SOME NOTES ON THE APOSTOLIC VISITATION OF THE LCWR NUNS IN RELATION TO CANADA

I. P is for Polyester and, gosh darn it, it's a fascinating substance when chemically considered. It has many forms, natural and synthetic, though the most commonly known - as in fabric for clothing - is polyethylene terephthalate, having the molecular formula C10 H8 O4, with "PET" as the slick sounding acronym. As a material, PET is durable, stiff, effectively water insoluble and, if you've had the pleasure to observe the phenomenon, highly reflective in the visible band of the electromagnetic spectrum, whether that light emanates naturally from the sun or artificially from, say, spotlights - and let me tell you, the reflectivity effect is spectacular under an Argon laser. I've got the pictures to prove it. Polyester shines, it shimmers, it even glows on rare occasions, yielding a cornucopia of colourations. But even more fascinating than the photometrics of polyester was its meteoric rise in popularity after 1965, in the semblance of fashion statements showcased by Catholic women religious. This is a worrying situation. The combination of polyester apparel, a highly flammable material, with bouffants drenched in similarly flammable hairspray, is a five-alarm fire hazard just waiting to happen... okay okay, I'll stop. Sorry, ladies, couldn't resist.

II. Yes, ever since this blog got going in early 2009 there's been fair amount of lambasting of the Polyester Menace. Let's not forget that Mr. Scampers has levelled some broadsides, too. Your host has received criticism over it, perhaps deservingly sometimes. Though I've been vindicated in a way because in the three or so years that have past, after innumerable exposés and reports in the Catholic blogosphere, the damage effectuated by the Habitless Hordes is now demonstrated to be an indisputable fact. Endorsement of Barry and his health care dictatorship, priestesses, Gaia and goddesses worship, "reproductive health" and so forth. Sure, you have the likes of Fr. James Martin at America magazine defending the LCWR nuns with his Twitter hashtag campaign. Yet methinks most Catholics on the internet - orthodox inclined, already know Martin manoeuvres like a snake in the grass. So no worries there, ephemeral and insignificant influence, excepting with the useful idiots at the Vox Nova blog. Anyhow, Rome has delivered its verdict and the gals have been found wanting.

III. The decline in the number of women religious in the West has been thoroughly documented over the last decade or so.[1] The average age of a nun these days is about 70 years and, save traditional orders with younger postulants (which are growing, thankfully), those orders advocating social/ecological justice, feminism and New Age esoterica are gaining few entrants, if any. The biological solution is doing its cold, indifferent work and even prominent polyester pantsuit nuns are acknowledging immanent extinction. It's not all bad news, however. There is no "vocation crisis" with regard to nuns if, as a prime example, we look to countries in Africa and South Asia.[2] These ladies, too, are habit-wearing orthodoxians and care not an iota about health care conferences or the welfare of polar bears wandering precariously atop a supposedly shrinking cryosphere.

IV. Given these trends, it was astonishing (well, not really) to read the following in a recent editorial at the Prairie Messenger:

Most religious communities in the west have been undergoing a drastic change. Their membership is aging and decreasing; they are not attracting young members as they once did; they are giving up ownership of institutions such as schools and hospitals; and they are shifting into more pastoral types of work. In much of this, they reflect what is happening in other groups in our church and society today. Historians of religious life point out that religious congregations go through cycles; many don’t last more than 200 years, so the decline experienced today is normal. Many of today's congregations were founded to do social work. In a historical context, this was an innovation.[3]

Three counterpoints to be made here. Firstly, in the case of women religious, decreasing membership is not so much a reflection of "our church and society" as a nearly absolute succumbing to the spirit of the world, the secular one. A qualifier should also have been made. Only membership in orders run by pantsuit fashionistas are on the decline. Traditional orders, albeit now small in comparison, are on the rise. Social stats attest. Secondly, a summoning of the cyclical fallacy. An author of a book examining the rise and fall of religious orders states: "Cyclic theorists tend to oversimplify history and to postulate the existence of regular cycles or of a mechanical relationship between movements of religious fervor and large-scale environmental forces - neither of which is empirically justified".[4] Note particularly the phrases "regular cycles... mechanical relationship" or, in Pete's case, "natural", as if inevitable, regardless of human choices involved. Decline in religious orders is "natural", like the axial precession of the equinoxes, and there's nothing human freewill can do to change the condition. Yes, the birth rate decline and cultural factors are at play. Still, this view effectively makes adherence to doctrine, to magisterial teachings, a non sequitur. Of course, this is part of the ruse - no distinction made between habit-wearing and habitless nuns. The former strive to obedience, they're growing in number, whereas as the latter are largely defiant of Church authority and oblivion now appears on their horizon. Thirdly, "social work" as an "innovation" in the Church. In the past this meant feeding the hungry, helping the poor, comforting the widows, etc. which - I'm quite sure - Christ preached 2000+ years ago. It also meant copious prayer and devotion to the holy. Call it an "innovation" if you like, though what I don't find particularly innovative is a social worker nun lounging around in her privately-own condominium suite, cracking open a few cold ones after a hard day of protesting and committee meetings. Seems not apropos.

