Canada’s Carbon Problem

We have a problem in Canada. We have a lot of problems in Canada, to be honest, and one of them is carbon. (Apparently. CBC climate tax Trudeau) When it comes to farming, we simply do not have enough carbon. Farmers spray their fields as the crops cannot get enough from the air. Even homeowners enrich their soil with chemicals – natural through compost and manure or synthetic – because there is not enough. Plants give off oxygen as a process of photosynthesis. They absorb both carbon and oxygen to perform photosynthesis (former) and breakdown sugars for food (latter). Then as stated, give off oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Or more simply:

 

Canada is not like the United States. We are not populated coast to coast, border to border, with clumps of wilderness speckled throughout. Canada is nearly complete wilderness and mostly unpopulated, with a smattering of civilization seeming to appear randomly through the land. In other words, we have trees and plants. We have a lot of trees. We are mostly trees. And bears and beavers and wolves and moose. Mostly trees and plants though.

Did I mention CO2 is necessary for plant growth? Higher carbon levels means bigger plants and simply more plants. It means more food crops and healthier food crops. So much so, that farmers are artificially adding carbon to their crops. Yet the government wants to tax Canadians for “producing” carbon. Our hydro has been raised so much, it’s $100/month more now than a year ago. Gas is already expensive and highly taxed. Every electronic comes with a “green” tax, as do vehicles. Ethanol has been found (speaking in green here) to be a worse pollutant and worse for the environment, than straight up unleaded. Yet the very vehicles that would be using 91 octane (or higher), which contains zero ethinol, are also the cars slapped with an extra gas guzzler tax. Yet as they don’t use ethanol “enriched” gasoline, the “environmental damage” should be offset.

Then on top of HST, we will be smacked with a carbon tax. Now, could someone explain how plant-dense Canada has any global effect on carbon? We probably have a thousand trees per person, including the Inuit, are functionally carbon neutral at our “worst” (assuming carbon is bad) and we have to pay our government even more money because Chna and India are producing carbon and we, unable to offset it, need to pay our incompetent government to fix the problem? How does making it difficult for families to pay bills or feed their children, change how bad the smog in Bejing is? Or that the Ganges is a greater, actual, environmental and biological hazard than any plant-nourishing carbon will ever be?

Could someone explain how in the Middle Ages olives and grapes were grown in England. Were there too many SUVs? Were they cycling through too many electronics and needed the Kings to get them with a green tax to curb their television and cell phone use? How can we have historical climate shifts without the factors we now say cause global warming? Which was rebranded climate change when the warming never actually happened. After the “…there’s a 75% chance the entire Northern Polar ice cap in some summer months could be completely ice free in the next 5 to 7 years,” never materialized by 2016 (7 years after the video) we had already switched to “climate chaos”. Al Gore claims ice free…. [The quote starts around 2:15.] While this statement is full of wiggle words to avoid actually being responsible for false prophesy, the fact is, it was meant to be a threatening prediction to dictate government policies. Such as taxing populations.

We have record ice growth, winters so cold they have broken all records and found out the polar bear populations is thriving, especially as the statistics used for fear mongering has purposefully excluded large polar bear populations. We also have The Globe and Mail, a Canadian paper, admitting to things such as:

Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 15,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level]there has ever been.”

Then we have:

But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.

I’m sorry people, but I’m going to trust the Inuit when it comes to polar bears before anyone else. Show me one scientist who actually lives with polar bears and I’ll give them a hearing. But if the Inuit are saying we have polar bears and every scientist says the opposite, I’m going with the Inuit.  Globe and Mail, polar bears.

We have records of multiple lies and threats that never materialized. And Canadians are going to be paying taxes based on the claims of the very people, and the very “science”, which has repeatedly been falsified. They even need to fudge their own work to create panic where none exists.

The CO2 graph claiming horrific rise in carbon, threatening us all: Can anyone else see where the Y axis begins? It has been a long time since math class, but from what I remember, one should have a zero and a squiggle above it to show that a large part of the chart is cancelled out to show the pertinent information. All we see here though is how drastic the uptick is. The full chart is actually:

Not so impressive anymore. If one maps temperature vs carbon, it gets really interesting:

 And 

Oops. Temperature changing before carbon, and temperature averages going down with carbon.

And I’m supposed to pay taxes on this crap?

Advertisements

Feminist Denials of Reality 2/3

Apparently a desperate glutton for punishment, on we go….

7. Female disadvantage is being blamed for a mistake made by two people.

Merriam-Webster defines mistake thus:

Simple Definition of mistake

: to understand (something or someone) incorrectly

: to make a wrong judgment about (something)

: to identify (someone or something) incorrectly

I assume by “mistake” we are in fact speaking of “unique human life complete with unique DNA (which is the same from conception until well beyond death) created by a male and a female, engaging in copulation.” This is grossly confusing as it is usually the left and feminists who howl for comprehensive “sex education”. In what way is conceiving a child a mistake? Did these feminists skip those sex Ed classes they are making mandatory on everyone else’s children? How can someone, who has likely been educated both formally and personally in fornication, be oblivious to the fact that sex makes babies?

