II. DECONTAMINATION: More analysis, criticism and bombast are to come, including the necessities of humour and outrageousness, so as to lighten the load - their intensities of expression directly proportional to what I regularly read and witness. Also, I've become re-energized presently upon monitoring the latest controversies in the Cathosphere. It was enlivening to see Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara forthrightly challenge the dilettante-informed accusations levelled against Traditional Catholics by the lavishly remunerated hacks at Neo-Catholic Answers. See videos here and here. It was also a kind of relief to finally see Michael Voris go after the Professional Catholics in the American Establishment Church and expose what they have said and done to thwart CMTV's apostolate. See video here. Predictable as the setting sun, when such debates become heated and language forceful, fusspot do-gooders emerge from their safe and smug dwelling places, then make sure to notify all persons within internet range how sad, disappointed and disgusted they are at the division and factionalism within the Catholic blogosphere. Prominent this time around, in that it got coverage at Patheo$, was this eye-rolling post. Analogous to the situation of the Managing Editor and her obedient chickadees at the Patheo$
People who spew this "You are being DIVISIVE... NOT Christ-like!" phrase are not particularly Christian. They can't let their YES mean YES or their NO mean NO because they don't like being like Christ. They don't like getting in people's faces [see the full post to understand this sentence's meaning in its proper context]. Instead, they call names - "YOU aren't like CHRIST!" - while pretending that they aren't calling names. They judge while retaining the false veneer of being non-judgemental and loving.
There are also these incisive remarks from Mundabor:
We live in times of such unmanliness that by every exchange of opinion that reaches the level of more than mild disapprobation someone - the Comment Sissy; they are everywhere - feels the need to intervene and say how "disparaging" and insensitive other people are. In former times, such people would have been invited to go play with their dolls; nowadays, the Comment Sissy is socially accepted, and thinks he has firmly taken the moral high ground; it is like a pervert game of political correctness, in which the first one crying "disparaging" has won... This degeneration is everywhere: in the blog comments, in the Internet forum, in the office, at the pub, with the neighbours. An entire civilisation is being made effeminate by this flipping obsession with being "sensitive". In turn, the word police uses this to avoid the ugly truths being said.
Such people, I would add, should be ordered to read the searing vernacular of St. Athanasius and, moreover, need to be told that, to a very high probability, St. Nicholas did pummel Arius at the Council of Nicaea.
III. FRUITS OF FEMINIZATION: After 50 years of feminization in the Catholic Church, in its liturgy, in theology, in all manner of its activities, manifested in the writings of Catholic editors, journalists, columnists and its intelligentsia, let alone the omnipresent entrenchment of a network of Machiavellian sodomites/pederasts into the priesthood, the absolute last thing needed at this time of crisis is a disgruntled "woman's touch", imposing some affective détente in the compulsory war currently waging inside the Catholic Church, now nearly eclipsed by apostasy. The battlefield is for men, not women, unless your mentality comports to that of Ste. Joan d'Arc - and there are lady fighters like that out there, some of them even commenting at this blog. No sissified men, neither thin-skinned and soft-spoken metrosexuals wanted here. War is rough and rugged, it is painful, there is anger, and there is suffering. This is harsh reality. To be in the trenches is to be trenchant. Catholicism is also a combative religion, not exclusively meek, not just in action, but also in language application. These must be acknowledged, otherwise you're dead, in both body and soul. In his engaging book The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity, Leon Podles gives an important reminder to the easily affronted littérateurs in the Catholic blogosphere: "in Christian societies war is often identified with Christ's sacrifice".[1]. This blogger has an original copy of Ven. Fulton Sheen's book Philosophies at War, written during World War II. The text still retains its dust jacket, torn and worn out, whereupon it reads: "On the anvil of this war amidst the fire of sacrifice, there is being hammered out a new order and a new civilization". Some extractions from the first few pages are also instructive:
III. FRUITS OF FEMINIZATION: After 50 years of feminization in the Catholic Church, in its liturgy, in theology, in all manner of its activities, manifested in the writings of Catholic editors, journalists, columnists and its intelligentsia, let alone the omnipresent entrenchment of a network of Machiavellian sodomites/pederasts into the priesthood, the absolute last thing needed at this time of crisis is a disgruntled "woman's touch", imposing some affective détente in the compulsory war currently waging inside the Catholic Church, now nearly eclipsed by apostasy. The battlefield is for men, not women, unless your mentality comports to that of Ste. Joan d'Arc - and there are lady fighters like that out there, some of them even commenting at this blog. No sissified men, neither thin-skinned and soft-spoken metrosexuals wanted here. War is rough and rugged, it is painful, there is anger, and there is suffering. This is harsh reality. To be in the trenches is to be trenchant. Catholicism is also a combative religion, not exclusively meek, not just in action, but also in language application. These must be acknowledged, otherwise you're dead, in both body and soul. In his engaging book The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity, Leon Podles gives an important reminder to the easily affronted littérateurs in the Catholic blogosphere: "in Christian societies war is often identified with Christ's sacrifice".[1]. This blogger has an original copy of Ven. Fulton Sheen's book Philosophies at War, written during World War II. The text still retains its dust jacket, torn and worn out, whereupon it reads: "On the anvil of this war amidst the fire of sacrifice, there is being hammered out a new order and a new civilization". Some extractions from the first few pages are also instructive:
War... may very well be a purposeful purging of the world's evil that the world may have rebirth of freedom under His Holy Law... Dynamite can be used as a means to build the foundations of a hospital, or it can be used as a means to destroy the entire hospital. The purpose or the intention for which it is used will determine how the means are used.[2]
So it is the purpose or intention for doing battle which is the correct context for debate and argumentation in the overall Catholic conversation, not so much the means, as in hard language. Could it not be that criticisms launched against an incapacitating hierarchy, at other church leaders, lay and religious, now even against the pope, are precisely founded upon a grave concern for the eternal destiny of their souls and the well-being of the Catholic Church? Due to an unfailing love for Our Lord and Our Lady? That, beforehand, reasoned thought plus prayer occur before criticisms are written? Light before the heat, as sunlight goes through the magnifying glass to scorch the surface, as apprehension precedes emotion, says St. Thomas. You might have noticed a certain club of Catholic commentators/bloggers will approvingly quote stern, rigorous, sometimes snarky, statements of saints from hundreds of years ago, including mention of that righteous event when Christ overturned the money changer's tables. Yet they traduce any person who speaks or writes comparably in the modern day. It pays to be a member. Inside the Magic Circle, comprised of the right people don't forget, hypocrisy equals integrity. Badges? We don't need no stinkin badges.
IV. THE GATHERING STORM: The intensifying battle of words between the emergent, coalescing Traditional Catholic camp contra the Modernists and their Neo-Catholic cousins is, to this bloggers mind, a sign of the wheat being separated from the chaff in a manner more exacting than in the recent past, which must run its course. Consequently, this means division, this means war, thus meaning a manifestation of God's anger. St. Paul, a troublemaker in extremis, writes "God's anger is being revealed from heaven; his anger against the impiety and wrong-doing of the men whose wrong-doing denies his truth its full scope" (Romans 1:18). Denial of Catholic teaching in its "full scope", in my considered opinion, is exactly what the influential, sweetly-domineering Neo-Catholics are doing, principally in three ways: (1) their silence on widespread apostasy/heresy inside the Church, (2) providing cover for bad or weak bishops regardless of the obvious damage they do and the good they don't do but could do, and (3) their relentless assaults on, vilifications of, Traditional Catholics and those of orthodox mindedness. The latter are a minority, merely endeavouring to convey the "full scope" of the Faith (i.e. pre-Conciliar era). Modernists deny the Faith only more explicitly. Neo-Catholics, unwilling to unload their liberalizing, Protestant accoutrements, do it implicitly, in many cases not even being cognizant of the fact, especially recent converts on learning curves, attributable to either gullibility, deficient knowledge pre-1962 or, in notable cases, the yearning for celebrity, speaking engagements, gala invites and reams of cash (hello Jimmy, Karl and Bill). Heresy, apostasy, cronyism, careerism and the vulgar stench of Professional Catholicism inside the Church are most pernicious when they lay hidden. So let us enter ambulate through the loggias, let us unlock the doors of the chancery offices, let us scale the walls of the episcopal conference fortresses, and sneak a peek at the pay-offs, find out who's railroading who, at the sins of commission and omission. Let us dispel the "diabolical disorientation". Let us sniff out, hunt down, and confront the Smoke of Satan. Didn't our "Rebel Pope" tell us Catholics to "make a mess"?[3] Eh? Yes? No? Ah? Accordingly, I concur with, and exclaim, that famous statement from I, Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out".