V. It's difficult to understand why there's been such an uproar over the Visitation, as if the LCWR have been unjustly affronted. In actuality, the Church has been effectuating such investigations for centuries, overseen by Rome itself and/or bishops:

A primary purpose of... episcopal jurisdiction was to prevent the nuns and monks from falling into error and heresy. Several authors have remarked that women, especially, were attracted to various heretical movements such as the Gnostics, the Cathars, the Waldensians, and the Protestant reformers - perhaps because these groups promised, initially at least, to give their female adherents higher status and more power... the bishops were responsible for assuring the doctrinal orthodoxy of the religious communities within their jurisdiction. It was also feared that, if left unsupervised, both women and men in religious communities would degenerate into loose living.[5]

Like the Protestant and Gnostic heresies, Modernism and Feminism promises women religious "higher status and more power", a euphemism for doctrinal/magisterial rejection. And the LCWR has more or less been left "unsupervised" for five decades. From what I've read and learned from private conversations with women and men religious, the "loose living" descriptor is an understatement when it comes to liberal religious orders. But, you see, the wholesale dismissal of the pre-conciliar church by Modernist luminaries, let alone the historical revisionism, has facilitated an ignorance of two millennia past, making 1965 AD into 33 AD. This is why, for example, we already have a group of uninformed people protesting Rome's final decision on the LCWR. The news report says "nearly two dozen Catholics, and even people of other faiths, gathered here outside of St. Mary's Church in a strong showing of support" (H/T Tancred at The Eponymous Flower). Judging by screenshots from the newsreel, not sure if "strong support" is an apt phrase to characterize this...

...or this...

...oh my, it is true: old is gold.

VI. The previous post addressed some reactions to the Apostolic Visitation of the LCWR - American nuns, that is. What about Canada? Currently, there are approximately 50 orders/institutes of women religious in Canada. As this blogger lamented in a post last year, it wouldn't have been that much of a hassle for Rome to check up on things north of the 49th Parallel. Alas, not much done and it's not as if the Canadian bishops are performing corrective measures. So, as a public service to any respectable Catholic ladies considering the religious life, TH2 conducted his own Virtual Visitation - assessing, screening, scrutinizing orders/institutes across Canada. For traditional orders, the following would be worthy of consideration: Sisters of Our Lady Immaculate (Cambridge, ON), Sisters of the Sacred Heart (Welland, ON), Missionary Sisters of the Precious Blood (Toronto, ON), Carmel of St. Joseph (St. Agatha, ON), Carmelite Sisters of the Divine Heart of Jesus (Toronto, Mississauga, St. Catharines, ON; Medicine Hat, AB). Not many, mainly in Ontario, although I'm sure there are a few more.

VII. Sure, do you own investigations, though it is highly advisable you stay away from the following places: Ursulines of Jesus (Prince George, BC; Edmonton, AB), Ursulines of the Chatham Union (Chatham, ON), School Sisters of Notre Dame (Waterdown, ON), Sisters of Sion (Toronto, ON), Sisters of St. Martha (Antigonish, NS), Sisters of Charity (Halifax, NS), Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul (Kingston, ON), Sisters of Mercy (St. John's, NL), Our Lady's Missionaries (Toronto, ON), Les Filles de la Sagesse (Ottawa, ON), Congrégation de Notre-Dame (Montreal, QC), Benedictine Sisters at the House of Bread Monastery (Nanaimo, BC), Benedictine Sisters at St. Benedict's Monastery (Winnipeg, MB), Sisters of Social Service (Toronto/Hamilton, ON; Regina, SK), Adrian Dominican Sisters (based out of Adrian, MI), Sisters of St. Joseph (at various Ontario locations: London, Hamilton, Toronto, Peterborough, Sault Ste. Marie), and the notorious Loretto Sisters, Canadian Province of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary (IBVM).

