 161st.  Like conservatives on social media, the jury I was with assumed the young guy was legitimately defending himself. However, this was not the case.  He had a duty to retreat. The elderly man was really no threat. He easily took the pipe away from him.  Therefore, the young man could have left with the pipe, tossed it aside and left, or simply just called 911 while holding the pipe and not engaging the elderly man. Instead, he took the pipe away and began to beat the elderly man with him fracturing his cheekbone and skull overall.  A few of the jurors got upset with me because I took the case seriously. They just wanted to issue a verdict and go back to their jobs. They were worried about not getting a paycheck. I was more concerned about justice. 

Two young Dominican guys were even making snarky remarks causing the older jurors to shake their heads in disbelief and call them out for their immaturity.  Anyhow, me delay of the deliberation worked and the right decision was made that even the judge, district attorney, and court officers applauded us. 

The other jurors pointed me out as the reason for delaying deliberations.   We ended up deciding a guilty verdict for manslaughter against the young man. He may have thought he was defending himself because the elderly man went after him with a pipe, but that was not self-defense.  He had a duty to retreat.  Similarly, Neely was not truly a threat. Screaming and crying out for food is not a threat.  It is a disturbance of the peace.  

UPDATE May 12, 2023:  

Daniel Penny was charged and arrested. He was released on a 100k bond.  New details came in.  According to the DA, Neely entered the subway car and slammed his hand on the door in frustration. He cried out that he was hungry, and thirsty, and was not afraid to die.  He kept shouting and slammed his jacket on the floor. This was when Penny came from behind and grabbed him in a chokehold taking him down. As this was going on, the train was pulling into the station.  These details are significant because they show that there was no self-defense here. Penny grabbed him from behind. Neely was just shouting making a scene.  

Moreover, some claim that a moving train is impossible to retreat from, however, the train was pulling into the station which would have allowed people to exit immediately onto the platform and notify 911, MTA workers, or any police that may be around.  So, it makes sense for Penny to face charges.  The other riders were also complicit in the death of Neely and need to be charged as well.  

A crowdfunding for Daniel Penny has also raised over 2 million dollars while one for Neely's funeral cost raises almost $150,000. We can see here the discrepancy. Many people simply do not understand how self-defense works and attack people with mental illness and/or criminal records. We are a nation of law. Nobody can take the law into their own hands. We cannot have vigilantes running around. Those with mental illness and/or criminal records cannot be set aside like pariahs and sentenced to death merely on the aforementioned. People have dignity and equal protection under the law.  Having a mental illness and/or a criminal record does not devalue a human being. We all make mistakes. We all sin.  The real culprit here is New York City, a city that does nothing to help the disenfranchised.  Daniel Penny and others should not be placed in a position to choose to police the subways or streets.  No amount of money raised can undo what the law states nor erase what videos show and what witnesses state.  Penny's lawyer claims there is more video and that his client rendered aid. These will most likely not be enough to sway a jury of people who will most likely be liberal and conscious of how Black, mentally ill people and the homeless have been neglected in this nation.  

We also have to do better. Black people are automatically seen as violent or the main source of crimes by some from every race. This is just wrong.  The cries that Neely deserved it simply because he had a criminal record or was mentally ill are inhumane. It shows pure hate in these people.  Racism is clearly alive and well in many people even in the 21st century.  Those defending Daniel Perry must do so on reason and facts, not because he is a Marine or Caucasian. Everyone should know after Eric Gardner that not even cops can use a chokehold to restrain someone.  If cops cannot use it what makes you think a Marine or civilian can use it?  What we saw in the video was clearly a killing.  Penny should have known what a chokehold does.  Would Neely have received the same treatment and adulation if he was the Caucasian Marine and Penny was the deranged homeless man?  It is disturbing to even ask after we have seen Caucasian perpetrators treated better than non-Caucasians even after being arrested.  We must reflect on this.  The law, facts, and evidence are what must matter, nothing else.   We cannot have favoritism nor set aside the law for our misunderstanding of self-defense.  If we do this, America will become a wild-wild-west with people settling things outside and killing each other.  

This does not mean self-defense is wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not." 65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. 66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party. 67

2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person",68 and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. [CatholicCulture.org Note: Pope Francis replaced the original Latin text with this paragraph in 2018.]

Notes:

65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.

66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.

67 Cf. Lk 23:40-43. NT John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.

English Translation of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America © 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

Self-defense is necessary to preserve one's life and that of others, however, it must be done within ethical parameters. We simply cannot kill someone who bumps into us, taps us, spits on us, throws something at us and so on.  

UPDATE June 12, 2023: 

Daniel Penny released a video explaining what happened. In effect, he incriminated himself in the process.

NEW THIS MORNING: #DanielPenny speaks out after allegedly choking man to death on #NYC subway. (Courtesy: Raiser & Kenniff Law Firm) - https://t.co/qENM7JuLsG pic.twitter.com/Ve7VA6VJk7

— News12LI (@News12LI) June 12, 2023

UPDATE June 14, 2023: 

Daniel Penny was just indicted by a grand jury. The charges are now official and he will face them in court.