Enough ranting. Alright, then, back to the grind of being harmonious, kind, sensitive and charitable...
V. BIKINIS, BEACH BALLS AND THE BISHOP OF ROME: Before redressing heretic participants at the 2012 SPU/V2 conference, let's first make a brief detour to Brazil and visit Carnaval. Pardon, I mean World Youth Day 2013 at Rio de Janeiro. What a spectacular! Off-Broadway liturgies, Battlestar Galactica church design, a feast of Walt Disney-like light shows and other colourations and ornamentations to dazzle and delight the kidz. A Copacobana beach mass with the hottie Chaquitas being all coy n'stuff whilst frolicking around in bikinis. Holy Communion dispensed like party crackers out of plastic cups. Stage-prancing bishops whose mellifluent movements were conducted by a sodomite porn star - and the throngs of youth! How uplifting, how invigorating, how... Hollywood. As if a mere oceanic gathering of emotionally-charged people for a few days will yield the fruit of an enduring, genuine and reverent faith. World Youth Day Inc. has proceeded for three decades now and these days I certainly don't observe many lads and lasses of the 14-to-30 year age bracket in the pews. Nor do statistics bear this out. Exhibiting, rather, a precipitous decline in Mass attendance over the last three decades. To top off this Circus of Sentimentality, upon his return to Rome the Holy Father placed a beach ball on the altar at Santa Maria Maggiore as an offering. What? No flowers to erase the tears of Our Sorrowful Lady? It's more surreal than Sylvester Stallone reciting Shakespeare. Almost every day the "Bishop of Rome", as Francis prefers, speaks and gestures in manners increasingly confounding and worrying.
VI. MARE INEXPLICITUS: Without being flippant, and with due reverence to the Holy Father, let's be upfront and list the flurry of head-turning remarks and overseen actions of Pope Francis during the last four months: People who pray numerous Rosaries for him and count them are "Pelagians"; Catholics who espouse "triumphalism" suffer from an "inferiority complex" because "in their hearts do not believe in the Risen Lord"; banning the Order of Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from celebrating the Latin Mass which, however much sugar coating you sprinkle, still works to militate against Summorum Pontificum; opening up of the priestly celibacy matter, upon which the secular media immediately pounced; in a open letter to Eugenio Scalfari, the atheist founder of La Repubblica, Francis states that "absolute truth" is a "relationship", giving no concise finality to what he really means; an atheist, however, even with a malformed conscious, can gain entrance to Heaven because "God forgives those who obey their conscience"; scant mention of abortion by Francis since his installment six months ago, with one American bishop voicing "disappointment" at the void - don't forget that Brazil legalized abortion right after the pope returned from World Youth Day; then just last week matters reached DEFCON 2 in a Jesuit manoeuvred interview: "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods... The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with..."; an invitation to Gustavo Gutierrez, father of Liberation Theology, for a closed-door meeting, despite the CDF's condemnation over a quarter century ago. From Pope Benedict's Address to the Brazilian bishops on December 5, 2009:
IV. THE GATHERING STORM: The intensifying battle of words between the emergent, coalescing Traditional Catholic camp contra the Modernists and their Neo-Catholic cousins is, to this bloggers mind, a sign of the wheat being separated from the chaff in a manner more exacting than in the recent past, which must run its course. Consequently, this means division, this means war, thus meaning a manifestation of God's anger. St. Paul, a troublemaker in extremis, writes "God's anger is being revealed from heaven; his anger against the impiety and wrong-doing of the men whose wrong-doing denies his truth its full scope" (Romans 1:18). Denial of Catholic teaching in its "full scope", in my considered opinion, is exactly what the influential, sweetly-domineering Neo-Catholics are doing, principally in three ways: (1) their silence on widespread apostasy/heresy inside the Church, (2) providing cover for bad or weak bishops regardless of the obvious damage they do and the good they don't do but could do, and (3) their relentless assaults on, vilifications of, Traditional Catholics and those of orthodox mindedness. The latter are a minority, merely endeavouring to convey the "full scope" of the Faith (i.e. pre-Conciliar era). Modernists deny the Faith only more explicitly. Neo-Catholics, unwilling to unload their liberalizing, Protestant accoutrements, do it implicitly, in many cases not even being cognizant of the fact, especially recent converts on learning curves, attributable to either gullibility, deficient knowledge pre-1962 or, in notable cases, the yearning for celebrity, speaking engagements, gala invites and reams of cash (hello Jimmy, Karl and Bill). Heresy, apostasy, cronyism, careerism and the vulgar stench of Professional Catholicism inside the Church are most pernicious when they lay hidden. So let us enter ambulate through the loggias, let us unlock the doors of the chancery offices, let us scale the walls of the episcopal conference fortresses, and sneak a peek at the pay-offs, find out who's railroading who, at the sins of commission and omission. Let us dispel the "diabolical disorientation". Let us sniff out, hunt down, and confront the Smoke of Satan. Didn't our "Rebel Pope" tell us Catholics to "make a mess"?[3] Eh? Yes? No? Ah? Accordingly, I concur with, and exclaim, that famous statement from I, Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out".
Enough ranting. Alright, then, back to the grind of being harmonious, kind, sensitive and charitable...
V. BIKINIS, BEACH BALLS AND THE BISHOP OF ROME: Before redressing heretic participants at the 2012 SPU/V2 conference, let's first make a brief detour to Brazil and visit Carnaval. Pardon, I mean World Youth Day 2013 at Rio de Janeiro. What a spectacular! Off-Broadway liturgies, Battlestar Galactica church design, a feast of Walt Disney-like light shows and other colourations and ornamentations to dazzle and delight the kidz. A Copacobana beach mass with the hottie Chaquitas being all coy n'stuff whilst frolicking around in bikinis. Holy Communion dispensed like party crackers out of plastic cups. Stage-prancing bishops whose mellifluent movements were conducted by a sodomite porn star - and the throngs of youth! How uplifting, how invigorating, how... Hollywood. As if a mere oceanic gathering of emotionally-charged people for a few days will yield the fruit of an enduring, genuine and reverent faith. World Youth Day Inc. has proceeded for three decades now and these days I certainly don't observe many lads and lasses of the 14-to-30 year age bracket in the pews. Nor do statistics bear this out. Exhibiting, rather, a precipitous decline in Mass attendance over the last three decades. To top off this Circus of Sentimentality, upon his return to Rome the Holy Father placed a beach ball on the altar at Santa Maria Maggiore as an offering. What? No flowers to erase the tears of Our Sorrowful Lady? It's more surreal than Sylvester Stallone reciting Shakespeare. Almost every day the "Bishop of Rome", as Francis prefers, speaks and gestures in manners increasingly confounding and worrying.
VI. MARE INEXPLICITUS: Without being flippant, and with due reverence to the Holy Father, let's be upfront and list the flurry of head-turning remarks and overseen actions of Pope Francis during the last four months: People who pray numerous Rosaries for him and count them are "Pelagians"; Catholics who espouse "triumphalism" suffer from an "inferiority complex" because "in their hearts do not believe in the Risen Lord"; banning the Order of Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from celebrating the Latin Mass which, however much sugar coating you sprinkle, still works to militate against Summorum Pontificum; opening up of the priestly celibacy matter, upon which the secular media immediately pounced; in a open letter to Eugenio Scalfari, the atheist founder of La Repubblica, Francis states that "absolute truth" is a "relationship", giving no concise finality to what he really means; an atheist, however, even with a malformed conscious, can gain entrance to Heaven because "God forgives those who obey their conscience"; scant mention of abortion by Francis since his installment six months ago, with one American bishop voicing "disappointment" at the void - don't forget that Brazil legalized abortion right after the pope returned from World Youth Day; then just last week matters reached DEFCON 2 in a Jesuit manoeuvred interview: "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods... The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with..."; an invitation to Gustavo Gutierrez, father of Liberation Theology, for a closed-door meeting, despite the CDF's condemnation over a quarter century ago. From Pope Benedict's Address to the Brazilian bishops on December 5, 2009:
Dear Brothers, it is worthy to recall that last August marked 25 years of the Instruction Libertatis nuntius of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on certain aspects of liberation theology, which underlined the danger that was included in the non-critical import, made by some theologians, of theses and methodologies originating from Marxism. [via Gutierrez et allia] Their more or less visible consequences, of rebellion, division, dissent, offense, anarchy are still being felt, creating amidst your diocesan communities great pain and a grave loss of living strength. I beg all those who feel in any way attracted, involved, or touched in their very selves by certain deceitful principles of liberation theology to once again read the aforementioned Instruction.