The aforelisted are dead end LCWR analogues. Diminution and disappearance loom. Accordingly, we conclude by saying...

NOTES / REFERENCES

1. Cf. P. Wittberg, The Rise and Fall of Catholic Religious Orders, A Social Movement Perspective (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994), pp. 1-3.

2. A good summary of the present situation can be found at J. Ziegler, "Nuns Worldwide", Catholic World Report, May 12, 2011.

3. P. Novecosky, "Vocation Sunday", Prairie Messenger, April 18, 2012.

4. Wittberg, op. cit., p. 6.

5. Ibid., pp. 79-80.

SOME NOTES ON THE APOSTOLIC VISITATION OF THE LCWR NUNS IN RELATION TO CANADA

DESPERATIO IN OCCIDENTUM

I. One of the most enjoyable facets of Benedict XVI's pontificate - for me, at least - has been to watch the reactions of Nu-Church hipsters to events signalling an evident return back to traditional Catholicism. Whenever the blog of the Vatican Information Service (which I diligently monitor) posts on such events, it has been a kind of tradition of mine to immediately rush to my fridge and grab an ice cold Corona, then fire up some popcorn in the microwave. The anticipation, the excitement! No, not with the VIS blog as such. In actuality, the posts over there are unspectacular, matter-of-fact, humdrum reading - and that's the way it should be. Say what you will about Fr. Lombardi, Director at the Press Office of the Holy See - regardless of the antiquated telecommunication technologies currently utilized in the Vatican bureaucracy, he should be praised because whomever he's delegated to write/compile those VIS blog posts is doing a smashing job. Who cares if they're typed on a Commodore 64? You have to read these posts closely, be attentive to what is communicated between the lines, because there's a lot of crucial stuff brewing down there in the subsurface not discernible with a quick first glance. Anyway, my anticipation and excitement relate, rather, to inevitable rejoinders coming soonafter from heretical Catholic press agencies and their allies, not just on the Left, but also from the Neocons. True, there are occasions when your blood boils upon reading these screeds, especially if a neophyte or if you're not exactly in the best of moods. Although after a while, once you start to understand patterns and the players involved, it becomes quite entertaining, indeed exhilarating.

II. Let's review some classic reactions: When Anglicanorum coetibus was announced in late 2009, so thrilled was I that a "hurrah!" bellowed forth and, instead of popcorn to celebrate, I had a cucumber sandwich. Culinary reunification, too, you know. However, the response to the Anglican Ordinariate at The Tablet was, shall we say, somewhat downcast: it will introduce "confusion among Catholics who have long been committed to the work of ecumenism".[1] Translation: decades of "dialogue" with tea and crumpets in luxuriant boardrooms at chic hotels has been exposed for what it is: inutile, non-committal, lovey dovey backslapping. Party's over, fellas. Everyone knows you never had the real intention of netting the Anglicans and tossing them over the Tiber. This is why the HF performed a by-pass manoeuvre. Tallyho, as the Brits say.

III. Another, very recent, reaction came after the CICLSAL's findings from the Apostolic Visitation of the LCWR in the good ole US of A. When the investigation first commenced (in 2009) Heresiarchess of the Habitless Hussies, namely Sr. Sandra M. Schneiders, gave out a rebel yell. Her defiance was palpable:

...uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house... hostile move... disturbed by the Apostolic Visitation... It is the ecclesiastical analogue of a grand jury indictment... A number of features... are problematic or repugnant to intelligent, educated, adult women in western society... an unwarranted surprise attack... not only does the fact of the investigation feel threatening if not sinister but its mode is upsetting to adult professional women religious... a return to pre-conciliar lifestyles akin to those in his [Cardinal Franc Rodé's] eastern European homeland under Communism.[2]

Don't ya just love it? How can you not? Still, pray for this poor creature as her time is running out. And only a couple of weeks ago the CDF delivered the final assessment: "scant regard for the role of the Magisterium... a rejection of faith... serious source of scandal... certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith... serious doctrinal problems".[3] Robert McClory at the National Catholic Reporter showed us his feminine side by siding with the sistas, dubbing the assessment as a "stubborn persistence of the old misogyny and sexism".[4] That's so sweet. Perhaps Robbie might consider purchasing a soothing pair of mantyhose to alleviate his feminist frustration.