Performing an act, knowing full well what the outcome a) can likely be and b) is purposed towards, is the exact opposite of a mistake. The other question is, do women truly get all the blame? Men can have their lives completely ruined by the women who lure them into fornication. Women are absolutely not innocent victims; what “liberated” woman isn’t aware of the [im]moral state of our society? She is either counting on that when she goes out, or is aware of “what pigs men are” (because apparently being willing to get naked and sleep around with men is the man’s fault).

Besides being able to take men to court and have their wages turned over, besides having the threat of jail time for non payment to women, besides having wages garnished by the government in payment for babies they often didn’t know existed, besides having the men folk in a family hunt them down for a usually violent confrontation, besides a shotgun wedding, the feminists are completely right and men get no blame.

Women however, get the blame, as I’m sorry ladies, but we do carry and nurture our babies. A baby without a daddy, a family without a husband, is one statistically headed for teenage pregnancy, higher crime rates, lack of education, gang activity and a descent into poverty. If you were honest in your anger against being blamed, you would actually care about these things and prevent these things from happening. The anger, however, is purely self centred. It is completely about not wanting to take responsibility for what you have done.

The other issue is responsibility: “my body my choice” is rhetoric feminists do not realize cuts both ways. Women have taken the entirety of procreation onto themselves. Apparently the children they conceive are their bodies. And men have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Men have been almost entirely shut out of procreation – except when a cheque is needed. He has no say on whether his child lives or dies at the hands of his or her mother. As women have taken the rights of children and made it about their bodies, and made it about whether they get to kill or not, and made it entirely their own decision: yes you get the blame. You get all the “choices”. You get all the blame for them, too.

8. Female disadvantage is being told she’s less than a man. Female disadvantage is being seen as weaker than a man intellectually and that she’ll never be half as capable as a man.

Weren’t you the one complaining that chivalry was dead? Why should men do anything for women if women are just different looking men who are completely identical in every other way? To be fair, I don’t know of any situation in civilized society where women are told they are less than men. In today’s society, it’s the opposite and male bashing is celebrated, but women are protected by laws. As for intellect, aren’t women bragging about how they multitask better than men and are intuitive and have “women’s intuition”? Why is it okay for these things to be true, if they are, and for women to celebrate it? Aren’t you oppressing men and pointing out their disadvantages compared to women?

Men on average are 5 IQ points higher than equivalent women. Men have more geniuses. Men also have far more autistics and retards. Women tend more towards averages. We have fewer high achievers but we also have far fewer failures. Men and women have brains that function differently and for different reasons. Why this is so wrong, I will never figure out.

Half as capable in what way? This is rhetoric and not an actual point. Half as physically capable? Weren’t you the one crying about being afraid of rape? In one point you complain about being weaker (or else rape wouldn’t be such a threat) because you’re a woman and the danger it puts you in; and in another you complain that people think men and women aren’t identical?  

Half as mentally capable? If we go by the past 100 years, then it’s true, sweetheart. Women fought for the right to vote and instead of a beautiful utopia, we got: mini skirts, slut walks, women bleating for the right to go topless in public, abortion on demand up until being in active labour, astronomical taxation mostly for woman-based services (in Ontario about 75% of our money ends up funnelled into taxes), rampant pornography, garbage art and architecture, a nanny state in which thoughts and men are criminals, the criminalizing of established differences between men and women, etc. How many women willingly take courses outside of women’s studies, humanities, or child care? Very few. This is not to say all women behave this way or that some were not great achievers; but that I have to disclaimer this shows how next to no women make the list.

Evil men gave us nearly everything we have. From art and architecture on the grandest scales, to music and beautiful fashions, language and literature.  The washing machine, vacuum and the dishwasher were invented by evil men so their wives could have even more free time, while their husbands continued to work like dogs with no change to their lives.

In sports, professional women’s leagues often lose to high school and college boys. Just saying.

9. Female disadvantage is BEING THE ONE WHO IS RAPED. Statistically, women are raped more so than men are (though this is not to discredit the men who are also victims.) Female disadvantage is being told rape is your fault because of how you dressed or acted.

I’m sorry, but in a binary system, there are only two options. Either you are complaining that not enough men are being raped, or women aren’t striving hard enough to be rapists, or … I have no idea what, to be honest. As I stated, humans are binary: if men were the ones mostly raped, they would likely be the weaker of the two. That would in fact make them women. We cannot escape the binary. Shockingly, however, most men are not rapists. Yes women are more likely than men to be raped: knowing this, instead of crying, be defensive.  