Bergoglio did an about face. Why can't people face this? Regardless of his purported aversion to Liberation Theology, the very act of receiving LT's prince regent operates as an enabling agent. True, Pope Benedict spoke with Hans Küng soonafter becoming pontiff. Yet that meeting was arranged after Küng's request. And be guaranteed that, upon returning to the Peruvian Rain Forests, Gutierrez, unlike the betraying Küng, won't be spewing anti-papal bile in the forthcoming years. Fr. Gutierrez has been affirmed. Thus he and his agitprop entourage will grow more emboldened. Then we have this: "Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest". Nearly immediately upon reading that the Beatle's song "Let It Be" came to mind. And recently this: "People who judge and criticize others are hypocrites and cowards who are unable to face their own defects".[4] Can we not, then, criticize a pro-abort politician? Unrepentant promoters of pedophilia? A Catholic school teacher distributing pro-homosexual literature to his students? No spiritual intervention, then? Then there was this:
September 19: We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards.
...[a dizzying 180 degree turn from just three days previous]...
September 16: I dare say that the Church has never been so well as it is today. The Church does not collapse: I am sure of it, I am sure of it![5]
Here comes another 180, from Benedict this time, enunciating the following only less than one year ago:
Recent decades have seen the advance of a spiritual "desertification". In the Council's time it was already possible from a few tragic pages of history to know what a life or a world without God looked like, but now we see it every day around us. This void has spread.[6]
Is this the "diabolical disorientation" of which Sister Lucia so often voiced? What's going on? Evidently, Bergoglio - not obliviously, though his endgame is an unknown - is grinding down the already tenuous chain of continuity with the past/Tradition that Benedict attempted to reforge. Venturing some volatile speculation: Purposefully quickening the implosion of the Post-Conciliar Church so the inevitable Restoration comes sooner rather than later? Or an endeavour at retrofitting and reinforcing the Post-Conciliar machine, so as to ascend to more glorious heights, beyond that of Icarus, to the heart of the Sun, ushering the Church as such to some rubicon? The latter seems the more probable scenario, as hinted in this next quote, with my bolds:
Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today - which was typical of Vatican II - is absolutely irreversible.[7]
Talk about existential tailspin! Looking downrange along the horizon, all I'm seeing are the approaching storm clouds of schism.
VII. PANDORA'S BOX PLUS A PARADOX: The abovelisted, plus a host of others not compiled here, are not one-offs, not spun by the secular media, despite attempts at damage control asserting otherwise, which has turned into a blogging vocation for some people. That these people have repeatedly been drafting up "NO!, the pope really said this" articles for six months straight would, perchance, be an indication that something is amiss. It's been one big State of Denial and as if, harkening back to Argentina's recent past, most everyone seems enchanted by the enigmatic sexiness of its First Lady, Eva Perón. Evita! Don't you dare cry for me Argentina. There is a definite pattern of ambiguity, persistent, resolute, apparently pre-programmed, an echo of the Liberation Theology-imbued "street Catholicism" in Buenos Aires, which have only engendered confusion, compounding an pre-existent doctrinal vertigo, as instigated by the Vatican II decrees, if we are to track down origins. Nebulous, inscrutable, contradictory and unclear statements, answers to questions left open-ended, a state of suspended animation, opening up whatever can of worms, teasing the genie out of the bottle, playing with Pandora's Box as if it were a Rubik's Cube - with the outcome being to effectively authenticate, then facilitate, atheists, non-Catholics, ignorant or lukewarm Catholics, heretics and other enemies of the Church in their distorted worldviews. See the grateful Facebook posting by NARAL. Add to these demagogic Perónism, the romanticization of pauperism, the exhibitionist humility seemingly tailored to entertain whatever excitement-seeking mob uninterested in anything other than stimulation and surface appearance. Why, then, is it so shocking to establishment church types that significant numbers of commentators with traditionalist/orthodox leanings are (understandably) becoming increasingly uneasy, distressed, even exasperated, at the circumstance since 20 March 2013? Reflected in comments such as this:
VII. PANDORA'S BOX PLUS A PARADOX: The abovelisted, plus a host of others not compiled here, are not one-offs, not spun by the secular media, despite attempts at damage control asserting otherwise, which has turned into a blogging vocation for some people. That these people have repeatedly been drafting up "NO!, the pope really said this" articles for six months straight would, perchance, be an indication that something is amiss. It's been one big State of Denial and as if, harkening back to Argentina's recent past, most everyone seems enchanted by the enigmatic sexiness of its First Lady, Eva Perón. Evita! Don't you dare cry for me Argentina. There is a definite pattern of ambiguity, persistent, resolute, apparently pre-programmed, an echo of the Liberation Theology-imbued "street Catholicism" in Buenos Aires, which have only engendered confusion, compounding an pre-existent doctrinal vertigo, as instigated by the Vatican II decrees, if we are to track down origins. Nebulous, inscrutable, contradictory and unclear statements, answers to questions left open-ended, a state of suspended animation, opening up whatever can of worms, teasing the genie out of the bottle, playing with Pandora's Box as if it were a Rubik's Cube - with the outcome being to effectively authenticate, then facilitate, atheists, non-Catholics, ignorant or lukewarm Catholics, heretics and other enemies of the Church in their distorted worldviews. See the grateful Facebook posting by NARAL. Add to these demagogic Perónism, the romanticization of pauperism, the exhibitionist humility seemingly tailored to entertain whatever excitement-seeking mob uninterested in anything other than stimulation and surface appearance. Why, then, is it so shocking to establishment church types that significant numbers of commentators with traditionalist/orthodox leanings are (understandably) becoming increasingly uneasy, distressed, even exasperated, at the circumstance since 20 March 2013? Reflected in comments such as this:
Every time this Pope speaks, I get the impression he is addressing a Kindergarten class at snack time. The discourse is shallow, up-beat, silly, essentially meaningless. Next, we're going to be handed a box of crayons and instructed to draw our feelings about "world peace".
Yours truly confesses that he agrees with this characterization to a large degree. Just being honest, no malice involved, prayers from this nobody for the Holy Father remain. To dissuade any readers from presuming this space is functioning to incite ill will against the pope, know that this writer is heedful of the involved paradox so poignantly presented by Chesterton:
When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystical John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward - in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.[8]
So, the exposition above is written not necessarily to place blame on the Holy Father in particular. Rather, more so to acknowledge uncomfortable facts unreported by the Catholic MSM and high-profile bloggers (not twists by the secular media), censored or reworked by them to lessen the sting, to run away and not watch as His Body is being scourged, Blood beginning to flow, Flesh ripped away, to avoid gazing at those Hands and Feet as the nails are injected. Basically, to highlight the crisis the Catholic Church is currently undergoing - Gethsemane, the Passion, on the Way to Calvary, to be Crucified.
VIII. SUPERPOPE!: But "who am I to judge?" - that one is going to reverberate for years. Already, this blogger has had it vehemently fired against him, unprovoked, as a counterpoint to orthodox Catholic teaching. Have any of my readers experienced this yet? Once again, that quiet, unmentioned, unseen, pervasive trickle-down effect affecting one's personal life. This time right from the top, gushing forth from the fountainhead. "The pope said it", and it's well-nigh impossible to contend that in this era of tantamount papalotry. That is, a preoccupation, more at obsession, with the personality and "style" of the pope, overshadowing the papacy as such. Every single pronouncement and signal issuing from the Vatican is inspired by the Holy Ghost, infallible, goes the misunderstanding. In many quarters the pope is now construed as a kind of active, originating source or "Actuator" of the Holy Spirit, so to speak, to please and pacify the masses. Instead of (properly) as the prime and passive "Acceptant" of it, the "Servant of Servants", Christ's Ambassador, the Chief Guardian of the Faith.
