Cursing the Enemies of God and His Holy Church

by callthepatriot

Cursing the Enemies of God and His Holy Church: Such Malediction Used to be Admired

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni


Although it may seem like some nostalgia for the days, long ago now, of militant Catholicism or the Church Militant notion, however, if there is any hope for building a future new Christendom, then truth must be told and defended, persuasively argued and convincingly affirmed.

What’s needed, more than ever today, is to loudly and confidently curse the effeminate and degenerate kumbaya spirit of and provoked by the Second Vatican Council and, instead, proclaim quite fearlessly and manfully the true righteousness of the Lord God Almighty.

Why is this not critically understood, as requisite to the tasks of a Christian life?   Catholic virility, Catholic action, is importantly needed now, not obnoxious vague protestations of the need to just ever meekly, so docilely, submit to every or any imaginable injustice committed directly against Christ and His Holy Church.   Where are Christian soldiers ready to battle for the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Faith?

Imprecation and deprecation should be called upon, when and where held both morally and spiritually appropriate, for obtaining the correct invoking of the manifest justice of truth; for the many known lies of modernity and postmodernity, whether, as examples, transsexuality, multiculturalism, diversity, or otherwise, are to be strongly and unequivocally condemned by all the faithful, day in and day out.

Catholic truth matters, not the odd fear that, well, somebody somewhere or somehow may get possibly offended by such overt veracity: For the truth, as is explicitly known from Holy Writ, can set people free.  The perpetuation and guarding of lies wrongly imprison people because of an evil desire to so conform worldly, for always reprehensible PC reasons, as if such secular “sins” are considered, by God, to have real meaning for Christians.

Only disgusting heretics, such as, e. g., Pope Francis, actually want the faithful to be fearful, e. g., of not carpooling or possibly offending Gaia by not being supposedly ecologically or, perhaps, environmentally friendly or conscious.  On the contrary, it must be here forcefully asseverated, therefore, that what is now absolutely needed, rather, is to have a good and solid Catholic consciousness.

The faithful are to be completely loyal to Christ, not this world.  Could that obvious fact be more plain, even to those who may be blind?   Let it be ever forthrightly proclaimed: Be not afraid!

Spiritual Armament: Proclaim the Great Righteousness of the Lord

Imprecatory, to invoke or call down an evil upon a person or people, and deprecatory, expressing open disapproval or negative feelings against a person or people, are not words heard very often by Christians these days; and, certainly, not heard among Roman Catholics, especially since the end of the vile Second Vatican Council, when everything now is to be then supposedly spiritually governed by just sweetness and light, mere goodness and truth.

The so-called preconciliar Church, in a notably direct difference, was neither reluctant nor embarrassed, meaning neither excessively unwilling nor ashamed, to issue any appropriate anathemas, curses, or excommunications, whenever thought needed. The theological logic should be clear.  Thus, one could, e. g., relatedly cite St. Louis Grignion de Montfort.1

In sharp contrast today, kumbaya is now the ever absurdly “loving,” mindless password for all the modernist Christian or neo-Catholic world, where no one is really an enemy either of God or the Church, or, at least, that’s the typical, droll argumentative supposition to be just languidly acted upon these days.  It is a lie.  Ignorance supports this lie sustained by what has been called the neo-orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council that covertly glorifies relativism and subjectivism by citing the higher Spirit of Vatican II.

However, the Bible, in marked contrast, is literally filled with many maledictions, prayed by saints and usually answered quickly by God, against the extremely impenitent enemies of Godliness, righteousness, or even human liberty.  People, in the morally degenerate and decrepit contemporary world, especially Christians, have largely now forgotten that they are to be the willing servants and defenders of the great Supreme Being of absolute righteousness.

It went well, of course, with the crusading spirit and chivalry, unlike today, so unctuously filled with both just too many weak-wristed beta and metrosexual males, so terribly “good,” as the true old Italian expression has it, as to be just good for nothing.

Is there any clear citable evidence, researchable proof, of the truth for these assertions that sound so extremely harsh and alien to modern ears?   Are, for instance, many Muslims who, as is well known, do seek to actively massacre or brutalize Christians to be hotly reprimanded, sternly reproached, in this rather extremely tough manner?

One could here cite the psalmist who pronounces a curse over the enemies of God and God’s people, as when King David imploringly prays, “May no one be left to show him kindness, may no one look after his orphans, may his family die out, its name disappear in one generation.”  It is, one suspects, very hard to imagine almost all Catholic priests or bishops, nowadays, using such needed language against Moslems.

Nonetheless, such very obvious imprecations, execrations or stern abominations, were still traditionally regarded as being true expressions of religiously-minded people and, moreover, surely composed under divine inspiration.  This should be carefully and cogently kept in mind by good Catholics.