Women are also more likely to be defended by men and beat up more by other women. Men are more likely to die of violence than women are, to die from crime, from war and far more likely to die on the job than women. It seems a bit insane that women wail about being so disadvantaged at an astronomical chance of possibly being raped, when many men very realistically may not come home. I don’t hear them complain.

We lock our bikes up, we lock our cars, and we lock our homes. Not because it is our fault that something bad happens, but because we are taking precautions to stop bad people from doing bad things to us. The reality is, bad people will take advantage of easy targets: whether it’s an unlocked car or a half naked woman. Just because someone shouldn’t do something, absolutely does not mean they won’t. Expecting honour is expecting virtue and morals. Something women have brutally beaten and castigated out of society. If one is actually afraid of being molested and raped out in public, or dragged off, then why would they put themselves in situations that would allow for this? It’s the same as a mugging, or having your car jacked. None of these feminists would ever purposefully allow for those to happen. Yet when it comes to their own bodies, they don’t even care and make their bodies (their choice) suddenly everyone else’s responsibility.

10. Female disadvantage is society telling her it’s her duty to get married and have children while men are encouraged to “play the field” because being a bachelor is glorified and embraced.

Who are you marrying, out of curiosity? I think these feminists are mixing up “old fashioned” views with the modern era, to create controversy and make themselves professional victims. Women are, today, encouraged to wait as long as possible to marry (if they ever do) and to hold off kids. The priority is college, career, fight to the top, cheer that you’re a man when you hit the top, then cry that you’re forty and all the good men have already married and you can’t have kids anymore anyway because you wasted your fertile years being a slave to a corporation.

Once again, I’m sorry to break in with reality but a woman is best served marrying young and having children young. It is how our bodies work. Being young mothers has advantages: more energy to keep up with the kids and life, with the energy to still study if one wishes. Children aren’t in the house all the time either, so early marriage and children mean by age thirty one can find time to actually pursue studies and a career if one still wishes. Why not have a career when older? Why does it have to be only during ones fertile stage?  

Back to women marrying vs men “playing”. Again who are the women marrying, and then who are the men sleeping with if the women are waiting to be married? Women who do look for marriage are far less likely to be used, dumped and have a child out of wedlock. Pursuing relationships for the ends of marriage and family protects women from all those men “who don’t get the blame” (point 7). How can women complain about being saddled with blame and then complain about women avoiding that whole situation?

Being a bachelor is only glorified to a certain point. Like age twenty five. Men do start getting antsy, but as the women around them don’t want marriage, prefer careers, and are behaving like other men, what do you expect them to do? Men, more often than not, are looking for women who embrace marriage and children. Also, Ms feminist, do you actually want that bachelor lifestyle? Then don’t complain about chivalry being dead or being blamed for your own actions.

11. Female disadvantage is being abused by a husband and not having the physical strength to stop him unless she can work up the strength to contact the police. And still, in today’s society, there is a chance the police will not take her seriously because “she’s being an overdramatic woman trying to get revenge on her husband.”

I thought men and women were equal. Wasn’t “being seen as lesser and less capable” the disadvantage of point 8? Are you being seen as less capable, or as feminists point out here are you factually less capable? Yes abuse is awful, I’m not going to argue. Statistically men are abused twice as much as women are. Lesbians statistically have the highest abuse rates of all relationships. Gays are the next abusive. Wife on husband abuse is next and then dead last is husband on wife abuse. Not to downplay some horrid abuse cases, but honestly women, get your crap together. Some women live through absolute terror. These cases are rare.

In today’s society, it’s the exact opposite of the feminist claim. The police will even tell women to just say he hit her, so they can “legally” remove him. Women do make many false claims. Most are done for some sort of gain, certainly when it comes to divorce. Even when police arrive to find women wailing away on the husband, he is the one often taken away and charged. If a husband simply stops his wife from hitting him, “he grabbed her”, which is assault. When it comes to rape, a rape claim in Canada – this is just a woman saying she was raped, nothing else – is enough to put a man in jail until his court date. Men are automatically arrested and booked. There is no investigation before arrest, and they are lucky if there is ever one. I know personally of two cases of this, so I am absolutely not making it up.  

12. Female disadvantage is being seen in a negative light if you do not portray stereotypical female traits such as empathy.

This is completely subjective and opinion based. Women are seen negatively for being emotional. Women are seen negatively for not being emotional. No matter what, feminists will find something to complain about and be oppressed by. I can’t think of any case where this is true. I have never seen or heard of someone accosted for not emoting enough. Aren’t women usually whining that they are accused to being too emotional? Feminists can’t even get their rhetoric straight!