IX. BELOVING BUGGERY: To demonstrate how the dissent-enabling ambiguities of Francis work so quickly, so inimically, citation need only be made to the just released pro-homosexualism film "Who are we to judge", sponsored by (ding-a-ling-a-ling) the Jesuits, an order utterly infested with sodomites.[9] Of course, it includes an interview with American celebrity priest and homosexualist Fr. James Martin, SJ, a wolf in sheep's clothing in my determination. For some time Martin has assiduously worked for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Catholic Church, doing a dandy job at sanctifying homosexuals and - oh so melodically and subtlety with his silver tongue and quiescent mannerisms - casting opponents as outmoded barbarians. Common knowledge kept in hushed tones, and he's won the prestigious award of Third Rail Treatment by fawning establishment luvvies. New York's Cardinal Tim Dolan is charmed by Martin and both are good buddies with Steven Colbert, dontchya know. See here. That's adorable. And don't forget the American Jesuits feature prominently in Father Oko's widely-disseminated and discussed essay With the Pope Against Homoheresy. An extraction: "The most open revolt against the Pope and the Church is headed by some Jesuits in the United States, who openly oppose them and announce that... they will keep admitting homosexually-oriented seminarians, who are, indeed, especially welcome".[10] With Francis' simple words, merely six words, i.e. "who am I to judge him", with absolutely no media spin, the Jesuits have utilized this miniscule linguistic sequence, a so-called "soundbyte", for rationalizing their cherished depravities which cry out to Heaven for vengeance. The "him" was Francis' reference to Monsignor Battista Ricca, the priest His Holiness appointed as representative for the scandal-plagued Vatican Bank, formally the Institute for Works of Religion. Turns out, Ricca - unknown to the pope until presently - is a card-carrying member of the Lavender Mafia, shenanigans whilst serving at the Uruguayan nunciature especially, with a plethora of incontrovertible evidence to boot and to demonstrate, backed up by five bishop witnesses at last count. What happens, then, when this case of disgrace enters the public square?:
VIII. SUPERPOPE!: But "who am I to judge?" - that one is going to reverberate for years. Already, this blogger has had it vehemently fired against him, unprovoked, as a counterpoint to orthodox Catholic teaching. Have any of my readers experienced this yet? Once again, that quiet, unmentioned, unseen, pervasive trickle-down effect affecting one's personal life. This time right from the top, gushing forth from the fountainhead. "The pope said it", and it's well-nigh impossible to contend that in this era of tantamount papalotry. That is, a preoccupation, more at obsession, with the personality and "style" of the pope, overshadowing the papacy as such. Every single pronouncement and signal issuing from the Vatican is inspired by the Holy Ghost, infallible, goes the misunderstanding. In many quarters the pope is now construed as a kind of active, originating source or "Actuator" of the Holy Spirit, so to speak, to please and pacify the masses. Instead of (properly) as the prime and passive "Acceptant" of it, the "Servant of Servants", Christ's Ambassador, the Chief Guardian of the Faith.
IX. BELOVING BUGGERY: To demonstrate how the dissent-enabling ambiguities of Francis work so quickly, so inimically, citation need only be made to the just released pro-homosexualism film "Who are we to judge", sponsored by (ding-a-ling-a-ling) the Jesuits, an order utterly infested with sodomites.[9] Of course, it includes an interview with American celebrity priest and homosexualist Fr. James Martin, SJ, a wolf in sheep's clothing in my determination. For some time Martin has assiduously worked for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Catholic Church, doing a dandy job at sanctifying homosexuals and - oh so melodically and subtlety with his silver tongue and quiescent mannerisms - casting opponents as outmoded barbarians. Common knowledge kept in hushed tones, and he's won the prestigious award of Third Rail Treatment by fawning establishment luvvies. New York's Cardinal Tim Dolan is charmed by Martin and both are good buddies with Steven Colbert, dontchya know. See here. That's adorable. And don't forget the American Jesuits feature prominently in Father Oko's widely-disseminated and discussed essay With the Pope Against Homoheresy. An extraction: "The most open revolt against the Pope and the Church is headed by some Jesuits in the United States, who openly oppose them and announce that... they will keep admitting homosexually-oriented seminarians, who are, indeed, especially welcome".[10] With Francis' simple words, merely six words, i.e. "who am I to judge him", with absolutely no media spin, the Jesuits have utilized this miniscule linguistic sequence, a so-called "soundbyte", for rationalizing their cherished depravities which cry out to Heaven for vengeance. The "him" was Francis' reference to Monsignor Battista Ricca, the priest His Holiness appointed as representative for the scandal-plagued Vatican Bank, formally the Institute for Works of Religion. Turns out, Ricca - unknown to the pope until presently - is a card-carrying member of the Lavender Mafia, shenanigans whilst serving at the Uruguayan nunciature especially, with a plethora of incontrovertible evidence to boot and to demonstrate, backed up by five bishop witnesses at last count. What happens, then, when this case of disgrace enters the public square?:
...on the return flight from the voyage to Brazil [after WYD Inc.], replying to a journalist, pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio avoided taking a clear position on the case of Monsignor Ricca. The words of the pope that the media all over the world picked up with the greatest emphasis - in an outpouring of favorable comments on his "openness" to homosexuals - were interpreted as a suspension of judgment: "If a person is gay and is seeking the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him?" A few days after his return to Rome, Pope Francis was more clear. He had the secretariat of state informed that Monsignor Ricca "will remain in his position".[11]
If Ricca will "remain", how is this a sign of a greatly needed, heretofore "impending", reform of the Curia? How can any reasonable person now proclaim, expect or hope that the new pope will labour to purge the Church of its ensconced sodomite sub-culture? Enter the Neo-Cat Borg Commentariat to save the day: "Resistance to homos is futile", goes the subconscious drone. Don't worry, put on a happy face because things are proceeding as normal in the Church, even improving. For example, there is National Catholic Register columnist Jimmy Akin itemizing "7 things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays",[12] giving it a crack at damage control for the "who am I to judge" statement - with a "big hat tip to Salt + Light", no less, linking to a post by Fr. Tom Rosica, which right there should set off alarm bells. How does Akin's article end? "If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club". Well, here's 1 thing you need to know about Mr. Akin. Don't join his "Secret Information Club". Why? An enquiry has shown membership does not include a secret decoder ring. The infamy! Blast those Gnostics! Please, give me a priest, craving not the spotlight, to properly instruct and correct my errors. Not some six-figure-income fame-desiring "lay apologist" dilettante with his "personal conversion story" spouting infantalizing enumerations of things I "need to know". Please, to set the record straight, I want direction from one of those old school manualists, solid seminary training, qualified, precise, steely nerves, devout, holy. These men are extinct, apparently, save a few here and there.
X. MICHAEL COREN SUPPORTS SODOMITES IN SEMINARIES: Unfortunately, acquiescence to imperatives of the "homolobby" is not just occurring south of the border. Probably Canada's most popular Neo-Catholic, broadcaster and writer Michael Coren, goes further than mere damage control for the "who am I to judge" statement. It's been "A Papal Revolution" since Francis' election, suggests his article title, which isn't Coren's opinion upon reading. With usage of the word "Revolution", we see, yet again, that totalitarian-inspiriting "dawn of a new age" mindset creeping into the narrative, the Vatican II as "Zero Hour" concept identified in the 1980s by then Cardinal Ratzinger.[13] Or as Theodore Dalrymple puts it generally: "to start from Year Zero: before me, nothing; after me, everything".[14] Correctly, Coren identifies this problem. Yet, he doesn't downplay it enough because, when it comes to "the fine Catholic priests who, while homosexual, are orthodox", he appears to want to foment his own version of the Revolution Franciscus:
X. MICHAEL COREN SUPPORTS SODOMITES IN SEMINARIES: Unfortunately, acquiescence to imperatives of the "homolobby" is not just occurring south of the border. Probably Canada's most popular Neo-Catholic, broadcaster and writer Michael Coren, goes further than mere damage control for the "who am I to judge" statement. It's been "A Papal Revolution" since Francis' election, suggests his article title, which isn't Coren's opinion upon reading. With usage of the word "Revolution", we see, yet again, that totalitarian-inspiriting "dawn of a new age" mindset creeping into the narrative, the Vatican II as "Zero Hour" concept identified in the 1980s by then Cardinal Ratzinger.[13] Or as Theodore Dalrymple puts it generally: "to start from Year Zero: before me, nothing; after me, everything".[14] Correctly, Coren identifies this problem. Yet, he doesn't downplay it enough because, when it comes to "the fine Catholic priests who, while homosexual, are orthodox", he appears to want to foment his own version of the Revolution Franciscus:
The only difference in emphasis [between Benedict and Francis] was regarding men with a homosexual attraction who seek to enter the seminary. It may well become easier for them to do so, and I certainly support this. It is orthodoxy and sincerity that are required, and there must be a substantial vetting of all men before they are ordained, whatever their sexual past and feelings. One of the finest and most Catholic priests I know rejected a homosexual lifestyle, and I suggest that if you have never met a committed, exemplary priest who once experienced same-sex tendencies you have you eyes firmly closed.[15]
Now let's analyze. When, undisputedly, there already exists an embedded homosexual sub-culture in the priesthood and within Catholic institutions across the board, when we know there exists a direct correlation between homosexuality and pederasty, when we know a significant number of sodomite pederast priests have destroyed the lives of young boys (now adults), with millions in payouts to victims from crumbling, bankrupting dioceses, why would anyone with at least a smidgen of rationality and forethought want to pour gasoline on a fire? That a potential seminarian or "fine" priest has "rejected a homosexual lifestyle", justifying acceptability or even admiration, is a canard, an appeal to emotions via political correctness. It's preconceiving such a person as, propagandizing him to be, a kind of spiritual hero. Someone to emulate, distinct and elevated above normal seminarians and priests who also have suffered tremendously, for decades, at the hands of the machinating Lavender Mafia, always on the lookout for prey, especially for teenage boys and young men with "same-sex attraction".