IV. But McClory's reaction to the Apostolic Inquisition (TH2 exposes clenched teeth while rubbing hands together, much better than "Visitation") was butch in comparison to what was editorialized out west in Edmonton at the Western Catholic Reporter. Maybe as my fellow Canucks know, WCR's editor has got the hots for heretical babes. When last year vampire authoress Ann Rice publicly announced she was leaving the Catholic Church (after a brief stay-over, until reality kicked in), editor Glen Argan did a Perry Mason. Apparently, the Church's teaching on homosexuality is unacceptable to Ms. Rice (reportedly, her son is a sodomite) and, any Catholics who straightforwardly affirmed the Church's position on this issue in the public square were uncompassionate Neanderthals. Here's the hissy fit with a dab of condescension: "for some who have a genuine allegiance to the Christian faith [that would be Glen] this public image of intolerance and ignorance has become increasingly hard to bear".[5] Did somebody say "mantyhose"? Then there is his endorsement of Sr. Elizabeth Johnson. In an article entitled "A feminist perception of the Spirit", you can almost hear Glen giggling with glee as he effervescently writes about Johnson's "1992 feminist treatise on the nature of God, She Who Is... The Protestant tradition has tended to privatize the Holy Spirit, the Catholic tradition to institutionalize her". [6] Hee hee hee. What he doesn't say is that Lizzie has a pro-woman ordination stance, let alone all her goddess worship goofiness. Another "treatise" (sounds important) by Johnson, Quest for the Living God, was censured last year by the USCCB, of all places. So given Glen's always-superabundant-benefit-out-the-doubt-disregard-the-facts defences of the heretical cupcakes, it was no surprise that he came to LCWR's defence. As per usual, his tactic is divert attention away from the party under scrutiny and redirect it to an underlying, hidden grievance against the Church. He sets the stage with an old Nu-Church stand-by, "the ossified Catholicism of the pre-conciliar Church had been rejected", and then the pillow fight begins:

One may well ask why the CDF decided to investigate the LCWR at all. Was it a case of frightened men determined to oppress Spirit-inspired women who prophetically challenge male power? If that is the case, the Catholic Church is in dire trouble and those who want to follow Jesus might well consider going elsewhere.[7]

Have to confess, after first reading that, the following image immediately popped up in my head...

...and then I wondered if Glen was gonna make it after all. To be fair, he did counterpoint that howler by stating "available evidence points clearly" to "an organization that was going astray". Nonetheless, that "frightened men" was even mentioned (a case of self-projection?), unnecessarily, as if warranted, as if it's a viable matter to be given serious consideration, disqualifies the editorial as a reasoned opinion rooted in traditional Catholicism... sorry, "ossified Catholicism". Remember: the Catholic Church started during the period circa 1962 to 1965. Then Argan starts talking about "the post-Vatican II renewal", it "will likely take at least 100 years", "a difficult process". What he fails to understand, or admit, is that the LCWR went coo coo for Cocoa Puffs after V2, using the council as a justification for rebellion, not (ahem) "renewal". Finally, the editorial sundae is topped off with a Maraschino cherry: "The CDF does not provide much of the evidence that led it to blow its trumpet of alarm in regards to the LCWR". Well, raw data garnered from Visitations are not placed into the public domain (it's called discretion, Glen). Regardless, all one has to do is to visit websites of LCWR orders or surf the Catholic blogosphere. It's all there to see in technicolor: feminism, pantheism, nature worship disguised as "ecological justice", Liberation Theology disguised as "social justice", labyrinths and other New Age hocus pocus, women priests, pro-contraception, pro-homosexuality, support for Obummer's Health Care bill, "clinic escorts" at abortion mills, and so on. If the aforementioned don't meet some evidential criterion to warrant an investigation, what does? What would be Modernist Glen's likely response to this question? - "Oh, Mr. Graaaannnt..."