Feminist Denials of Reality 1/3

There was a link in Facebook, which was apparently anti feminist.  The article had been removed because it was “hateful and abusive” by the “community” on the site hosting said article.  By this, it likely meant that it hurt someone’s feelings, some people disagreed, others personally didn’t like it; and importantly it probably hit upon too much truth or issues of contention.

There is another article, which is a mirror opposite, and it is still up.  I began reading it and desperately wanted to share a grown up perspective of a woman who escaped fantasy land years ago and has been a grown up living in the real world for some time.  If you like face palming, here is the feminist link http://thoughtcatalog.com/isla-sofia/2014/04/18-reasons-why-the-concept-of-female-privilege-is-insane/

1. Female disadvantage is walking down the street at night, having to worry about being attacked or raped. Female disadvantage is having to carry mace everywhere you go, even though the chances of it actually protecting you are slim.

Is this really a disadvantage?  Does that mean a man’s capacity to rape is an advantage?  In my experience, men are vehemently – often violently – opposed to rape.  I know of a case (I was not involved, I only know of it second hand, which is hersay) where a cabbie ran over an attempted rapist so he couldn’t escape before the police arrived.  He did the right thing, but that could still being serious trouble on him.  Fathers and brothers go to the point of killing assailants.  That female “disadvantage” affects everyone and communities, which is part of why it’s a serious crime.  Serious crimes against humanity and the law are not “female disadvantages”.  Sorry sweetheart, but it is a fact that evil men prey on vulnerable women.  Not on night streets either; in daylight on trains and busses, online, luring through dating, and yes using women as bait to get rape victims.  I suppose if the OP wasn’t so liberal, they would live where they can carry a gun.  If they are truly worried about this as an active danger they would carry a weapon regardless.

2. Female disadvantage is being approached by men who think they have a right to your body. And when you turns said man down, you are called a bitch, or a prude, or stuck up, or whore — or even all of those and more. Female disadvantage is being told you should be thankful a man even looked your way.

I’m going to take a shot in the dark (brightly lit room with a flashing bullseye) and guess this approaching happens when one is “looking their best” and the one who approaches isn’t appealing.  If the men were models or movie stars, these girls would happily let them have a right to their bodies.  They only get angry when the men don’t live up to their expectations.  Men are usually afraid of approaching women and the only time I’ve seen this happen or be spoken of as an issue, is when the guys “weren’t hot”.  When you are putting yourself out there you should be happy men took notice, as that was the whole ego-inflating, self satisfying, point.  The only “female disadvantage” here is the men didn’t live up to fantasy.  The men who hit on you weren’t the specific ones you wanted, ergo men think they have a right to you”.  (The insults usually come for luring men on, or actually being those things, or dealing with immature college boys.  Honestly, if you were really big strong, able women who were at least equal to men, why are you so wounded?  Why aren’t you just rolling your eyes and walking away?)

3. Female disadvantage is being taken advantage of when you’re drunk and being told it’s your own fault for drinking and putting yourself in that situation.

Did someone force you to get drunk?  It actually is your own fault for getting that drunk.  You aren’t claiming drugging, just that you were an idiot while drunk.  For all you know, the guy is as disgusted by you are you are by him.  Men own up to their stupid drunk “decisions”.  Women cry that it’s a crime.  Not very empowering.  You made a choice, while wasted.  Just because you regret it later, or wouldn’t have made that decision while sober, doesn’t mean you were taken advantage of.  You still made your choice.  Men get taken advantage of, too.  You obviously know getting drunk and having random sex with guys is a problem, yet you whine that you have to take responsibility for your actions (like a big girl).  You even know far ahead of time that it’s a possible problem, yet here is the OP crying about being forced to own up to her mistakes – before even making them.  Maybe one should make different choices?  You already know this choice gets you in trouble.  Goodness you’re a dumb child.

4. Female disadvantage is turning on the TV and seeing beautiful women portrayed as air-headed, vain, stupid, and sexually promiscuous while women that are in position of power are seen as pushy, bossy, less desirable, and often less attractive.

Tell me about all those amazing husbands and fathers one sees on TV?  Oh wait, they’re all fat idiots who need their wives to explain life to them and why they can’t always do stupid things without dying.  They usually make lousy fathers too, and their kids run roughshod over them, or are partners in crime in immature escapades.  The other option is the smart kids and smart wife have to teach “dad” together.  Or a la Disney, the amazing children have to teach both parents but mostly idiot dad, about the facts of life and how everything the kid wants is right and how unreasonable and oppressive the parents are.

I do have to say most shaming of beautiful women, I see from feminists.  (The most whoring, or desire to sleep around, is also from feminists: so why the complaint on that one?). The television is about the worst litmus test of actual living men and women.  Also, feminism promoted the whole idea of that vapid, free loving silly girl who is just too cute and innocent and does whatever she pleases.  Welcome to your own ideology biting you in the butt.  The female boss thing isn’t usually true, in most shows and movies the boss or leader or great hero soldier is a woman.  In some shows, yes, they stereotype a very real thing.  I’ve had male and female bosses.  Female bosses usually fall into the bossy angry sometimes unattractive (more so by nasty behaviour) category.  Real life experience.