XI. PINKIFYING HOMOTENSION: Not only does it appear he is unfamiliar with Randy Engel's groundbreaking book The Rite of Sodomy, let alone other copious documentation showing the ruinous effects of this perversion inside the Church, evidently Coren also is unmindful of the Catholic notion "near occasion of sin". Catholicism 101. For a normal man, say, either married or single, that is, a man attracted to women - if you spend the majority of your time interacting with, or even exclusively, in close proximity to beautiful, delicious, voluptuous women, your mind will race. Temptation will nag you incessantly, wear you down over time. Sooner or later, unless a supersaint, chances are high you will succumb and go for it. This is a fact, it's raw anthropology, and it is also the wisdom of the Church to recognize this aspect of the human condition. Example: making the penitent speak the phrase "to avoid the near occasion of sin" in the Act of Contrition at Confession. It's pretty simple. So, then, Coren's certain "support" of homosexual seminarians and priests - living, studying, recreating, pastoring in a mostly male-environment - creates an institutional situation conducive to a debilitating, pinkifying homotension which would interminably colour and pervade the atmosphere. Coren's view is a personal preference, subjective, feminized, the normalization of an anomaly, negligent of long-term ramifications, factoring in no legal, statistical, historical or objectively moral proof of opinion.
XII. SHHHHHHHH, KEEP IT IN THE CIRCLE: Here's another question: Why doesn't Mr. Coren and his fellow "conservative" Catholic chatterers inside the Magic Circle ever write articles about those seminarians pursued, propositioned, prodded, man-handled and raped by homosexual priests? Cases exist. Why not write a series of articles on scores of good, loyal priests who endured the seminary while being pestered and persecuted by that flaming queen "spiritual director" and his retinue of submissive seminarian princesses? Why not investigate and identify those bishops who knew about these abominations, doing and saying nothing? Sylvia seems to be the sole person undertaking this stomach-turning task, critical work, and she's an unpaid blogger. Where is that "Aesthete" persona Coren used to wield long ago, with relish, when writing for Frank magazine, exposing and excoriating the shallowness, pretence, naming names, of Canada's elitist secular establishment?[16] Where are those intrepid Catholic columnists/journalists who will present the cold facts/views "no matter what the consequences"? Of course not, it's a joke. The subject cannot be broached to the required measure of gravitas. If not just keeping silent, their duty is protect and provide cover for any malfeasance operative inside the Magic Circle, from being open to scrutiny by Catholics out in the hinterlands. And when they do address the subject of homoheresy within the Church, when permitted to pen a piece to assuage the peasantry, after filtered through official channels, treatment is invariably with kid gloves, qualifiers in abundance, bending over backwards only to give the facade of "compassion", linguistic acrobatics that would even astonish Noam Chomsky. Watered-down terminologies to lessen the impact, like "gay" and "same-sex", as there is an aversion to more precise and therefore truer phraseologies, like "sodomite" and "pederast". This lexicon is odious to the urbane sensibilities of the cultured despisers of Traditional Catholicism. Don't want to spill the Pellegrino and make a scene. Why the soft and sensitive touch, then? The answer is elementary, my dear Watson.
XIII. FRIENDS: First, as above, the priesthood/seminaries and Catholic institutions (and partner groups) everywhere are populated by active sodomites/lesbians in particular, aberrosexualists generally. They therefore comprise a considerable part of the establishment church, albeit underground. Second, there are those writers, reporters, columnists and authors employed by, or in whatever way formally affiliated with, publication organs or departments under the purview of the establishment church (e.g. chanceries, CCCB, ACBO, diocesan newspapers, Novalis, teacher unions, recognized Catholic organizations, etc.). Given the eventual, unavoidable interactions between the first and second groups, the latter - those disseminators and broadcasters of news and opinion, will become privy to all kinds of information on the former - appalling, repulsive, heart-sinking, soul-destroying, criminal. Moreover, people from both these groups are going to get to know one another over time, make connections, socialize, become friends. In the meantime, outside the bucolic pleasantries of the Magic Circle, the storm of the priest pederast scandal still rages, the secular media continues its feeding frenzy, and your local parish priest, having no part in this affair whatsoever, is verbally assaulted as a "pedophile" by some jackass passerby when Father merely goes to get some lunch at the restaurant down the street. Again, the unreported trickle-down effect... What do you do with this information? What do you do with all this internal documentation? I need my job. I want to be invited to that party. I want people to like me. Let someone else do it, otherwise the bishop won't see me anymore. It's a dilemma. Time passes, nothing happens, then establishment identitarianism gradually overrides. In the meantime, the Catholic Church is still in its "auto-destruct" mode and exhibiting no signs of abatement. That this cycle perpetuates only confirms that, when it comes down to the crunch, sentiment and sympathy invariably ends up being for the "gay friend" directly, the "homolobby" indirectly, over and above presenting unpleasant facts and brutal consequences, which necessitate discussion in an open forum. Hence there develops a sort of "wink wink nudge nudge" partnership, even alliance, between the first and second groups. Thus the syrupy articles, thus the justification by sanctification. Note well: last year Neo-Catholic blogger Mark Shea at Patheo$ wrote a post entitled "A gay man I consider a saint", about his now deceased friend, involved in parish life, who lived together with his boyfriend, "chastely" allegedly. Then there is Neo-Catholic Joseph Bottum, former editor of First Things, who just last month argued for "same-sex marriage", producing quite a dust cloud from his article in Commonweal, a magazine which is no friend of the Holy See. Bottum's article begins thusly:
XI. PINKIFYING HOMOTENSION: Not only does it appear he is unfamiliar with Randy Engel's groundbreaking book The Rite of Sodomy, let alone other copious documentation showing the ruinous effects of this perversion inside the Church, evidently Coren also is unmindful of the Catholic notion "near occasion of sin". Catholicism 101. For a normal man, say, either married or single, that is, a man attracted to women - if you spend the majority of your time interacting with, or even exclusively, in close proximity to beautiful, delicious, voluptuous women, your mind will race. Temptation will nag you incessantly, wear you down over time. Sooner or later, unless a supersaint, chances are high you will succumb and go for it. This is a fact, it's raw anthropology, and it is also the wisdom of the Church to recognize this aspect of the human condition. Example: making the penitent speak the phrase "to avoid the near occasion of sin" in the Act of Contrition at Confession. It's pretty simple. So, then, Coren's certain "support" of homosexual seminarians and priests - living, studying, recreating, pastoring in a mostly male-environment - creates an institutional situation conducive to a debilitating, pinkifying homotension which would interminably colour and pervade the atmosphere. Coren's view is a personal preference, subjective, feminized, the normalization of an anomaly, negligent of long-term ramifications, factoring in no legal, statistical, historical or objectively moral proof of opinion.
