http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/year-of-condemnation-08.htm

YEAR OF CONDEMNATION
08: What Would our Lord Jesus REALLY Do?

As the Novus Ordo Sect’s bogus Year of Mercy continues, so does our truly Catholic counterpart, the Year of Exclusion, Judgment, and Condemnation, where we zero in on various truths of the holy Catholic Faith that are considered by our sorry society as extremely judgmental, exclusionary, negative, hateful, bigoted, intolerant, condemnatory, unwelcoming, dogmatic, narrow-minded, and everything else that isn’t politically correct.

Today we reprint, with the kind permission of the author, a recent post from the Introibo Ad Altare Dei blog, focusing on what has been called the other side of Christ:

“WDTCAT?”

A popular sign among Protestants (as well as some members of the Vatican II sect) is the symbol "WWJD?" Present on Jєωelry, t-shirts, and bumper stickers, the letters stand for "What Would Jesus Do?" It sounds nice, but it's actually more Protestant private interpretation. Just as they interpret the Bible apart from the Teaching Authority of Christ's One True Church, they ask you to attempt and "read God's Mind." But God's ways are not like our ways, so who's to say what Christ would do in any given situation? Even some Traditionalists are guilty of this kind of subjectivism, when I hear them say things like, "Can you imagine Pope St. Pius X making changes in the rubrics like Pope Pius XII?" I can't read the minds of prior popes, and weren't each of them equally protected by the Holy Ghost as the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

I bring this up because last week during a conversation covering many topics, someone I know told me, "Jesus never condemned ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs." I asked him how he knew this, and he told me (I kid you not) he learned it  from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whom he described as a "theologian" who knew the Bible well. My friend, a member of the Vatican II sect, was seeking guidance from his personal knowledge of the Bible and the so-called "expertise" of  a president turned preacher. Not condemning sodomy and approving the sodomite lifestyle is allegedly an example of "doing what Jesus would do." When you turn to private interpretations, public mistakes are sure to follow. Without an infallible guide, your personal likes and dislikes are attributed to Christ; He becomes like you, rather than vice-versa as the "WWJD" would lead you to believe.

As a result, the "Jesus" many follow is One Whom:

    will allow everyone to go to Heaven because He “loves you just the way you are” (no apologies to anti-Catholic bigot Billy Joel)
    thinks of peace and not divisiveness
    doesn't require obedience
    requires a "holiness" that means being "nice"
    only teaches "love" including love of the acts committed by sinners
    will never say anything to offend anyone for any reason
    will never tell anyone they are evil for their deeds
    will never require penance
    calls everyone (even those who don't believe in Him) "His children"
    will never allow anyone to go to Hell
    wants you to do whatever makes you happy
    never requires self-sacrifice
    wants everyone to live in luxury
    transforms the Commandments into suggestions


This is an evil caricature of Jesus Christ. They (wittingly or not) have Satan as their guide. As to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, my friend told me that Jesus never mentions ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and it is discussed in the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus) but is "misinterpreted." Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for not being hospitable, not for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.  Rather than discuss the sorry sect that is the "church of Begoglio," I decided to show how badly informed Mr. Carter was on the issue.

Sodom and Gomorrah Were Condemned for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity

The story of Sodom, told in Genesis 19, explains how Lot (Abraham's nephew) was met by two strangers at the gate of the city. These men were actually angels in disguise. Lot brings them to his house and, after a meal but before going to bed, the men of Sodom (young and old) surround the house and demand to have sex with them. Lot refuses to allow the gang rape of his guests and (tragically) offers them his virgin daughters instead. The men of Sodom are not interested in the women, only wanting sex with the men. The mob is about to break down the door of the house, when the "men" reveal themselves and save Lot by striking the mob with blindness. Revisionists tell us this is a case of attempted gang rape and  being "inhospitable" to guests, it is not "loving and consensual relations" that God would not condemn.

That Sodom was condemned for unnatural vice (later to be named after the city itself--"sodomy") is made clear by the New Testament, specifically, the epistle of St. Jude 1: 7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sɛҳuąƖ immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Emphasis mine). Doesn't leave much room for declaring "the sin of Sodom" as being a lack of hospitality.

Jesus Christ refers to Sodom in the Gospel no less than Four Times

Each time Our Lord refers to that immoral city, He refers to its sinfulness and agrees that it stands condemned:

    St. Matthew 10:15, "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Clearly implying that on Judgement Day, Sodom and Gomorrah will stand condemned)
    St. Matthew 11:23-24, "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
    St. Luke 10:12, "I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day."
    St. Luke 17:30, "But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from Heaven and destroyed them all."


The Inescapable Logic

First, Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "sɛҳuąƖ immorality and perversion." (St. Jude 1:7)

Second, this perversion is ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, because Genesis 19 clearly states it was men wanting sex with two angels who appeared as men, and they had no (sɛҳuąƖ) use for women.

Third, Our Lord Jesus Christ is recorded referring to Sodom no less than four (4) times, and each time He agrees the city stands condemned for this sin ("sodomy") and calls Sodom "wicked."

Therefore, Jesus Christ condemned ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. True, He never uses the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity," but He never specifically condemned "rape" by name, so are we thereby to blasphemously assume He didn't condemn it? Jimmy Carter's theology is no better than his politics. Unfortunately, this did not register with my friend because "it's just your interpretation," there are other scholars who disagree with "my" interpretation, and doesn't Frankie say, "Who am I to judge"? It was getting late, I had to go and wished my friend well.

However, this encounter serves to illustrate the problem with the Vatican II sect, Protestants, and the "recognize and resist” (R&R) pseudo-Traditionalists of the SSPX and Salza/Siscoe. They don't accept an unchanging, infallible Magisterium (Teaching Authority). Protestants privately interpret the Bible to their liking, as does the Modernist Vatican and the R&R with both the Scripture and past Church teaching. If they really want to know "What Would Jesus Do?" the correct question to ask is "What Does The Church Actually Teach?"

(Source: “WDTCAT?”, Introibo Ad Altare Dei, Apr. 25, 2016; bold, italic, and underscore formatting in original.)