V. McClory, Argan and their girly ilk make it as if the LCWR suffered a broadside from the CDF, though that was hardly the case. An en masse excommunication decree would have been a great joy, but I'm a dreamer. Rome's treatment of the LCWR hasn't been harsh enough in my opinion, sort of... I've been mulling over this matter for months and suspect that there may be something else operating behind the scenes. It could be that, when the Visitation was decreed in 2009, Cardinal Franc Rodé, then Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, had a card up his sleeve (incidentally, +Rodé has experience in negotiations with Marxists, so he knows when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em). Regarding this apparent leniency, including the recent appointment of an Archbishop Delegate to oversee the LCWR, what I speculate is happening here is that, after slashing off the heads of the hydra, the boys are trying to figure out if they can salvage any remaining life from its now flailing body. Recall: the L in LCWR stands for "Leadership", meaning the leading rebels, those "few" manipulators, comparatively speaking. Note that LCWR congregations represent 57,000 nuns, mostly elderly, most of them off the rails. That's a huge number. An ample proportion of that 57,000 were consecrated prior to Vatican II, wore habits, wholly devoted to Our Lord at the time, had the vocational intention of being obedient to the Church, with no desire or expectation of jumping onto the feminist bandwagon with Gloria and Barbarella...

It would not be unreasonable to posit that some nuns - absent from the limelight, uninvolved and uninterested in protest marches, pamphleteering, transcendental meditation, big time lesbian action, etc. - were overwhelmed by the post-V2 blitzkrieg, distraught and disheartened at the heresy adopted by their orders. They suffered silently for decades, not speaking out to their superiors, perhaps because of the obedience vow, or personality and psychological factors were involved. Today, the V2-Revolution is just a meaningless, fading memory for a vestige of these nuns. If you check the photo galleries at websites of heretical orders you will occasionally see a nun, off to the side, wearing some remnant of a habit, sometimes with a slightly vacant look in her eyes - and that makes me wonder. So there's got to be a small, but sizeable number of nuns under the LCWR umbrella who feel lost, helpless. And I'll even bet my bippy that, for one or maybe two who willingly succumbed, a quiet one-on-one conversation, a little nudging of the conscious, a smile, a picture of the Blessed Mother, would turn them into Prodigal Daughters in a flash. But you would need a special person to oversee such an undertaking. Enter Mother Mary Clare Millea. Recall again: Rome dispatched her to lead the Visitation. She is the American superior general of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Mother is a double-degreed Psychologist with heaps of experience (very important), has a Doctorate in Canon Law, and she's a polyglot. That's one heavy hitter. About a year ago there was a video at the AV site with Mother discussing the Visitation's progress, but it has since disappeared. If watched, you would have discerned a calm, inward knowingness about her, even a twinkle in her eye... Basically, what I am suggesting is that, even if numbers are marginal, the Vatican wants to haul any survivors back onto the boat before the severed, still gasping hydra heads latch onto and drag them into the abyss. That would be a good thing. But, again, speculation on my part.

VI. What isn't speculation has been the (expected) dismissive, periodically belligerent reaction to the Catholic blogosphere by the hippie establishment. That's because it is assiduously monitored by bloggers and often has been caught with its proverbial hand in the Arian cookie jar. Neocat profe$$ionals, salesmen apologists, institutionalists, celeb converts, a male diva and "nice" bloggers predominate - the club, you know. Though the Trads (thankfully, at last) have been pushing forward in the last few years, they're making a move, and this is evidential of a trending back to traditional Catholicism (albeit at a localized, smaller-scale) that commenced when B16 took the helm.[8] There are also a select number of nasty, deplorable Catholic blogs out there too (TH2 stares at shoes). Anyway, the Catholic blogosphere is rambunctious by its very nature and appropriately ferocious when necessitated so as to keep checks and balances on apostatic bishops, chancery office quacks, episcopal conference shenanigans, CNS disinformation and so forth. It was only last month, April 2012, when the USCCB said bloggers play a "critical role" in the "defense of our first freedom".[9] Highly doubtful that most American bishops concur with that, but it's a start. Excepting the Vatican blognic last year, the same sign of an apparent openness, unfortunately, has yet to occur anywhere else, including Canada. There is a certain CEO of a Toronto-based Catholic multimedia outlet whose reaction to the blogosphere has been rather (cough) undiplomatic.[10] And, of course, there was that classic reaction by Winnipeg's Abp. James Weisgerber when CCCB president: "These bloggers who claim to be more Catholic than anyone... they're not part of the church".[11] That Sparkles, what a guy.