#BreakingNews Daniel Penny has been indicted by a grand jury in Lower Manhattan in the death of Jordan Neely on a subway train last month. https://t.co/MChQJV1qtu pic.twitter.com/veuUgg5W8g

— Eyewitness News (@ABC7NY) June 14, 2023

UPDATE June 28, 2023

Daniel Penny appeared in court this morning and entered a NOT GUILTY plea.  Here are the charges:

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §125.15(1), committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York, on or about May 1, 2023, recklessly caused the death of Jordan Neely. 

SECOND COUNT: AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE, in violation of Penal Law §125.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York, on or about May 1, 2023, with criminal negligence, caused the death of Jordan Neely. ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR 

UPDATE January 17, 2024

Attorneys fo Daniel Penny filed a motion to get the case dismissed. The judge rejected that motion. Penny will have to face trial for killing Jordan Neely possibly in the fall of 2024. He is scheduled to appear in court again in March 2024.

What do you think? Post below on Disqus. Be sure to follow the rules for posting.  

Source:

https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.php

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/21/duty-to-retreat-35-states-vs-stand-your-ground-15-states/

http://new.mta.info/document/76901

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/05/13/daniel-penny-jordan-neely-conservatives/

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-greene-daniel-penny-arrest-jordan-neely-20230514-happ5mbvofghzih3xoiq5zzkla-story.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/daniel-penny-story-jordan-neely-republicans-b2339467.html

https://nypost.com/2023/05/15/legal-fund-for-accused-nyc-subway-choker-daniel-penny-tops-2m-with-kid-rock-chipping-in/

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4003104-jordan-neelys-chokehold-death-on-nyc-subway-what-has-happened-so-far/

https://news.yahoo.com/kid-rock-big-donor-legal-010406488.html

https://www.foxnews.com/us/jordan-neely-death-marine-vet-daniel-pennys-attorneys-raise-more-than-1-5m-for-legal-defense

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-mayor-adams-jordan-neely-daniel-penny-f-train-chokehold-silence-20230516-7dvrqiuksrfudoa4tlkknmaomq-story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/12/us/jordan-neely-daniel-penny-new-york-subway-death-charge/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/13/daniel-penny-jordan-neely-charges-update/70213559007/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/14/nyregion/daniel-penny-jordan-neely-conservative.html

UPDATED Source June 28, 2023

Daniel Penny pleads not guilty to manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide charges | amNewYork (amny.com)

Daniel Penny pleads not guilty in Jordan Neely NYC subway chokehold death - The Washington Post

US Marine vet Daniel Penny pleads not guilty to manslaughter in chokehold death of Jordan Neely | Fox News

UPDATED Source January 17, 2024

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ny-judge-consider-marine-vet-daniel-pennys-motion-dismiss-case-jordan-neely-subway-chokehold-death

https://abc7ny.com/daniel-penny-jordan-neely-subway-chokehold-death-nyc/14331371/

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/daniel-penny-homicide-jordan-neely-chokehold-subway/5047919/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/daniel-penny-returns-court-dismissal-hearing-nyc-subway/story?id=106422808

NYC Restricts Constitution to Protect Illegal Aliens

As a New Yorker, born in Manhattan and raised in The Bronx, I am ashamed of my home city. The Twitter account for New York City tweeted out this graphic stating that it is now illegal to "threaten to call ICE" on illegal immigrants and that it is illegal to tell someone to "go back to your country."  They also will penalize anyone who calls illegal immigrants "illegal aliens."  No, this is not satire, the Onion or a parody post. This is for real! 

BREAKING:
New York City has made it illegal to threaten to call ICE based on a discriminatory motive or to tell someone "go back to your country." Hate has no place here. pic.twitter.com/8PaIozjQty

— City of New York (@nycgov) September 26, 2019

The new law is unconstitutional. It violates the first amendment. One does not have to be a Constitutional scholar to see this.  ICE exists to arrest people who are here illegally. They are a federal law enforcement agency. To tell a city that they cannot be called is an affront to the first amendment and the rule of law. Moreover, to make the phrase "go back to your country" is the restriction of free speech by the government. This is a gross attack on freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the first amendment.  The government cannot restrict or dictate the speech of the people.

The news has angered many people, both conservative and liberal who value the United States Constitution. This law will not stand in court. I am sure it will be taken to court.  Citizens have a right and duty to call ICE to report illegal immigrants, especially those who have violated a warrant or committed other crimes. Moreover, while telling someone to go back to their country can be rude, it is not discriminatory.

I invite all New Yorkers and Americans to voice their concerns over this new law and encourage lawyers to take the city to court for this gross violation of the first amendment.


What do you think?  Post below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules for commenting.



UPDATED: 10/1/19
The Twitter account for NYC deleted the original tweet which was stormed with disapproval by many and retweeted it as a pinned tweet.  Here it is.