They also were, in context, not simply the mere words of the human speaker, as to asking the Lord to righteously punish evildoers, but in clearly prophetic terms, had then predicted the so severe divine intention concerned, meaning that God would, in fact, chastise those who deliberately attacked His will.

What was said must be thought of as theologically valid in that the Bible, as it is, in truth, supposed to be for all Catholics and Christians, and, thus, remains the forever inerrant word of God.  Occurrences were recorded in Holy Scripture for an important divine purpose, not just for simple theological edification alone.

The Divine Will of God is, without a rational doubt, both forever and unquestionably holy, not any or all human sensibilities or feelings put together or, for that matter, separately considered.  For as no less a proper authority on Catholic theology than St. Thomas Aquinas correctly wrote, the Lord owes human beings nothing, not even justice.  Humanity, however, forever owes everything to the Almighty God without exception or qualification, which should then here put such matters into their accurate important perspective and truthful focus.  God is the measure if all things, as even Plato knew, not man.

Such a point ought to be forever retained clearly in mind by those who, wrongly, think that Christianity and (morally righteous) cursing, maledictions, are to be just kept always far worlds apart.   This is not at all true, and Holy Scripture, furthermore, testifies quite splendidly to the significant untruth manifestly involved.  It knowingly needs, therefore, to be properly said that righteous cursing, directed against all the evil opponents of God, serves, in fact, the Divine Will.  And, this is the truth as will be here below shown.

Some examples, among many, of imprecatory prayer in the Old Testament would, therefore, so surely include: Psalm 55:15; Psalm 58:6 ; Psalm 69:28 ; Psalm 109:9 ; and Psalm 137:9.   The Holy Scriptures do affirm the truth of what is said.  Just a few examples, again, among many, in the New Testament could be here rendered: Matthew 23:13; Matthew 26:23-24; 1 Corinthians 16:22; and Galatians 1:8-9.

In the Acts of the Apostles, one clearly reads that Ananias and Saphira were struck dead, at St. Peter’s feet, after he had put a curse upon both of them for lying to God, for fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  Not a sickly modernist “belief” in kumbaya meditations or recitations thereof.

And yes, that was certainly some very serious cursing to have such extremely fatal results to those made the objects of the curse of the first Pope.   Since it is rather doubtful, furthermore, that either Ananias or Saphira had time enough to actually repent, they are both burning in the eternal fires of Hell for having committed mortal sin.  One instructively sees, moreover, that such rather proper Christian cursing is not at all immoral but, in point of fact, can be most spiritually and morally necessary.  St. Peter himself, of course, thought so.

These incidents, involving Ananias and Saphira, should be both appositely and correctly noted for doing a much better elucidation of what had happened and why.  The true chief Apostle of Christ, the Fisherman, did not act in a typical or, perhaps, stereotypical modern manner having reference to any subjectivism or situation ethics.  He did not expatiate philosophically about them by supposedly citing a diverse array of existential, phenomenological or, for that matter, vague gestalt reasons why they could or might be forgiven, meaning somehow or other.

He, in effect, did not “turn the other cheek” toward them, nor say just ho-hum or ask them politely and timorously to please stop, if at all possible, being so unpleasant or nasty in their evil thoughts or deeds. Such absurd kinds of consideration would never have occurred to any normal preconciliar Church priest, much less the true Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let it, thus, clearly be known that having the Power of the Keys, Pope Peter had, without any hesitation, fully damned them to the Infernal Regions forever, where they, in fact, both belonged.  If there be any doubt, go read the Acts of the Apostles.  It is well known that the Fisherman, therefore, knew his priestly and papal prerogatives and duties, proper rights and obligations.

One can here readily note, furthermore, that he did not attempt to casually overlook matters and then chant an ancient, relativist chorus equivalent to a lovingly slaphappy kumbaya.  Nor did he so vacuously say, as with that contemptible heretic Pope Francis, “Who am I to judge?”  For Peter intimately knew that the proper example, as to righteous cursing, was previously and definitely set by Jesus, meaning in His recorded public ministry.

It is so scripturally known, moreover, that Jesus Himself had, without any real hesitation, actually and publicly cursed, in a surely righteous manner, the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees, and in no uncertain terms. Christ demonstrated, for all times, that the enemies of God are to be openly and actively cursed, not just loved in a Christian manner.  The New Testament, therefore, witnesses to the noted facts involved.

Jesus swore unembellished oaths, curse words, against His quite real and vicious enemies: “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.”  His intent was not obscure.  His profound ire was so genuinely real.  Thus, no one should ever doubt that such malediction had a divine and important purpose, consonant so fully with the anger and righteousness of the Lord.