5. Female disadvantage is the fact that chivalry and morality are dying to the point where men argue about having to put those less able to protect themselves first.

Are you kidding?  Seriously this is a disadvantage?  Women killed chivalry, feminism destroys any man who tries – just look at what women say about men who open doors or pay for dinner.  Or what they do to them.  The problem with chivalry is that it requires ladies for men to be chivalrous towards. Chivalry takes into account the inherent inequalities of men and women.  Chivalry relies on women being women, and men being men.  Everything in this article is complaining about women being women, and sometimes women being forced to be basic humans with normal human considerations, so it’s no wonder chivalry is dead.

The moral part sort of sickens me.  Morality is oppression according to feminism.  In one point we have women screaming about being taken advantage of while they behave like men and demand equality, in the next we have women demanding morality which is again based on the inherent differences between men and women and our different roles in life.  Morality also often requires the submission of ourselves and desires to a greater good.  Morality often requires sacrifice, and while women refuse to participate, they expect men to, for the sake of women.  While giving nothing back in return. Women desire morality from men yet desire immorality for themselves.  Yes they want to sleep around and have men hitting on them (if they are attractive enough) but they don’t want the men to be using them for sex.  This is the logic of feminism.

6. Female disadvantage is being told a woman shouldn’t be allowed to get an abortion, that she’s not a true member of the church if she’s taking birth control, and having old men who cannot and have never had to worry about getting pregnant fight over her reproductive rights. Female disadvantage is a man refusing to support his own child, leaving her to raise it on her own.

She shouldn’t be (allowed to kill babies).  And she isn’t (part of the church if she disobeys God – birth control is a huge sin: Onan was struck dead for it in the Bible).  Over half of females are pro life, and the vast majority (surprising number so) of young women, and even pre teen girls, are against abortion.  It’s mostly men who are for abortion.  They get all the sex they want, don’t even need to be responsible, and they can just rely on the women to kill his offspring.  He gets all the wins, while she gets all the risks, including fistulas, infertility and death.  The baby always loses.  I will add that those “evil old men” are the ones taking responsibility for their actions and will be the ones expecting to have to raise the offspring they produced and pay for them, and you.  Also, what about male reproductive rights?  Are men not involved too?  Do women simply asexually spawn children within their wombs?  Why is it only women who have reproductive rights (euphemism as we aren’t talking about the right to reproduce, but to stop reproduction or to kill the products of reproducing)?  Do men reproduce or not, and could it be they are trying to save their own reproductive rights?  Perhaps they are trying to save their sons and daughters from horrific deaths at the hands of the children’s mothers?

Why do women always want it both ways?  Here is my problem with this whole idea of child support. Is a man responsible or not? If a man is responsible for paying for his offspring, and helping the woman, than he has a say over his offspring. If it is a woman’s body, a man owns a woman nothing for her autonomy over her own body and her own choices. No man should have to pay women for their bodies and their choices. If aborting a child is a woman’s choice because it is her body, then having the baby is also her choice and her body. There is no male involvement here. Only when we admit that babies are also a man’s, that a baby is not a woman’s body, and that it is not a woman’s choice but a human being who is as much its father as its mother, can we talk about child support.


There’s 12 more points of selfish inanity to come!

Does Latent Amorality Matter?

When someone writes a moral treatise for the instruction and edification of the world, and they make it the length of a hefty novel for people with bare attention spans for tweets, does that person actually want it read?  The minimum length of a novel is typically 40,000 words; Amoris Laetitia, a work supposedly written for Catholics, is over 57,000.  Even with how meanderingly verbose it is, many people have managed to decipher and analyze its contents.  The vital parts were picked apart and exposed, leading to desperate excuses to cover the many problems.

One thing I noticed was “amoral” had been spelt incorrectly.  The entire work has a humanistic obsession with “love”.  It exploits the word family, utilizing it as a self-identifying term, so that anyone can consider themselves in a family.  Everyone, now, has the rights and privileges of a familial unit and should (must) be treated as such: no matter how “irregular” their situation.

Holy Mother Church used to call things “mortal sin”.  The New Evangelization Revival Church of Mercy now calls it “irregularity”, and it does not prevent one from being a “living member”.  In the Holy Catholic faith, being a living member of the church is not one who is breathing, but one who is living in a state of grace.  There is no mortal sin tainting their souls.  In the New Evangelization Revival Church of Mercy, being a living member of the church means you have a pulse, self-identify as Catholic, and consider going to church services as “a general good”.