VII. The principal fear Modernists have with, say, the incoming orthodox-imbued Anglicans, is the reverent liturgy to which they will suffuse into an atmosphere already overlorded by the ever-malleable, self-revolving, Protestantized liturgy of the Novus Ordo and its irreverent "spirit of" V2-attendants: blurring of the priest/layman distinction, priest as entertainer, parishioner expectation to be entertained, incessant chatter, clapping, high-five extravaganzas during the "sign of peace", super-high heeled chick parishioners in mini-skirts and tube tops, "lay ministers", "greeters" and other forms of "hospitality" awkwardness, Communion in the hand, altar girls, felt banners, busybody laity having the run of the parish, minimalist/sterile if not altogether vulgar iconography, New Age-Masonic church architecture, Haugen-Hass ditties, acoustic guitars, bongos, liturgical dance, clowns, puppets - all these dollar store novelties are so dear to Nu-Church comptrollers that any skewing of the currently immanentized, horizontalist liturgy to a more transcendent, vertically-inclined plane to is to them a threat to their beloved aggironamento. The GIRM changes last year, minor really, were baby steps in this process toward a more reverent liturgy (the NO must be phased out, but that's another post). One commentator called the new GIRM "one more assault on the council".[12]

VIII. Yet that retort and a few others were mere grumblings compared to the cartwheels performed after another by-passing (Ordinariate-like) move made by His Holiness in 2007. We are speaking, obviously, of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The Tridentine Mass was never abrogated and priests don't need permission from their bishops to celebrate it. SP was a major blow to those who, through whatever machination or politicking, were suppressing the TLM for 40+ years. The Nu-Church hipster reaction to SP can be summarily heard by clicking the blue button at this link. Noteworthy squirmfests came from the Manhattan luvvies at America magazine, with gems like "an obsession with the language of the liturgy", "A step backward?".[13] A laugh-riot, I say. Sounds gleeful, okay. But how can you not at least smile? Though instead of smiling, enemies of the Church are belting out a cacophony of screeches - and they can do so to whatever decibel desired. Doesn't matter. Error has no rights. And golly gee willikers, while we're at it let's put that Oath Against Modernism back online. Think of its economic benefits too - share prices for Depends underwear would skyrocket.

IX. Now let's be clear here: various episcopal conferences and allied parties from within chancery offices to university departments far and wide are doing their darnedest to thwart this ongoing return to what might be called the authentically Catholic. Look, for example, to the Magic Circle in the U.K. and see how some bishops are putting up roadblocks to the incoming Anglicans.[14] The Ordinands have already suffered enough, they've left everything behind, and now they have to deal with secret grudges and petty fiefdoms of a vanishing episcopal breed. Give them a break. Open up your arms and your hearts and say "Welcome home, my long awaited friend". Or just consider the retaliations against Summorum Pontificum in not a few dioceses. Unfortunately, an antagonistic Modernist attitude governs most Catholic institutions throughout the Western world and will be a robust force working to impede the traditionalist restoration. Time - the greatest of heresy hunters - however, will do the winnowing out, the running down, ultimately being victorious. Just wish that time would move faster.

X. Admittedly, the speed of this restoration as prompted by the good guys in Rome is happening too sluggishly for my taste. The 50-year experiment of leniency has demonstrated itself to be a fiasco and the moribund condition of post-conciliar Catholicism is an unassailable fact. Anyone who claims the post-V2 Church to be "vibrant" or that we're still in the process of "renewal" has to stop eating their Lucky Charms for breakfast. I'm more of a bring-the-hammer-down kind of guy, preferring the shock and awe approach. First dazzle and mesmerize, so as to disarm the enemy, then go in with the upper cut to finish the job and say "Sayanora, baby". Unexpected and unpleasant, yet quick and efficient. Diplomacy is an approach to which I'm not predisposed. Direct dialectical engagement, not dialogical pussyfooting. As one of my blogging buds said to me in a heated combox debate: "I don't think we'll be seeing you in First Things magazine any time soon". Indeed, dear lady, you are correct... you arrrrrrrrrreeeee correct :)