The Messiah didn’t hold back at all as to the truly major extent and profound nature of His real anger and deep hate for them. This Prince of Peace, this Son of David is, in addition, recorded in the Gospels as having, at least twice, physically whipped the money changers out of the Jerusalem Temple.   Such a depiction, admittedly, goes not well with any kind of a false portraiture of an effeminate, touchy-feely Jesus who supposedly spoke only syrupy sweet words and many gentle parables.2

But, no, there were/are not two assumed different “Jesuses,” just some typically and profoundly wrong misinterpretations of the nature of the God-Man, the Christ. Nobody would have cried out so loudly, one should take the hint, for brutally crucifying only an ineffectual and timorous fellow.  Therefore, what needs to be here most carefully and pertinently reflected upon, as to a very realistic understanding of true Christianity and genuine Christian love?

Among others, Dietrich von Hildebrand, explicitly, wrote of the genuine need for using, against those who seriously sin, the “charitable anathema.”  More importantly, the Savior was never a believer in any kind of kumbaya sentimentality.

A theologically proper curse is a just and valid reprimand, full admonishment, for openly showing a very adamant disapproval. Let one more quite pertinent example suffice.  Jesus, once, in His many various journeys encountering a fig tree that was totally barren of fruit, had cursed it and the tree then instantly died, which is notably indicative of the strict but real truths being advanced in this present article.  Christ is the way, the truth and the life; the lies of this world are death.

The fig tree was naturally supposed to give off fruit for aiding human life, but its too obvious barrenness made the tree a living lie, so the “sentence” was death; it was not kumbaya forgiveness or “tolerance,” the latter being only a secularist virtue, not ever a Christian one.  The much larger point, however, is that tolerance of gravely serious sin is a moral evil.

Christian loving, which involves merciful reprimands, the real need for sincere penance, and charitable chastisements and anathemas, is, in fact, not all-forgiving, as some forms of pseudo-Christianity seem to so typically imply.

In the Old Testament, one can readily recall that when the Hebrews got very terribly obstreperous, Yahweh had punished them freely and harshly without apparent hesitation; when Saul, later called Paul, blinded by hate, had enthusiastically both tormented and persecuted Christians, Jesus chastised him by, literally, knocking him fully off his high horse, so that he then would, later, come to see the true Light of Christ.  Prior to his later requisite baptism, this was only after a real period of needed physical sightlessness, cured by the disciple Ananias, which had matched his once intolerable spiritual blindness.

Curses are surely insults. Ironically, almost all the very same neo-Catholics who would worry about such insults, which do logically cover deprecations used against people, usually do get somewhat ambivalent or just lackadaisical if the matter, e. g., concerns verbal or other actions constituting abuses directed against God.  The status of the person insulted, especially if disproportionate, ought to be considered.

Thus, those who so grievously offend the Lord do greatly much more evil, due to the Supreme Holiness of the Almighty, than merely being abusive by just placing a theologically and righteously justified curse against some miscreant human sinner. And, this noted matter is, moreover, too often never considered by radical, liberal, or moderate Catholics.

Although the canonical penalty of anathema was, in fact, removed from the Canon Law in 1983, the Council of Trent, as to the quite tremendous weight of Church history, has not been ever held null and void.   And, though anathema is not mentioned in the new Church Catechism, however, this does not at all invalidate or nullify, nor undermine or reverse, the curses of Jesus nor those of St. Peter, among many others.

But, some other nonsense needs to be yet dispensed with here for clarification. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (a convert from Lutheranism, who never really converted), in Evangelical and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, expresses the very bold and odd absurdity, in his chapter, that most people, whether Catholic or Protestant, had then simply historically misunderstood the so-called Reformers, when it came to the doctrine of sola fide, which is, blatantly, utter nonsense.

St. Thomas More, St. Robert Bellarmine, and an educated plethora of others that could be so pertinently named who did, indeed, both correctly understood and theologically comprehended so exactly what Luther, Calvin, etc. said and meant.   It was, in fact, just an ancient heresy putting on a new dress, as a convenient disguise.

Could all the scholars and theologians of the Catholic Reformation, many very highly learned people, such as was St. Bellarmine himself, have, moreover, been that incredibly, amazingly, mentally dense not to accurately know what the Protestants exactly said and heretically contended as supposed truth?   This is not in any way, shape, or form either realistically tenable or theologically credible that the Protestant Revolution was merely, simply, an unfortunate misunderstanding, as was, thus, so idiotically stated by Neuhaus.  It was not mere semantics.

The bold heresy of sola fide had and, of course, still has a rather definite meaning, especially empirically considering, as a surely great and overt example of substantial and substantive proof, that Protestantism yet continues to exist today.  Since the alleged “Reformers” willingly knew what they were exactly doing that, if sincerely unrepented, would send them to the Infernal Regions forever, how can forgiveness of them be expected?

Catholicism is not, in fact, an all-loving, all-forgiving postconciliar religion having limitless love, mercy, kindness, clemency, generosity, charity, and tolerance unending. For instance, theologically speaking, no sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven, thus, e. g., Judas Iscariot dying fully unrepentant because he could not actually forgive himself by the power, of course, of the Holy Spirit, by being so absolutely recalcitrant, hung himself and went straight to Hell.