BREAKING:
New York City has made it illegal to threaten to call ICE based on a discriminatory motive or to tell someone "go back to your country." Hate has no place here. pic.twitter.com/1rgQ52oI68

— City of New York (@nycgov) October 1, 2019

Twitter Targets Sacerdotus

This morning without warning, my Sacerdotus account on Twitter was suspended.  I was surprised.  On Sunday, I tweeted links regarding Holy Week.  What did I do wrong?  Is this an April's Fools prank?  

Well according to Twitter Support, they claim that I posted hate against.  In other words, they claim that I violated their hateful conduct policy. They provided the offending tweets. Two of these tweets deal with health statistics and the last one deals with a historical statistic.  

As you can see, none of them qualify as hate.  Twitter is simply discriminating against religious accounts.  I appealed their decision and have not heard from them.  It seems I may have to contact a lawyer again to help me.  This time, I will have to file a lawsuit as Twitter is being abusive and violating my rights.  Not only are they violating my rights, but they are defaming me by accusing me of posting hate.  Again, these tweets have nothing to do with hate.  They are informative tweets based on available statistics.

UPDATE:  April 4, 2018:

Early today, I filed another appeal and got a message saying that my case was still open.  Within minutes, they finally replied to my first appeal stating that they will not reinstate my account and accused me of posting hate and attacking/threatening others with the tweets they classify as hate. 

Who works at Twitter?  Is this a computer who is answering these appeals and monitoring tweets?  If this is a human person, then this person is clearly stupid.  No intelligent person would interpret my tweets as hate.  

I filed another appeal and wrote this:

My account was falsely reported for hate by someone retaliating against me after he got suspended.  The tweets Twitter is classifying as hate is not hate.  They are tweets with health and history facts.  I can prove it.  The tweet about anilingus is not hate against gays or people with diseases. This tweet is just informing people of the dangers of the act of anilingus. I was citing this: 

https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a19530788/butt-motorboating-explained/ 

The tweet about Atheism and Mental health rates is citing a study (I put it in quotes "Religious affiliation and suicide attempt"), here is the link for the study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904

Lastly, the tweet about Atheism and highest rates of mass murders is from these articles touching on historical sources:
http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/http://www.thomism.org/atheism/atheist_murderers.htmlhttps://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/answering-atheists/atheism-not-religion-is-the-real-force-behind-the-mass-murders-of-history.html

Please reinstate my account. As you can see, there is nothing hateful about posting facts in a tweet. I am not sure how Twitter can view facts as hate. Notice how I am not judging anyone nor making offensive statements.  These are facts on health and history.  Even @NYCgov tweeted the same information about hepatitis infection here:
https://twitter.com/nycgov/status/919227619635335168?s=19,

.@nycHealthy sees increase in #hepatitis A cases among gay men in NYC. Get a #free vaccine! https://t.co/3shlyqnROJ pic.twitter.com/p9HGVDQdYy

— City of New York (@nycgov) October 14, 2017

Why were they not suspended and I was?  My tweets are not hateful and my suspension is unwarranted.
I will have to contact the media and a Catholic law firm if you do not show consideration and reinstate my account.  There is no hate found in my tweets at all. The suspension you imposed is unwarranted.  You bill your network as allowing users to express themselves via free speech, yet you suspended me for sharing health and historical facts.  This is contrary to your company's vision.   Please restore my account.  

Let us see how they will respond this time.  Clearly, they are targeting religious and conservative accounts.  Last year, an employee deactivated President Trump's account on purpose. We can see that Twitter has a problem with employees who are bias and take their bias out on users. I believe this is the case with me.  My tweets are health and historical statistics.  Why did they not suspend the NYCGov account which posted the same thing? 

If Twitter does not restore my account, I will be contacting the media and lawyers to file a lawsuit against the company for infringing on my rights, religious speech, defamation and will ask for monetary damages for the loss I am facing due to the fact that I cannot tweet my Gofundme nor links to sell my books.  Their suspension of my account is totally unwarranted.  I have reported abuse against myself and others and Twitter ignored my complaints, yet they target me for tweets with health and history statistics... unbelievable. 

My account was falsely reported by a troll who was suspended a few months ago.  Apparently he thinks I got him suspended and took revenge. He tweeted this:

I got @sacerdotus suspended.

His 9 year on Twitter abusing ToS and #atheists is currently over. Hopefully permanently.

Now @TitterSupport needs to ban his socks.@StudiousAtheist@EscapingTheism@Bronxbomber777

Almost worth losing my account for.#FreeMcatheist @mcatheist

— McAtheist (@Sabbatheist) April 3, 2018

This is why Sacerdotus is suspended. Hopefully the system will take out the socks too.

— McAtheist (@Sabbatheist) April 3, 2018

Whoa Dogie!

You're arguing with a sock account of serial @Twitter abuser @Sacerdotus.

Sac comments then uses the socks to abuse you and steelman his position.

Go to his account and you'll see it everywhere.

Sac tweets and the same sock accounts fave it.#nowyouknow pic.twitter.com/BjJ56LYQty

— McAtheist (@Sabbatheist) April 3, 2018

Please spread this post everywhere and send it to the media.  We need to fight back.