We were originally informed at the beginning of the Synod that the Synod itself was not binding.  It would be the exhortation at the end, which would be the final binding word.  Now that it has crash landed and left a gaping, smouldering ruin of the magisterium, canon law and scripture, there is much back peddling.  The claim is that the document is not binding, but simply an opinion, made by the head of the Church, on what he wants to see in his church.  This itself makes it binding.  While it is true it is not “infallible”, church teaching and law is explicitly clear, that when the Pope instructs and teaches the entire church, such as in an exhortation, it is binding on the faithful.  The laity do not get to pick and choose what they believe and do not believe, what laws are right and what laws are wrong; this is Protestant.  If the Pope commands, teaches, instructs, even “suggests”, and does so publicly to the Church-At-Large, then it is binding and obligatory for the masses to obey.  To disobey a proclamation to the entire church, is schism.

Before the whining misquotes begin: a private command to sin from a Pope is not a public declaration to the masses.  Remember, all prelates no matter their rank, are supposed to go to confession.  No man is above sin.  Even cloistered nuns have confession, some of them daily.  A Pope can be a horrible man and love sin and even want others to join him.  Refusing such commands or requests is to refuse a sinner and to deny sin; this is good.  No Pope, however, can command the entire Church to sin.  Further and as distasteful as it is, a Pope can, privately, hold heresy in his heart.  No Pope, however, can declare heresy to the worlds’ faithful.

This is why Amoris Laetitia does not matter.  Latent Amorality does not matter.  This document serves what people want.  It serves the new mammon, gratuitous fornication and sacrifice to Moloch.  People know what the Church teaches, they simply do not care.  They know this contradicts not just Church teaching, but Christ himself.  No one actually wants to follow what the Church says, what God Himself taught us: they want edification and validation, no matter how false and transparent and artificial it is, to excuse their adultery, contraception and abortion, fornication and sodomy.

To even begin to take the time to analyze this massive, mind numbing document, would require that the New Evangelization Revival Church of Mercy cares about Christ, His Church, the teachings of said Church and the acknowledgement that objective truth and sins exist.  Otherwise all analyzing does, besides waste time, is to confirm what the New Evangelization Revival Church of Mercy actually wants, accepts and is actively pushing.  There are no mistakes in this document, it says exactly what they want it to say.

Paragraph 27

In the previous post, the insanity stemming from the first few sentences has been covered.  The rest of it still needs to be dealt with.  It contains dangerous precedents and social ideas, making inroads to possible massive changes in the future.  Through wiggle words, appealing to emotions and using verbose verbiage with little substance, a pathway to many later errors is paved.  All that is to be done now, is figure out what this handbasket by the path is.

 It remains true, however, that the status of women in the world is subject to large differences arising primarily from socio-cultural factors. The dignity of women needs to be defended and promoted. It is not simply a problem of resources, but of a different cultural perspective, as highlighted by the plight of women in many emerging countries. In many contexts, still, being a woman provokes discrimination: The gift of motherhood is penalized rather than valued. On the other hand, a woman’s sterility, in some cultures, is a condition that leads to social discrimination.

I’m sorry, I thought we were the Catholic Church, not Amnesty International?  While we should be concerned with the plight of others, since when has the church convened a council to deal with “socio-cultural” factors?  Doctrine is what is to be dealt with, the supernatural, the deposit of faith, the laws that govern the church.  Not pseudo-charitable nonsense catchphrases.  With that aside, we shall move on.

Yes the status of women globally differs from culture to culture.  Usually the more negative status applies in non Christian nations.  This does concern the church, in that these nations are not converted to Catholicism.  Upon conversion, the status of women would be greatly lifted.  Our greatest saint is a woman, the Mother of God, the Theotokos herself.  It was a woman God raised up to perfection, to bring Him into the world.  There is nothing worthier for any human to achieve.  How great to bring women into the true faith, where they have spiritual protections and legal rights.  How glorious to deliver men unto Christ, so they may learn to imitate Him, and be to their wives as Christ is to the Church.  By baptizing, purifying and educating the men, we have already done much for the plight of women.

What this document says, however, is that the differences between men and women are social and cultural.  There is absolutely no reference to Christ or the Church.  The separation between the two sexes relies solely on “socio-cultural” forces.  Some societies and cultures harm women, some do not.  No explanation is given, simply stating the fact that yes, there are global problems.  It is inferenced that this primary issue is in itself the problem.  There is no word on how these cultural social problems came to be, or the power structures that keep them in place.  This is establishing a precedent; that it is generally the consensus of the people that shape how, where and what women do and how women are viewed.  With no context, these statements can be applied to any situation in which ideas about women are shifting, or felt to be “old fashioned” or “oppressive”.  Ergo female altar boys.  The case of boys serving the altar is a “social and cultural” paradigm.  While this statement ostensibly does not have anything to do with any such idea, it is open enough for a lawyer to step in and say “hey, we have social and cultural customs ‘keeping women down’ too.”   This is how radical changes start.  It is setting up the framework for future change.