Equally, this artificial spiritual division set between the preconciliar versus postconciliar Church is a lie, especially whenever theological orthodoxy is properly known to represent solid Catholic truth, for how could it be otherwise?

Those people, furthermore, who die with even a single mortal sin still unrepented should, in fact, know where they are necessarily going to go after their deaths; while the destination is certainly mysterious, however, the above-noted direct causality ought not to be.  There is no universal salvation; it is a heresy. God’s blessed forgiveness is, therefore, not unlimited.

In proper theological context, one then ought to reasonably perceive how truly fair and understandable the practice, with much historical precedence starting, in the New Testament, with Christ Himself, of so doing suitably and morally righteous cursing, actually is.3

However, let it be properly understood that this article is not a supposed call for making imprecations or deprecations the major or central teachings of the Church, or even of Christianity in general; what has been noted and discussed was, thus, mainly done and presented for making sure that Catholics ought not to be ever wrongly embarrassed or, perhaps, ashamed of what is a true part of the rightful historical heritage and culture, the theological legacy and religious practice, of Catholicism.

This is similar, in many ways, to the various controversies that have been made to surround, e. g., the Crusades, the Galileo Case, the Inquisition, and other such important matters.   Typically, many atheists, Freemasons, Protestants, and other non-Catholics vilely distort or excessively overstress what is then rendered, as usually only negative Catholic portraits of these historical events or issues; they are often vulgarly displayed so simplistically or quite crudely to, obviously, smear the Church and very heavily besmirch Catholicism in the intended critical process.


As was just above extensively demonstrated, therefore, one can honestly say that, in fact, imprecatory and deprecatory psalms or prayers are, thus, both totally theologically and religiously acceptable to God.   Such maledictions, severe animadversions, are neither sinful nor evil in any way whatsoever and should be, moreover, a truly genuine part of a religious, i. e., Christian person’s actually lived spiritual life.

An insipid, wishy-washy kumbaya forgiveness is, therefore, just anti-Catholic nonsense, filled with rancid existential and phenomenological sentimentality, beyond any proper reason or right Christian charity.

Whatever is grievously offensive to the Lord, meaning especially extremely so, is to be equally held as undoubtedly evil and execrable, completely appalling and disgusting, to all the believers in Christ.  It is to then be, of course, openly cursed.  This necessarily and rightly includes, e. g., all of sodomy and all of the so-called transgender movement, with any interrelationships or arguments for such evils included and, of course, without any question whatsoever.

It is to be, thus, morally censured in no uncertain terms, including intense moral animadversions, when held to be both spiritually necessary and appropriate; harsh verbal chastisement, when so done with a noted Christian consciousness, is charitable and shows mercy to those who may be then shown the path toward salvation, by avoiding their own damnation.

There should be no surprise, however, if it be well said that some “Great Lion of the Church” needs to valiantly and courageously come forth to so adamantly denounce, vehemently condemn, the massive number of evils that do sadly beset and beleaguer the Church today.   And, additional thoughts are also needed here.

Many prayerful curses, religiously beseeching maledictions, should, thus, be directed forcefully against, for instance, any Muslims who do seek to forever destroy Christianity, especially, of course, by their evil and persistent murdering of any Christians.   It should just then be, moreover, a quite simply normal part of militant Christianity, of the Church Militant on earth, a feature of Catholicism whenever it is so vilely attacked, whenever the people of God are wrongly persecuted for their faith.

Evil, therefore, is to be vigorously cursed, not ignored or rationalized into becoming, somehow or other, immorally acceptable.   And, when considered quite suitably and very morally appropriate to the great offense intended or committed, the real enemies of Christ are then to be cursed.  This was, in fact, the public response that Jesus with His absolute righteousness had, as one can so plainly perceive, toward those notably evil Scribes and Pharisees.


Athanasius contra mundum!




  1. St. Louis Grignion de Montfort, some centuries ago, had righteously cursed some evil people.
  3. See: Mark Giszczak’s Anathemas in the New Testament, which, also, covers the Old Testament’s anathemas; one could also consult The Catechism of the Council of Trent; also, Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum and his Quanta cura. The Catholic truth was not, therefore, supposedly changed by the Second Vatican Council, nor really by the Hegelianly-alleged Spirit thereof either.
  4. See, as but a few examples among many: Diane Moczar’s Seven Lies About Catholic History: Infamous Myths about the Church’s Past and How to Answer Them; George Sim Johnston’s.The Galileo Affair; and Thomas F. Madden ‘s A Concise History of the Crusades and co-author of The Fourth Crusade; The Glory of the Crusades by Steve Weidenkopf. See also: Understanding The Inquisition by Christopher Check.