XII. SHHHHHHHH, KEEP IT IN THE CIRCLE: Here's another question: Why doesn't Mr. Coren and his fellow "conservative" Catholic chatterers inside the Magic Circle ever write articles about those seminarians pursued, propositioned, prodded, man-handled and raped by homosexual priests? Cases exist. Why not write a series of articles on scores of good, loyal priests who endured the seminary while being pestered and persecuted by that flaming queen "spiritual director" and his retinue of submissive seminarian princesses? Why not investigate and identify those bishops who knew about these abominations, doing and saying nothing? Sylvia seems to be the sole person undertaking this stomach-turning task, critical work, and she's an unpaid blogger. Where is that "Aesthete" persona Coren used to wield long ago, with relish, when writing for Frank magazine, exposing and excoriating the shallowness, pretence, naming names, of Canada's elitist secular establishment?[16] Where are those intrepid Catholic columnists/journalists who will present the cold facts/views "no matter what the consequences"? Of course not, it's a joke. The subject cannot be broached to the required measure of gravitas. If not just keeping silent, their duty is protect and provide cover for any malfeasance operative inside the Magic Circle, from being open to scrutiny by Catholics out in the hinterlands. And when they do address the subject of homoheresy within the Church, when permitted to pen a piece to assuage the peasantry, after filtered through official channels, treatment is invariably with kid gloves, qualifiers in abundance, bending over backwards only to give the facade of "compassion", linguistic acrobatics that would even astonish Noam Chomsky. Watered-down terminologies to lessen the impact, like "gay" and "same-sex", as there is an aversion to more precise and therefore truer phraseologies, like "sodomite" and "pederast". This lexicon is odious to the urbane sensibilities of the cultured despisers of Traditional Catholicism. Don't want to spill the Pellegrino and make a scene. Why the soft and sensitive touch, then? The answer is elementary, my dear Watson.
XIII. FRIENDS: First, as above, the priesthood/seminaries and Catholic institutions (and partner groups) everywhere are populated by active sodomites/lesbians in particular, aberrosexualists generally. They therefore comprise a considerable part of the establishment church, albeit underground. Second, there are those writers, reporters, columnists and authors employed by, or in whatever way formally affiliated with, publication organs or departments under the purview of the establishment church (e.g. chanceries, CCCB, ACBO, diocesan newspapers, Novalis, teacher unions, recognized Catholic organizations, etc.). Given the eventual, unavoidable interactions between the first and second groups, the latter - those disseminators and broadcasters of news and opinion, will become privy to all kinds of information on the former - appalling, repulsive, heart-sinking, soul-destroying, criminal. Moreover, people from both these groups are going to get to know one another over time, make connections, socialize, become friends. In the meantime, outside the bucolic pleasantries of the Magic Circle, the storm of the priest pederast scandal still rages, the secular media continues its feeding frenzy, and your local parish priest, having no part in this affair whatsoever, is verbally assaulted as a "pedophile" by some jackass passerby when Father merely goes to get some lunch at the restaurant down the street. Again, the unreported trickle-down effect... What do you do with this information? What do you do with all this internal documentation? I need my job. I want to be invited to that party. I want people to like me. Let someone else do it, otherwise the bishop won't see me anymore. It's a dilemma. Time passes, nothing happens, then establishment identitarianism gradually overrides. In the meantime, the Catholic Church is still in its "auto-destruct" mode and exhibiting no signs of abatement. That this cycle perpetuates only confirms that, when it comes down to the crunch, sentiment and sympathy invariably ends up being for the "gay friend" directly, the "homolobby" indirectly, over and above presenting unpleasant facts and brutal consequences, which necessitate discussion in an open forum. Hence there develops a sort of "wink wink nudge nudge" partnership, even alliance, between the first and second groups. Thus the syrupy articles, thus the justification by sanctification. Note well: last year Neo-Catholic blogger Mark Shea at Patheo$ wrote a post entitled "A gay man I consider a saint", about his now deceased friend, involved in parish life, who lived together with his boyfriend, "chastely" allegedly. Then there is Neo-Catholic Joseph Bottum, former editor of First Things, who just last month argued for "same-sex marriage", producing quite a dust cloud from his article in Commonweal, a magazine which is no friend of the Holy See. Bottum's article begins thusly:
There's this guy I know in Manhattan. Call him Jim. Jim Watson. We're friends, I guess. We used to be friends, anyway - grabbing a hamburger together near Gramercy Park, from time to time, or meeting out on the Stuyvesant Town Oval on a summer afternoon to play some folk and bluegrass with the guitar strummers, mandolin pickers, autoharpers, and amateur banjo players who'd drift by... Jim is gay.[17]
"Jim" is not the churchy type. Nonetheless, see the regular personal involvement with "Jim", how it leads off the story, setting the mood for the apostasy that follows. Justification at the outset, searching for sympathy, an emotional plea. Then there's Coren: "I suggest that if you have never met a committed, exemplary priest who once experienced same-sex tendencies you have had your eyes firmly closed".[18] We're closed minded, we would be impressed, humbled, even enlightened by the saintly presence of this manufactured victim. As if numerous other priests don't suffer as much or more. Don't read much about them. Do you see how these people work? Pay attention. If there is any consolation here, it is the very fact that prominent Neo-Catholic voices like Shea, Bottum, Coren and others are caving in to "homoideology", a welcome sign that the "Professional Catholic Cruiser is Sinking".
XIV. THE SHOW IS OVER: Now you would assume Coren's piece was printed for his column at the diocesan-controlled Catholic Register of Toronto, a main hub for Magic Circle dwellers. Nope. The disconcerting thing is that his quotes above derive from a regular column published in Catholic Insight, one of the last bastions for orthodox Catholicism in Canada. Let's hope it's an outlier or, an option, perhaps it is time for CI's new editor to instruct Mr. Coren to hit the road. Where Fr. Rosica is chief sycophant of the bishops and the dictating media presence for Neo-Modernism in Canada, Coren's talk-show-host-buy-my-new-book-see-how-smart-and-witty-I-am Neo-Catholicism has similarly reached saturation level. The Showman Catholicism industry, here and abroad, has transformed into a wild beast and needs to be tamed, then kept in its place. Mostly absent in Canada, greatly needed now, are Catholic intellectuals proper - writers, artists, musicians, liturgists, philosophers, theologians, international in outlook, willing to explore remote eras of the past, untainted by the Americanism heresy, careless of fanbase and, especially, not entranced by Vatican II novelties. Something along the lines of an educational breeding ground should be formed soon, to counteract enemies within the Catholic Church, otherwise places like the new "Vatican II and 21st Century Catholicism"[19] research centre at St. Paul University will continue to dominate by pumping out swarms of Modernists to menace and plague the next generation of Canadian Catholics.
Overextended myself once again. Series gets back on track next time. Have a nice day.
XIV. THE SHOW IS OVER: Now you would assume Coren's piece was printed for his column at the diocesan-controlled Catholic Register of Toronto, a main hub for Magic Circle dwellers. Nope. The disconcerting thing is that his quotes above derive from a regular column published in Catholic Insight, one of the last bastions for orthodox Catholicism in Canada. Let's hope it's an outlier or, an option, perhaps it is time for CI's new editor to instruct Mr. Coren to hit the road. Where Fr. Rosica is chief sycophant of the bishops and the dictating media presence for Neo-Modernism in Canada, Coren's talk-show-host-buy-my-new-book-see-how-smart-and-witty-I-am Neo-Catholicism has similarly reached saturation level. The Showman Catholicism industry, here and abroad, has transformed into a wild beast and needs to be tamed, then kept in its place. Mostly absent in Canada, greatly needed now, are Catholic intellectuals proper - writers, artists, musicians, liturgists, philosophers, theologians, international in outlook, willing to explore remote eras of the past, untainted by the Americanism heresy, careless of fanbase and, especially, not entranced by Vatican II novelties. Something along the lines of an educational breeding ground should be formed soon, to counteract enemies within the Catholic Church, otherwise places like the new "Vatican II and 21st Century Catholicism"[19] research centre at St. Paul University will continue to dominate by pumping out swarms of Modernists to menace and plague the next generation of Canadian Catholics.
Overextended myself once again. Series gets back on track next time. Have a nice day.
NOTES / REFERENCES
1. L.J. Podles, The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1999), p. 185.
2. F.J. Sheen, Philosophies at War (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1943), pp. 1,3.
3. "'Rebel' Pope urges youth to 'make a mess' in dioceses", Associated Press, July 27, 2013.
4. Respectively see: "Papa Francisco Dialoga como un Hermano más con la CLAR", Reflexion y Liberacion, June 10, 2013; "Pope: No to triumphalism in the Church, proclaim Jesus without fear and embarrassment", Radio Vaticana, September 10, 2013; F.B. Bruton, "Pope Francis' No. 2: Clerical celibacy is open to discussion", NBC World News, September 11, 2013; "Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: 'An open dialogue with non-believers'", La Repubblica, September 11, 2013; N. Squires, "Pope Francis reaches out to atheists and agnostics", The Telegraph, September 11, 2013; "Pope Francis: The first six months", Rhode Island Catholic, September 13, 2013; S. Jalsevac, "Pope Francis certainly has a way of stirring things up", LifeSite News, September 19, 2013; "Brazilian president signs law permitting abortion after papal visit", Catholic News Agency, August 2, 2013; A. Speciale, "Liberation theology finds new welcome in Pope Francis' Vatican", Religion News Service, September 9, 2013; R. Mickens, "Liberation theology 'is still a danger'", The Tablet, December 12, 2009; C Wooden, "Pope joins pilgrims - via video - at Shrine of St. Cajetan", Catholic News Service, August 7, 2013; C. Glatz, "Pope: Judging others kills, reflects cowardice in facing own defects", Catholic News Service, September 13, 2013.