This ties into the inherent dignity of women.  Never mind that we are all as worthless dust, and we are sinners, nothing but worms before the majesty of God.  We have dignity, by being born in sin, living in sin, and being concerned solely with the material world.  The dignity of women is at risk, here; the answer has of late been to put them into every job and category of men.  Everything men do, preserve female dignity by including them.  Once more: ergo female altar boys.

Marian Errors

In section 27 of the Synod Against the Family (h/t Ann Barnhardt for coining that), almost immediately there is near blasphemy.  “Near”, simply because we are so far from basic catechesis that people are not aghast at reading it.  Without the comprehension of a problem, we further remove ourselves from it.  There was a time when such statements would have Saints clamouring to defend the honour of the Mother of God, while demanding correction for obvious mistakes.  In ages past people knew and loved their Mother.  Would they have allowed such a statement?  Would they have noticed it?  Has anyone else?  So far I have seen nothing on this.  A layman with these ideas would have be corrected.  How much worse from men professing to hold the faith?  The  very ones teaching, protecting and promulgating it need stern condemnation.  They should be the ones that know better.

The mother guards the memory and the feelings of birth for a lifetime: “But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Lk 2,19.51).

There are errors here.  The most basic scriptural error is having the verse refer to memories, and specifically to birthing Christ.  Mary is absolutely not reflecting on birthing Christ and holding it in her heart, going over and over it again silently.  The second verse here should not be included: this verse is not just out of context within the Nativity scene, but entirely out of context biblically.  We will begin with the context of Luke 2:51.

[41] And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch, [42] And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, [43] And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. [44] And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’ s journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. [45] And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. [47] And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. [48] And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. [49] And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father’ s business? [50] And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them [51] And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. [52] And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men.

This scene is no where near the Nativity.  Christ is twelve years old.  His birth is not involved in what she is thinking about or pondering or feeling.  In fact the surrounding context makes it clear she is specifically meditating silently and obediently, contemplating what Christ said to her.  When Mary kept all the words of Christ in her heart when he was twelve, it is specifically the words Christ spoke, at that time.  The same phrase is used in 2:19.  This does not mean it is the same object of wonderment or focus.

[16] And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. [17] And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child. [18] And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds. [19] But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. [20] And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Here, Mary is being spoken to by those who are glorying the newborn Christ, and everything that had been said (just previously an Angel had spoken with the shepherds) about Him.  She is absorbing what they are saying, holding the words close to her.  She mulled over them, reflected interiorly on the proclamations.  In silence and obedience, she accepts and considers all that was.  There was no speaking out, questioning, or refutations.  It was simple, quiet, graceful compliance with God’s will.  Absolutely no where does this directly or indirectly refer to her thinking, or stewing upon, Christ’s birth.  There is not even an abstract hint of such a thing.  To make any of this work, the Synod writers had to change “words” to “things”, and even within context “things” still reads as “what Mary is being told”.  It is not a difference between scripture versions either.  It is quite clear in differing translations that thinking about Christ’s birth was not the focus of Mary’s ponderings; not in the Nativity, not in the Temple when he was twelve.

That alone should be enough for a humble, shamefaced retraction by those in the Vatican.  Apparently learned men do not know the difference between listening to words about a child, listening to words from a child (over a decade apart), and giving birth.  Is it possible men who claim to be theologians, educators, leaders, lawyers, could not comprehend the difference?  Was this a purposeful pass under the radar in hopes that people would absorb without consideration?  This is a dangerous line of reasoning, as if it is so, the purpose would be to diminish Mary within the Church.  As her seed will crush the head of the serpent, disparaging Mary can only help the devil.

By using verses out of context, the document gives the impression that Mary experienced childbirth as any woman would.  That she is no different from the fallen daughters of Eve.  This is a sneaky downplaying of Mary to that of common woman, on par with the rest of us.  Experiencing life, feelings and thoughts, on par with the sinners.  Mary is full of grace, she did not experience birth the way the rest of us do.  The inference attempted here is to put Mary on equal footing with the rest of womankind.  “The mother guards memory and feeling”.  She is a generic representation of all women, all memories of birth, all feeling.  We are actually, really, just like her.  