Pray for me!  I will fight this. 

Please flood Twitter with your concerns and complaints to Jack Dorsey and Del Harvey at their address and fax number:

Contact information

Our address and fax details are:

Twitter, Inc.
c/o Trust & Safety - Legal Policy
1355 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94103
Fax: 1-415-222-9958 (attn: Trust & Safety - Legal Policy)

Twitter International Company
c/o Trust & Safety - Legal Policy
One Cumberland Place
Fenian Street
Dublin 2
D02 AX07
Ireland

Fax: 1-415-222-9958 (attn: Trust & Safety - Legal Policy)

DACA is Deported

The DACA program or "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" was rescinded today by President Donald J. Trump via Attorney General Jeff Sessions. DACA was introduced via the executive branch in 2012 by former President Obama. The program was meant to prevent the deportation of children of illegal immigrants who were brought here. These people obviously grew up in America and know nothing of their nation of birth.

Many find their stories heartbreaking, and rightfully so. These people did not ask to be brought here at an early age. To better the situation, Obama ordered the DACA program be put into place. Along with preventing deportation, DACA applicants would be allowed to work in the United States, but would then have to renew this permit. They were only allowed to stay in the United States for two years. However, no one wants to be deported so obviously, they all stayed here. This is where the problem begins.

Since these people stayed here, they have become a burden on tax payers. Tax payers have been forced to pay for the education, health and other expenses of these illegal immigrants. This is unjust and immoral. Many conservatives were upset when Obama instituted DACA which was a breach of federal law to begin with. Many "dreamers," or DACA receipients have taken to the streets to protest.

JUST IN: President Trump on #DACA: DHS "will begin an orderly transition and wind-down of DACA, one that provides minimum disruption." pic.twitter.com/WYG4MMSxgb

— ABC News (@ABC) September 5, 2017

BREAKING: DACA program is being rescinded, AG Sessions says. https://t.co/Gq2xLIcrZA

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) September 5, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) is "being rescinded." https://t.co/eod7YrMKRe

— Twitter Moments (@TwitterMoments) September 5, 2017

Senate Majority Leader McConnell statement on Pres. Trump's DACA decision. pic.twitter.com/hfVZBIYBxo

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) September 5, 2017

President Donald J. Trump Restores Responsibility and the Rule of Law to Immigration: https://t.co/ugLNdy1WxG

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 5, 2017

BREAKING VIDEO: More footage from Denver as students walk out protesting decision to rescind #DACA. pic.twitter.com/LgYf2SeIrr

— The Anon Journal (@TheAnonJournal) September 5, 2017

https://t.co/q8qL4l9Rda

— ☧Sacerdotus™ (@Sacerdotus) September 5, 2017

Some in the Catholic Church have even cried foul at President Trump for ending DACA. Cardinal Dolan and many others have joined the cause claiming that Trump's actions are inhumane. The USSCB also issued a statement condeming the action of the president.

To all Dreamers, please know that the Catholic Church loves you, welcomes you, and will fight to protect your rights and your dignity. #DACA

— Cardinal Dolan (@CardinalDolan) September 5, 2017

Dreamers, you are children of God and welcome in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church supports you and will advocate for you. #DACA pic.twitter.com/mJykf9jeMI

— US Catholic Bishops (@USCCB) September 5, 2017

I have countered these Catholics leaders by reminding all of what the Catholic Church actually teaches about immigration. See the photo in the tweet below:

The #Catholicchurch does not support open borders or illegal immigration. Ignore lawless clergy. #DACA #DefendDACA pic.twitter.com/yAxaNmmcWd

— ☧Sacerdotus™ (@Sacerdotus) September 5, 2017

The Catholic Church teaches that each nation has a right to protect its sovereignty and borders. Those who come as immigrants must respect the laws of the nation that is housing them. Just because "dreamers" were brought here by their parents does not mean we should reward them. Once they learned that they were illegal and became of age, they should have proceeded to change their status from illegal to legal. Many of them do not do this and want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. Some of them have even committed crimes against Americans. Since they are undocumented, it is hard for law enforcement to locate them and prosecute them. This is just wrong. Instead of keeping illegal immigrants legal, The bishops, clergy and religious should advocate that they become legal. They should encourage parishioners who are illegal immigrants to become legal. This is the moral thing to do rather than taking a "Robin Hood" mentality to solving these kinds of problems. We cannot steal from others to help others. It is immoral.

Moreover, I come from NYC which is a very liberal and progressive town. It bothered me greatly in my college and high school years seeing friends of mine who are Puerto Rican get turned away from scholarships and other benefits in favor of illegal immigrants. How can illegal people have it easy in our nation while legal citizens are given such a hard time? This is unjust.

Some have gotten upset with me because of my tweets condemning the "dreamers" and DACA. However, they did not see what I saw in NYC nor experienced the unfairness my friends and others faced due to illegal immigrants. Furthermore, many people have suffered having their identities stolen by illegal immigrants. This is wrong. Imagine working all of your life, doing the right thing, obeying the law and you find out someone was using your social security number to live a lavish life in the shadows of the law. This is what has happened to many people I know. In Puerto Rico, birth certificates had to be reissued because Dominicans and others were stealing the identities of Puerto Ricans. Some were using the certificates and social security numbers of the deceased!