5. A. Spadaro, "La Chiesa, l'uomo, le sue ferite: l'intervista a papa Francesco", La Civiltà Cattolica, September 19, 2013; "Papa Francesco al clero romano: alla Chiesa serve conversione pastorale e coraggiosa creatività", Radio Vaticana, September 16, 2013.
6. "The Holy Father Inaugurates the Year of Faith", Vatican Information Service, October 11, 2012.
7. Quoted from the English translation on Pope Francis' interview with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, "A Big Heart Open to God", America, September 19, 2013.
8. G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (New York: John Lane Company, 1905), p. 67.
9. H. White, "Video series sponsored by Jesuits promotes homosexuality", LifeSite News, September 3, 2013.
10. D. Oko, "Z Papiezem przeciw homoherezji", Fronda, 63, June 2012, pp. 128-160.
11. S. Magister, "Ricca and Chaouqui, Two Enemies in the House", Chiesa, August 26, 2013. See also "Dances With Wolves, Vatican Edition", New Oxford Review, September 2013, vol. LXXX, no. 7.
12. J. Aiken, "7 things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays", National Catholic Register, July 29, 2013.
13. J. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 371.
14. T. Dalrymple, "The Architect as Totalitarian", City Journal, Autumn 2009, vol. 19, no. 4.
15. M. Coren, "A Papal Revolution", Catholic Insight, September 2013, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 10.
16. Compiled in M. Coren, Aesthete: The Frank Diaries of Michael Coren (Toronto: Random House, 1993).
17. J. Bottum, "The Things We Share, A Catholic's Case for Same-Sex Marriage", Commonweal, August 23, 2013.
18. M. Coren, op. cit.
19. Cf. C.E. Clifford, "Vatican II: Revisiting the Council", Scarborough Missions Magazine, January/February 2012.
1. L.J. Podles, The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1999), p. 185.
2. F.J. Sheen, Philosophies at War (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1943), pp. 1,3.
3. "'Rebel' Pope urges youth to 'make a mess' in dioceses", Associated Press, July 27, 2013.
4. Respectively see: "Papa Francisco Dialoga como un Hermano más con la CLAR", Reflexion y Liberacion, June 10, 2013; "Pope: No to triumphalism in the Church, proclaim Jesus without fear and embarrassment", Radio Vaticana, September 10, 2013; F.B. Bruton, "Pope Francis' No. 2: Clerical celibacy is open to discussion", NBC World News, September 11, 2013; "Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: 'An open dialogue with non-believers'", La Repubblica, September 11, 2013; N. Squires, "Pope Francis reaches out to atheists and agnostics", The Telegraph, September 11, 2013; "Pope Francis: The first six months", Rhode Island Catholic, September 13, 2013; S. Jalsevac, "Pope Francis certainly has a way of stirring things up", LifeSite News, September 19, 2013; "Brazilian president signs law permitting abortion after papal visit", Catholic News Agency, August 2, 2013; A. Speciale, "Liberation theology finds new welcome in Pope Francis' Vatican", Religion News Service, September 9, 2013; R. Mickens, "Liberation theology 'is still a danger'", The Tablet, December 12, 2009; C Wooden, "Pope joins pilgrims - via video - at Shrine of St. Cajetan", Catholic News Service, August 7, 2013; C. Glatz, "Pope: Judging others kills, reflects cowardice in facing own defects", Catholic News Service, September 13, 2013.
5. A. Spadaro, "La Chiesa, l'uomo, le sue ferite: l'intervista a papa Francesco", La Civiltà Cattolica, September 19, 2013; "Papa Francesco al clero romano: alla Chiesa serve conversione pastorale e coraggiosa creatività", Radio Vaticana, September 16, 2013.
6. "The Holy Father Inaugurates the Year of Faith", Vatican Information Service, October 11, 2012.
7. Quoted from the English translation on Pope Francis' interview with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, "A Big Heart Open to God", America, September 19, 2013.
8. G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (New York: John Lane Company, 1905), p. 67.
9. H. White, "Video series sponsored by Jesuits promotes homosexuality", LifeSite News, September 3, 2013.
10. D. Oko, "Z Papiezem przeciw homoherezji", Fronda, 63, June 2012, pp. 128-160.
11. S. Magister, "Ricca and Chaouqui, Two Enemies in the House", Chiesa, August 26, 2013. See also "Dances With Wolves, Vatican Edition", New Oxford Review, September 2013, vol. LXXX, no. 7.
12. J. Aiken, "7 things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays", National Catholic Register, July 29, 2013.
13. J. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 371.
14. T. Dalrymple, "The Architect as Totalitarian", City Journal, Autumn 2009, vol. 19, no. 4.
15. M. Coren, "A Papal Revolution", Catholic Insight, September 2013, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 10.
16. Compiled in M. Coren, Aesthete: The Frank Diaries of Michael Coren (Toronto: Random House, 1993).
17. J. Bottum, "The Things We Share, A Catholic's Case for Same-Sex Marriage", Commonweal, August 23, 2013.
18. M. Coren, op. cit.
19. Cf. C.E. Clifford, "Vatican II: Revisiting the Council", Scarborough Missions Magazine, January/February 2012.
22 comments:
Congratulations on another fast-paced, witty and well-documented post. Boy, can you write! About weariness, the trick is to push it to the extreme and then come up on the other side. Faithful lay Catholics have been betrayed by the hierarchy. This is a given. Yet there is a way to endure the betrayal with joy. All it takes is a love affair with Divine Providence. Face the horror, and come up fighting. Attack, attack, attack. In response to the now famous question, "Who am I to judge?", one answer might be, "You are the pope." Diabolical disorientation has reached high levels indeed, and is so pervasive as to have become the norm. Thank you for highlighting the problem with "showmen Catholicism." Volumes could be written, but in a nutshell the Catholic faith is not and never can be a show. Period. Finally, any pope who is praised by the abortion industry should shake in his boots. It's like getting an academy award from the devil. Thank you for your blog, which is a true spiritual work of mercy.
My dear marylise, thank you for the sage spiritual advice. "Face the horror, and come up fighting" - indeed.
Further to the topic of Michael Coren, he once interviewed former abortionist Carolyn Bennett and never once alluded to her background as a paid murderer of unborn children. He either didn't know or didn't care. In the quotation below, Carolyn Bennett rejoices in the decision to strike down Canada's law protecting unborn human life. She calls a pregnant woman under her care an "abortion."
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/special_sections/2008/patients_practice/5_abortion_rights_1.html
National Review of Medicine Jan 15, 2008 Vol. 5 No. 1
Dr Carolyn Bennett, MP St Paul's, ON (L), former abortion provider:
"I was an FP at the time and we felt this unbelievable huge relief. All of us
had people going to Buffalo, doing whatever it took — it was a pretty awful
time. I remember my first abortion, as a med student in Barbados. She had red
hair and braces, she was in grade nine, age 14 — the daughter of the local
prostitute, who had been renting her out. I realized it was so important to get
her back to grade nine. So many people had their educations interrupted."
Great post. Looking forward to the next installment.
By coincidence, I got into a brief to-do with Michael Coren on Twitter this morning, shortly before I read this article. Coren tweeted some foolishness to the effect that if Pope Francis was upsetting both the extreme left and the extreme right, he must be doing something right. (This is a dumb but apparently indestructible sophistic cliche.) I replied that I wasn't seeing a great deal of distress on the heterodox "left", and that any criticism on their part seemed motivated more by the old Hegelian Mambo, in which the modernists seize upon perceived concessions by their enemies in order to shift the grounds of permissible discussion yet further onto their own territory. This is how we ended up with a status quo in which even "conservatives" have made their peace with innovations like no-fault divorce, the leviathan welfare state, feminism, contraception, abortion, public education, the homosexual agenda, and an ever-coarsening popular culture.
In any case, Coren called me a "rad trad" and told me to shove off after a brief exchange, so I complied. The "rad trad" thing amused me--I attend a split-personality Novus Ordo parish with thoroughly orthodox and reverent priests on one hand, and a wretched modernist music ministry on the other. We're hardly the SSPX.