This is the blasphemy.  Equating all mothers, and the experience of Motherhood, with Maryhood.  Using out-of-context quotes about Mary to defend their statement about mothers in general.  As doctrine stands, Mary birthed Christ as women were supposed to before the fall:

Genesis 3:[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children

After the fall, God tells Eve that becoming a mother will be sorrowful, painful, a trial.  Before the fall it is accepted that this was not the case.  Mary was without the stain of original sin, therefore she was free of the punishments of Eve.  Mary did not experience giving birth as the rest of us, and likely had nothing to think about in relation to it.  While women do go over labour hours, how much pushing, the pain, the methods, in the end it is all about the baby and the rest is unimportant.  What did Mary have to consider in her labour?  It would have been nothing, she would have been entirely focused on the Christ-child.  Not a non-event of the non-struggles of birth.

This is a lowering of Mary, to remove the supernatural from the faith.  It is the next move in the “the multiplication of loaves was really a story about sharing”.  Mary didn’t “really” have a supernatural birthing of Christ, as spoken of by God in Genesis.  She gave birth just as every other woman does.  And this is blasphemy.

Sin-od Over

The focus of this drama, has been marriage.  Apparently this entire event is on “The Family”, and ways we can change “The Family”.  The appearance of it has been on how to accept everything in the secular world.  The secular world opposes Christ, scripture and His doctrines through Holy Mother Church.  In reality, “The Synod on the Family” would be more accurately rendered “The Synod on Everything Except The Family”.  We have the full spectrum of input from special interest groups, Catholics, atheists, the media, cardinals; they all desire a discussion on gay “marital” union, and divorce.  The very fact we can even have an evident discussion by prelates purportedly representing God Himself proves the failure of the Modernist Church.  No synod was needed, no discussion giving legitimacy to even the bare idea of such heresies and vulgarities. 

On the indissolubility of marriage: Mark 10:8-12, Matthew 19:9, Luke 16:18 (all variances on the same verse), 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11.  [I will add all verses presume the natural law of man and woman marrying, as the purpose is of a sexual nature, thus for the production of offspring; further, Genesis 1:28, 3:16 (the last here is a “proofs in the pudding”, kind of proof).]

If the Church truly cared about her sheep and was a loving Shepherd, that is all we would have needed.  No contrivances, no mental games.  Instead we are handed two years of garbled doublespeak, permission of sin in the disguise of “mercy” (ignoring Catholic teaching: true mercy is to prevent, or the aid in turning way from, sin), and all sides at the end declaring victory over a muddy, bloody, ruined battlefield where each side has salted the earth.  Everyone with a keyboard has said something, every blog and writer (I hesitate to utilize the word journalist) has already commented on all these events.  Some have the documents up in English already.

The one no one has spoken of, except in passing in a “women priests” moment before being dropped, is the section on “Women”.  Here is the pertinent translation:

27. The woman has a crucial role in the life of the person, the family and society. “Each human person owes his or her life to a mother, and almost always owes her much of his or her very existence, and his or her human and spiritual formation,” (Francis, General Audience, January 7, 2015). The mother guards the memory and the feelings of birth for a lifetime: “But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Lk 2,19.51). It remains true, however, that the status of women in the world is subject to large differences arising primarily from socio-cultural factors. The dignity of women needs to be defended and promoted. It is not simply a problem of resources, but of a different cultural perspective, as highlighted by the plight of women in many emerging countries. In many contexts, still, being a woman provokes discrimination: The gift of motherhood is penalized rather than valued. On the other hand, a woman’s sterility, in some cultures, is a condition that leads to social discrimination.  We shouldn’t forget the growing phenomena of violence in which women are victims within the family. The exploitation of women and violence to their bodies are often linked to abortion and forced sterilization. Added to this is the negative consequences of practices related to procreation, such as surrogacy, or the commercialization of gametes and embryos. The emancipation of women requires a rethinking of the tasks of spouses in their reciprocity and a shared responsibility in family life. The desire for a child at any cost has not resulted in happier or stronger family relations, but in many cases has actually exacerbated the inequality between women and men. A greater appreciation of their responsibilities within the Church can contribute to the social recognition of the role of women: their involvement in decision-making, their participation in the government of some institutions, and their involvement in the formation of ordained ministers.

Section 27 was adopted by a vote of 251 to 9.

This is likely the most important part of the entire Synod.  Without this, and the gradual climb towards this, no other part of the Synod would even be possible.  It will be the most ignored and under rated part of the document.  It will go with a few snide remarks, or praise, depending on how much you love or hate the Faith, respectively.  However, this is why we are in this situation.  The destruction of the family, the allowance of any form of genital union being deemed “marriage”, to the point where the Catholic Church ostensibly had to give it enough credibility to discuss whether it is a sacramental marriage or not, the very idea of divorce whatsoever, the ease of annulments, the allowance of mortal sinners to communion: it all starts here.  The entire failure of society begins with our trashing and denigrating of women.

I will be dissecting this paragraph.  It shocks me that a base female layperson can see the glaring scriptural theological error within the first few lines, and yet it is delivered by men who are supposed to be learned in the Faith.  For shame.