We must not let misguided compassion get the best of us. I as a rational person see black and white, right and wrong. Immigrants are all welcome here, but they must follow the laws. Moreover, the media is painting "dreamers" as kids when in fact they are young adults. Again, they are capable of applying to citizenship. What is stopping them? Do they want freebies? Do they want to live above the law? We cannot have this.

The end of DACA today does not mean lost hope for "dreamers." President Trump tweeted that he wants Congress to find a legal way to keep DACA and gave a six month timeline to do so. If they do not, he tweeted that he will revisit the issue. Clearly, Trump is not this coldhearted man the media is portraying him as. He wants to do things right and legally. While he is not perfect, we must applaud his respect for the executive branch and how it relates to the law.

Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2017

I was sworn in as US citizen on August 22nd, 2017. I did it the right way.Long journey. Came(frm Sweden) ALONE to Us 1986.Workd,paid taxes. pic.twitter.com/I5cg8Fsrna

— Teresa H.Bernhardt (@BernhardtTeresa) September 3, 2017

Let us pray for all. I know it is hard for "dreamers," but there are better options. Living here illegally and not doing anything to change that status is wrong. Taking advantage of welfare and other benefits meant for citizens who are struggling is immoral.  Illegal immigrants need to show sincerity and do the right thing by becoming legal if they really love our nation and want their dreams realized.





Source:

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2017/09/05/14-things-msm-wont-tell-daca/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/jeff-sessions-trump-daca-decision/index.html?sr=twCNN090617jeff-sessions-trump-daca-decision1055AMVODtop

http://www.illegalaliencrimereport.com/murder/dreamer-shot-young-man-to-death-in-arizona/

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/09/05/ag-jeff-sessions-announces-end-of-daca-immigration-policy/23197431/

Cardinals to Pope: Resign!

According to a The London Times report, Antonio Socci, a journalist and Catholic author says that there are twelve cardinals who want the pope to resign. These cardinals supported his election in March of 2013, but now feel that the pope is causing too much schism which will harm the institutional Church. Socci said, "A large part of the cardinals who voted for him is very worried and the curia ... that organized his election and has accompanied him thus far, without ever disassociating itself from him, is cultivationg {sic} the idea of a moral suasion to convince him to retire..."

Ironically, the cardinals who apparently wish for the pope to resign are considered "liberal" and have supported him in many of the controversial ideas being presented now.  They prefer Cardinal Pietro Parolin who is currently the Vatican Secretary of State to take his place. There is no shocking news that there is division in the Church. Since Pope Francis began releasing encyclicals, exhortations and "off-the-cuff" remarks, Catholics have been fighting among each other.  I myself have lost online and offline friends due to this drama. Never before in my life have I seen Catholics divided in the same way Americans are divided between Republicans and Democrats with each claiming to be more Catholic than the other.

In any event, this news is not confirmed as of yet.  It is solely a piece from journalist Antonio Socci.  He has not offered any evidence to back up his claims so readers can make up their own minds about this story.  Hopefully, it is not true. We need to pray for the pope and our cardinals, bishops etc.  Satan's smoke is filling up the dome at St. Peter's!!!    









Source:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-reform-cardinals-want-the-pope-to-quit-z3h75h22v

New Planned Parenthood Videos & Refuting Skeptics

New videos was released by the Center for Medical Progress.  This center has been exposing Planned Parenthood's business of selling fetal body parts.  In these new videos, we see more evidence showing the profits Planned Parenthood is secretly collecting in its sale of fetal body parts.  The video shows damning evidence of how Planned Parenthood has been circumenting federal laws that ban the sale of fetal body parts.

There has been criticism against the Center for Medical Progress in regards to the videos. Critiques -usually liberals- claim that the videos presented are edited and not valid. Planned Parenthood even hired the company Fusion GPS to investigate the videos.  The company came to the conclusion that the videos "have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for official inquiries."  Immediately, leftist papers such as the New York Time were quick to exaggerate the alleged findings of Fusion GPS in order to discredit the videos.

However, what the New York Times and other news outlet forgot to address was the fact that Fusion GPS has a history of targeting social conservatives and Rupublican donors. The company also has storng ties to the Democratic party.

The suggestion that the videos are fake or doctored is unfounded.  It is a desperate attempt on the part of Planned Parenthood to wiggle itself out of the spotlight.  It is the equivalent of the cartoon character cat Tom having Jerry in his mouth with the latter's tail hanging out the mouth while Tom claims he did not eat Jerry. Fusion GPS' report even states, "This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation, but we did identify cuts,skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle."