But the name-calling DOES seem telling. If our Holy Father's logorrheic omnipresence has been good for anything, it has been for helping to show where the fault-lines lie, "to reveal the thoughts of many hearts," as it were. Modernists are ecstatic, perceiving (correctly) that things are finally going their way. Secularists are pleased that the Church seems to be in the hands of someone who seems to dislike faithful Catholics almost as much as they do. Orthodox Catholics, meanwhile, are in complete disarray.
And one of the things revealed is a troubling and ahistoric dependency on the character of the specific person occupying the Chair of Peter. On the one hand, some despairing Catholics are talking about heading off to the SSPX or even to the Orthodox Church. On the other, we have those who rush to rationalize or contextualize the Pope's comments into something vaguely resembling Catholic orthodoxy. In this latter group, we have many of the Patheos crew, a multitude of blog commenters, Catholic Answers, George Weigel, and Michael Coren, among others. And you get the distinct impression there's a fair amount of cognitive dissonance going on in those circles. Hence the name-calling and the accusations:
"The media has taken Francis out of context." (A little, but not that badly.)
"You haven't read what Francis really said." (But many have, and are sincerely troubled.)
"You're just like the elder brother in the Prodigal Son parable." (Question-begging nonsense.)
It's all quite Donatist, as if their faith relies entirely on the personal holiness of the Pope. What on earth would they do under an Alexander VI? I don't know if Francis will turn out to be a bad Pope, a mediocre one, or a great one, but it's absurd to think that we've developed some magical immunity to having a knave ascend to the See of Peter.
A trend in the modernist church is for converts like Michael Coren to assume leadership roles within two seconds of their conversion, and usually for money. Even if the conversion is genuine, the leadership role is premature. When converts come from protestant sects, they are big on "enthusiasm" but also shallow, uninformed and shockingly ungrateful for the grace they have been given (e.g., they wax nostalgic about the fun they had with protestant heretics in the good old days). Underlying this trend is the vacuum created by unfaithful bishops. Since the bishops are busy with sexual and financial crimes, they have no time to teach the truth and the flock is at the mercy of ambitious converts. (The name Hahn comes to mind.) Even some Catholic revert stories are fake. The worst was John Corapi shamelessly promoted by EWTN until his addiction to cocaine, money and prostitutes was publicly exposed. Again, there is a void that only faithful bishops can fill.
Coren has been around for two decades now, interacting with many people (popular and less popular politicians, writers etc) with many views, through his radio/TV talk shows. He knows who's who, so it is unlikely he didn't know Bennett's background.
But this is part and parcel of the Neo-Catholic schtick - "even though what you say is wrong and evil", you still have the "right" to say it. Sure, Coren and those of like mind will rally against the State when the State wants to penalize or imprison people with views the antinomian/democratic State deems unacceptable. But by giving too much latitude to, and a regular venue for, those who speak evil/error in the first place, they effectively allow for these evils/errors to perpetuate, compounding the problem.
It places the "rights of man" over the "rights of God" and is a form of liberalism. For secularists, this is how they operate, but it is totally inconsistent with Catholicism. The origins of this are to be found with the French Revolution, liberté, égalité, fraternité, etc.
I would take it as a badge of honour that Coren called you a "rad trad". Incidentally, went to Twitter and I read your exchange with him (also followed you).
It is good that you brought up the Hegelian thing - thesis/anti-thesis leads to "synthesis". This is another thing part and parcel of the Neo-Catholic "schtick". They effectively claim to have transcended dualism, "left" vs. "right", Traditional vs. Modernist, achieving some sort of enlightened balance and, moreover, there is something gnostic about it all.
If you look closely, at prominent Neo-Catholics, at least here in Canada (e.g., Coren, Peter Stockland and one priest I won't mention) you will note that they have achieved a nice, comfortable balance between the Catholic Church and the Secular World. They will have their TV/radio talk shows, secular newspaper columns, think tanks, etc. but they will also have their diocesan newspaper columns, speaking engagement at Church functions, etc. Again, achieving a balance that's just right. Just enough acceptability to be respectfully received in the secular media, and just enough "conservatism" to swing with the Neo-Catholic/Modernist hotshots in the establishment church as it is now.
Yes, marylise, they have appointed themselves to leadership roles. That has been one of the unfortunate consequences since the 1960s - priests and religious left in droves, declining vocations. Hence a vacuum develops, so then the laity comes to fill the void, but unfortunately the laity who have appointed themselves are, as you correctly identify, very interested in money, but also self-promotion, self-assertion, developing their own turf, and so forth.
Dear Heresy Hunter, you won't mention the Canadian priest, but we are allowed to guess (using initials), right? First guess: Fr. T.R., CEO of Slop & Lather.
Actually, no. He is a Neo-Modernist.
OK, back to the drawing board. (And, by the way, ROFL.)
Second guess: Fr. R.de S?
I said I wasn't going to mention ;)
Absolutely, fair enough! But do you think some day you might be able to define for the rest of us the terms "neo-modernist" and "neo-Catholic"? From your comments, one might guess that a "neo-modernist" is an actual heretic whereas a "neo-Catholic" is not quite a heretic but a Catholic stuck in his own era and lacking appreciation for Tradition. Is this anywhere close? The distinction would be useful to grasp. Many thanks.
Wow -- this is so interesting. Getting a handle on these definitions makes it possible to understand why nowadays salaried defenders of the faith (neo-Catholics) are just as bad as -- or worse than -- salaried bashers of the faith (neo-modernists). Heretofore this phenomenon has caused untold vertigo. For example, at the recent conclave both the unnamed neo-modernist priest and the unnamed neo-Catholic priest were there, basking before the cameras. The unnamed neo-modernist priest was easy to see through (he always is), but the unnamed neo-Catholic priest was more plausible. Yet in the end they were both administering poison.
The things you write about need to be said, but your writing style is far too verbose. That is a serious handicap because clarity of expression is indispensable if you want to be taken seriously on these issues.
Criticism noted. Thank you. Yet, whether or not the posts/analyses at this blog are taken "seriously" by whomever is of no concern to me.
If we are analyzing efficacy of style and content today, I would like to add that I am very thankful (it is Thanksgiving Day here in the Great White North, waspy though it may be) that TH2 has developed a unique style and depth in his writing. In contrast, one might note, to the usual, near total lack of style and depth that permeates most of the Catholic blogosphere and their loyal, droning, waspy-catholic followers.
Such a shame and pity that the once great tradition of true Catholic intellect continues to be trampled upon, or at best bastardized, by the pride and arrogance of this fast-food "culture" of dissent and death. A mind truly is a such terrible thing to waste on lives structured and governed by this modern, "30-second soundbite" mentality.
There was an article in the Remnant a few months ago concerning the sad state of education and intellectual development in our western society. Part of the title of the piece was something like, "Building a Civilization of Self-Confident Morons?" Now that was indeed a clear and to-the-point headline!
So much rotten fruit to this modern age of abortion, divorce, fornication, contraception, and all-round general ignorance and rudeness.
.......But such an excess of self-esteem and consumption. Interesting that "consumption" used to be a term meaning "a wasting disease, esp. tuberculosis." Indeed.
God help us to turn turn away from the loud 'n proud, make-it-fast ignorance of this most violent and bloody culture of death. "Self-confident morons" mis-shaping the world God created for us.
And that's my two-cents' worth on style and content herein .....oh, I almost forgot, we did away with the pennies. Well, okay then, nickel or dime's worth. I feel more important and confident already. Bring on the loonies and stop wasting my time!
Ave Maria! And on earth peace to men of good will.
Happy Waspy Thanksgiving, plc53. I'm eating leftovers today, from a big meal yesterday.
Dear Heresy Hunter: Your spirit of detachment (in response to Aloysius) tempts some of us to sins of envy. It is to be hoped that occasional criticism will not make you doubt the gift you have been given as a writer. This gift -- and your generosity in letting others benefit from it -- is beyond dispute. Aloysius is entitled to his taste: some people hate the way Shakespeare writes, others hate the way Hemingway writes. However, as a matter of salvation, the gift must be recognized by the person to whom it has been entrusted (Matthew 25:14-30). You are a seriously talented writer and your blog is a goldmine.
Thanks, marylise. In actuality, I welcome criticism, however harsh, as it subdues any pride, keeps me "in check", so to speak. Sometimes I wonder why there isn't more in the comment boxes at this blog.
Are you prone to heresy? http://rodericke.com/heresy-threat-assessment
Post a Comment