The existence of "cuts and edits" does not disqualify the content which is present. There is no doubt that the discussion of the sale of fetal body parts is audible and presented clearly. Employees are clearly presented and are not actors. Moreover, the "cuts and edits" exist simply for logistical reasons.  The Center has several hours of footage which would be a burden for people to watch in its entirety. It is best to just skip to the important parts.  News outlets do exactly the same thing. CNN et al have news videos aired that are edited to convey the message of the story. To accept their videos as accurate and truthful while dismissing the videos from the Center for Medical Progress is dishonest and shows a bias.






























Source:

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/31/new-video-planned-parenthood-doc-caught-admitting-she-can-hide-profit-from-selling-aborted-babies/

http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/planned-parenthood-videos-substantially-real/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/abortion-planned-parenthood-videos.html?_r=0

http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVk3HDyuhhkPMnFMCvK5fVC8%3d

http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/01/in-new-video-planned-parenthood-business-partner-defends-abortion-thats-where-we-get-our-tissue/

Rainbow Delusion II

The Rainbow Delusion: A Biblical, Patristic, and Logical Refutation of Revisionist Interpretations of Scripture

The rise of the LGBT movement has prompted significant theological debates, particularly regarding the interpretation of biblical texts to support behaviors and lifestyles that traditional Christian teachings have historically deemed sinful. Proponents of the so-called "LGBT agenda" argue that the Bible, particularly the teachings of Jesus, does not explicitly condemn homosexuality or transgenderism, and they reinterpret key passages to align with their worldview. This essay critically examines three primary arguments: (1) that Jesus’ silence on homosexuality implies His endorsement, (2) that New Testament terms for homosexuality do not refer to consensual same-sex relationships, and (3) that the destruction of Sodom was due to inhospitality rather than homosexuality. Additionally, it addresses transgenderism and drag culture, refuting these revisionist claims with scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, logical analysis, and references to the original Greek and Hebrew texts. The essay demonstrates that these interpretations, often termed the "Rainbow Delusion," are inconsistent with biblical authority, historical Christian teaching, and sound reasoning. --- I. Jesus’ Silence on Homosexuality: Endorsement or Affirmation of God’s Design? LGBT Argument: One of the most common arguments advanced by proponents of the LGBT agenda is that Jesus never explicitly mentioned or condemned homosexuality, thereby implying His approval or neutrality on the matter. This claim suggests that because Jesus focused on love, compassion, and inclusion, He would have endorsed same-sex relationships as valid expressions of love. Refutation with Scripture: The assertion that Jesus’ silence on homosexuality equates to endorsement ignores the broader context of His teachings and the continuity of biblical revelation. Jesus explicitly affirmed the divine institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, rooted in creation. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus states: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (ESV). Here, Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, affirming the complementary, binary nature of human sexuality and marriage as God’s ordained plan. By grounding His teaching in the creation narrative, Jesus implicitly excludes alternative relational structures, including same-sex unions. Furthermore, Jesus’ mission was not to exhaustively list every sin but to uphold the moral law of God. In Matthew 5:17, He declares, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (ESV). The Law, as articulated in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, explicitly condemns homosexual acts as an “abomination” (Hebrew: to’ebah, meaning detestable or morally repugnant). Jesus’ affirmation of the Law’s enduring validity indicates His agreement with its prohibitions, including those against homosexuality. Patristic Witness: The early Church Fathers, who interpreted scripture in continuity with apostolic teaching, consistently condemned homosexual behavior. St. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD), in his Homilies on Romans, addresses Romans 1:26-27, stating, “All such passions are dishonorable… but especially the madness concerning males” (Homily 4 on Romans). Similarly, St. Augustine (354–430 AD) in Confessions (Book III) denounces “unnatural vice” as contrary to God’s design. These writings reflect a unanimous patristic consensus that homosexual acts are sinful, rooted in their understanding of Jesus’ teachings as consistent with Old Testament law. Logical Analysis: The argument from silence is a logical fallacy (argumentum ex silentio). Jesus’ failure to explicitly mention homosexuality does not imply endorsement, just as His silence on other sins (e.g., bestiality or incest) does not suggest approval. Jesus’ teachings consistently align with the moral framework of the Torah, which He upheld. Moreover, His emphasis on love (John 13:34) is not a blanket affirmation of all behaviors but a call to love within the boundaries of God’s revealed will. To claim Jesus endorsed homosexuality requires ignoring His explicit affirmation of male-female marriage and the broader scriptural context. --- II. The Meaning of “Homosexuality” in the New Testament LGBT Argument: Another revisionist claim is that the Greek terms used in the New Testament, particularly arsenokoitai (1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10), do not refer to homosexuality as understood today but to exploitative or pederastic relationships. Proponents argue that consensual, loving same-sex relationships were unknown in the ancient world, and thus, the Bible does not condemn modern homosexuality. Refutation with Scripture and Greek Text: The term arsenokoitai is a compound word derived from arsēn (male) and koitē (bed, often with sexual connotations). Its meaning is clarified by its context and usage. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul lists those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, including malakoi (often translated “effeminate” or “soft ones”) and arsenokoitai (translated “homosexuals” or “men who practice homosexuality”). The pairing of these terms suggests a reference to both passive and active partners in male same-sex acts. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 1:10, arsenokoitai is listed among sins contrary to “sound doctrine,” reinforcing its moral condemnation. The argument that arsenokoitai refers only to exploitative relationships ignores its clear derivation from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Leviticus 18:22 states, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (LXX: meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gynaikos). The phrase arsenos (male) and koitēn (bed) directly informs Paul’s use of arsenokoitai, indicating that he is referencing the same prohibited act: homosexual behavior in general, not merely exploitative forms. Romans 1:26-27 further undermines the revisionist claim by condemning both male and female same-sex relations as “unnatural” (para physin). Paul writes, “Their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another” (ESV). The passage makes no distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts, focusing instead on the violation of God’s created order. Patristic Witness: The Church Fathers understood these passages as condemning all homosexual behavior. St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD) in Paedagogus (Book III) denounces “unnatural lust” between men, citing Romans 1. St. Basil the Great (c. 330–379 AD) in his Ascetical Works explicitly condemns same-sex acts as contrary to nature, aligning with Paul’s terminology. These interpretations confirm that early Christians understood arsenokoitai and related terms as referring to homosexual acts broadly, not merely exploitative ones. Logical Analysis: The claim that consensual same-sex relationships were unknown in the ancient world is historically untenable. Greek and Roman cultures, particularly in the Hellenistic period, documented various forms of same-sex relationships, including consensual ones (e.g., Plato’s Symposium). Paul’s use of arsenokoitai and his description in Romans 1 indicate a comprehensive condemnation of same-sex acts, regardless of context. The revisionist argument relies on anachronistically imposing modern categories on ancient texts, ignoring their clear intent. Moreover, if arsenokoitai were limited to pederasty or exploitation, Paul could have used more specific terms like paiderastēs, but he did not. --- III. The Destruction of Sodom: Hospitality or Homosexuality? LGBT Argument: Revisionists argue that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) was due to inhospitality, not homosexuality. They cite Ezekiel 16:49, which lists Sodom’s sins as pride, excess, and neglect of the poor, and claim that the attempted gang rape of Lot’s guests was a violation of ancient hospitality norms, not a condemnation of same-sex behavior. Refutation with Scripture and Hebrew Text: Genesis 19:4-8 describes the men of Sodom demanding to “know” (yada’) Lot’s male guests, a term often used euphemistically for sexual relations (e.g., Genesis 4:1). Lot’s response—offering his daughters instead—confirms the sexual nature of the demand. Jude 7 further clarifies that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for “sexual immorality and going after strange flesh” (Greek: sarkos heteras), a reference to their attempt to engage in same-sex acts with angels. While Ezekiel 16:49 lists additional sins, it does not negate the sexual immorality highlighted in Genesis and Jude. The Hebrew term to’ebah (abomination) used in Leviticus 18:22 to describe homosexual acts is also associated with Sodom’s sin in Jewish tradition, reinforcing the connection between Sodom’s destruction and sexual perversion. The narrative context of Genesis 19 focuses on the men’s lustful intent, not merely a breach of hospitality. Patristic Witness: The Church Fathers consistently linked Sodom’s destruction to sexual sin, particularly homosexuality. St. Ambrose (c. 340–397 AD) in On the Duties of the Clergy describes Sodom’s sin as “unnatural lust,” citing Genesis 19. St. John Chrysostom in his Homilies on Genesis explicitly connects Sodom’s punishment to their “abominable” sexual desires. These interpretations align with the biblical text and refute the hospitality-only argument. Logical Analysis: While inhospitality was a serious offense in ancient Near Eastern culture, the Genesis account emphasizes the sexual nature of the men’s demands. The revisionist focus on Ezekiel 16:49 cherry-picks one passage while ignoring the broader biblical witness (Genesis 19, Jude 7). Logically, if inhospitality were the primary sin, the narrative would not highlight the men’s attempt to sexually assault the guests. The hospitality argument also fails to account for the consistent biblical and patristic condemnation of homosexual acts as a grave sin. --- IV. Transgenderism and Drag Culture: A Biblical and Logical Critique LGBT Argument: Proponents of transgenderism and drag culture argue that the Bible does not explicitly address gender identity or cross-dressing, and thus, these practices are permissible. Some claim that gender is a social construct, detached from biological sex, and that affirming one’s self-identified gender aligns with Christian love and acceptance. Refutation with Scripture: The Bible affirms the binary nature of human sexuality as male and female, rooted in creation. Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (ESV). This binary distinction is foundational to God’s design for humanity. Deuteronomy 22:5 explicitly prohibits cross-dressing: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (ESV). The Hebrew term to’ebah underscores the moral gravity of violating gender distinctions. In the New Testament, Jesus reaffirms the male-female binary in Matthew 19:4-6, and Paul’s condemnation of “soft” or effeminate behavior (malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9) likely includes practices akin to modern drag, which blur or reject gender norms. The Bible consistently presents gender as tied to biological sex, not as a fluid or self-determined category. Patristic Witness: The Church Fathers upheld the biblical view of gender as divinely ordained. St. Clement of Alexandria in Paedagogus (Book III) condemns men who adopt effeminate behaviors or attire, arguing that such actions violate God’s created order. St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD) in On the Dress of Virgins emphasizes the importance of maintaining gender distinctions in appearance and behavior, reflecting God’s design. Logical Analysis: The claim that gender is a social construct contradicts the biological reality of sexual dimorphism, observable in the vast majority of humans (XX or XY chromosomes). The Bible grounds gender in God’s creation, not human subjectivity. Transgenderism and drag culture, by rejecting this binary, undermine the imago Dei (image of God) inherent in male and female distinctions. Furthermore, the argument that affirming transgender identities is loving ignores the biblical call to truth (John 8:32) and the potential harm of encouraging dissociation from one’s biological reality, as evidenced by studies showing elevated mental health risks among transgender individuals (e.g., Regnerus, 2019). --- V. Conclusion The "Rainbow Delusion" represents a concerted effort to reinterpret scripture to align with modern cultural values, but it fails under scrutiny. Jesus’ silence on homosexuality does not imply endorsement; rather, His affirmation of marriage as a male-female union and His upholding of the Law confirm the biblical condemnation of homosexual acts. The Greek term arsenokoitai clearly refers to homosexual behavior, as supported by its lexical roots and patristic interpretation. The destruction of Sodom was tied to sexual immorality, not merely inhospitality, as evidenced by scripture and early Christian exegesis. Finally, transgenderism and drag culture contradict the biblical affirmation of the male-female binary and God’s created order. The Church Fathers, rooted in apostolic tradition, unanimously upheld these teachings, and logical analysis exposes the flaws in revisionist arguments. Christians are called to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), affirming God’s design for sexuality and gender while extending grace to all. The "Rainbow Delusion" ultimately distorts scripture, but the unchanging truth of God’s Word remains a sure foundation. --- Bibliography - Augustine of Hippo. *Confessions*. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford University Press, 2008.

- Basil the Great. *Ascetical Works*. Translated by M. Monica Wagner. Catholic University of America Press, 1962.

- Chrysostom, John. *Homilies on Romans*. Translated by J. B. Morris and W. H. Simcox. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 11. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.

- Clement of Alexandria. *Paedagogus*. Translated by William Wilson. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.

- Cyprian of Carthage. *On the Dress of Virgins*. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.

- Regnerus, Mark. “The Future of Christian Marriage: New Data on the Global and American Situations.” *Public Discourse*, 2019.

- The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway, 2001. ---

MTV Names Pope Francis 'Man of the Year'

 Pope Francis was named 'man of the year' by an unexpected group: MTV.

MTV, known for its left-progressive themes, vulgarity and immoral programming decided to name our current Pontiff their pick for 'man of the year.'

Unfortunately, he was not picked for this title for being the Pope, but for what MTV thinks he stands for.  In their statement, they write:

"Pope Francis: mtvU Man of the Year
Pope Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Italian parents in Buenos Aires, assumed the leadership role of the Catholic Church in March 2013, while focusing on breaking down bureaucracy and making the church more inclusive and community focused.
Months into his papacy, he surprised many by declaring that he would not judge a person for their sexual orientation, taking a bold stance on homosexuality that diverged from that of his predecessor. Continuing in his quest to unite rather than divide the Church, Pope Francis gave a high profile interview that appeared in Jesuit publications around the world in September, preaching love, acceptance and humility over dogma.
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods,” said Pope Francis in the interview. “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”
Instead, Pope Francis, who took his name in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi to demonstrate his concern for the well-being of the poor, has used his power to focus the Catholic Church on fighting poverty, luxury and vanity. His own humility and outspokenness in the name of acceptance has brought a new, unexpected voice to the Vatican in 2013."

MTV officials obviously have misinterpreted Pope Francis' words as him somehow turning his back on Church teaching.  We all know that Pope Francis has been misinterpreted by the media to appear as some liberal Pontiff that has come to undue what Pope Benedict XVI and previous Popes have said and done.  To them, this Pope is the "real Vicar of Jesus Christ" while the ones before him were "quacks."  This is far from the truth.

See more here:
http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/09/pope-francis-interview.html
http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/07/pope-francis-gay-who-am-i-to-judge.html


In any event, Pope Francis has infiltrated a network that reaches millions of youth and corrupts their impressional minds.  Perhaps this award is a blessing in disguise.  It will draw attention to the Pope and hopefully inspire MTV's viewership to research more on him and the Catholic Church. As the saying goes, "God writes straight but with crooked lines."  It seems God is doing something here by finding a way for the Pope to spread the seeds of the faith even in this network which is pro-abortion, pro-lgbt and anti-religion.




Source:

http://www.mtvu.com/shows/mtvus-2013-man-woman-of-the-year/

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1718818/lorde-pope-francis-mtvu-man-woman-2013.jhtml

http://www.mtvu.com/video/?vid=986410

http://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/mtvu-names-pope-francis-and-lorde-as-man-and-woman-of-the-year-1.1583089