XI. Just one more reaction to Summorum Pontificum, from a person we'll momentarily call Mr. X. A society he leads "rejoices to see the Church... regain her liturgical Tradition, and give the possibility of a free access to the treasure of the Traditional Mass for the glory of God, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, to the priests and faithful who had so far been deprived of it". Wait a second - that was an affirming reaction to the SP issuance. Does not compute. Modernists loathe the TLM and Neocats are overly protectionist when it comes to the Novus Ordo. So who, pray tell, is this Mr. X? Well, ladies and gents, those words were written by none other than Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, the SSPX - the acronym that evokes unmitigated contempt in the collective mind of the ruling Nu-Church Commissariat. Publicly issued letters, posts, rumors are currently flooding the Catholic blogosphere, hinting at an imminent settlement between Rome and the SSPX. The wolves are at work too, Modernists and Sedevacantists. Reportedly, Pope Benedict is to decide on the SSPX's response to the "doctrinal preamble" by the end of this month.

XII. Now suppose... just suppose there emerges a "canonical agreement". Imagine the reaction, the clamour. As one commentator correctly remarked, "enemies will make themselves known with unbridled ferocity".[15] No doubt the Modernists will shriek like a bunch of drunken baboons and I'm guessing the Neocat reaction will be guarded, i.e. plenty of tongue biting. Even before B16's expected pronouncement - and the HF really does want a resolution (he's been dealing with this hot potato for over 30 years), we are already getting signals of the maelstrom to manifest should Rome and the SSPX come to a formal accord. That is, desperation in mounting. For one example of this desperation, we return to our pal at the Western Catholic Reporter. Someone on Twitter was kind enough to advise me of Mr. Argan's SSPX editorial published in late March[16]. It is reproduced below in full with my lettered-paragraph identifiers for subsequent analysis:

Lefebvrists remain unbending in rejection of Church teaching

[A] Schism in the Church is a most serious matter. It ruptures the Body of Christ and defies Christ's stated desire that all be one in him.

[B] In its relations with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, the Vatican has bent over backwards to prevent a schism. The Vatican has been willing to do that because it knows how serious a schism is and how difficult it would be to heal a breach.

[C] Nevertheless, it is clear that the society, followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, will never accept many central tenets of the Second Vatican Council... For the Lefebvrists, Vatican II was a rupture with the Church's long tradition. From their perspective, it is the Catholic Church that has broken with apostolic teaching.

[D] Contrary to the Lefebvrists' view, Vatican II did not create a new Church. Catholic teaching on several matters, including liturgy, religious freedom, ecumenism, interfaith dialogue and the Church itself, surely did evolve at the council. Moreover, the fulfillment of one of Pope John XXIII's goals for Vatican II - that it present Catholic teaching in ways more suited to modern times - is still not obviously bearing fruit in terms of more people in the Western world being drawn to the Church.

[E] But the Catholic Church has been faithful to the long tradition, creatively faithful. It has overcome the suffocation which held that Catholicism was a static entity, never changing, not only in doctrine, but even in practices.

[F] The sad irony is that those who claim literally to be more Catholic than the pope have failed to be faithful precisely due to their refusal to accept the development of doctrine. Development of doctrine, it must be emphasized, is quite different than refusing to change with the times. The Church's teaching is not determined by accommodation to changing societal trends.

[G] Doctrine, however, does develop as the Church faces new issues. Pope John's insistence, for example, on a pastoral priority for ecumenism and improved relations with Judaism led the council to a deeper examination of the nature of the Church, religious freedom and the nature of salvation.

[H] The religious freedom issue was also pushed forward by the rise of totalitarian communism which granted a limited freedom of worship, but no room for Church institutions or public witness. Sadly, the Lefebvrists, who were strongly anti-communist, opposed the emergence of a doctrine of religious freedom.

[I] Relations with the Lefebvrists now appear to be moving to a culmination. Unless the Lefebvrists backtrack on their rejection of Vatican II, talks with Rome may end and the schism be firmly established. It would be an unfortunate way to mark the 50th anniversary of the start of Vatican II, a council which has contributed much to the quest for Church unity.

That the editorial's banner headline contains the generalized phrase "rejection of Church teaching", instead of a more specific pastoral teachings of Vatican II, shows right away the slant and skullduggery involved.

Para. A: Schism is more than serious, it is catastrophic. The Code of Canon Law gives its definition: "the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (c. 751). Super duper, civilization-altering schisms have eventuated (apparently) in 500-year cycles: Eastern Orthodox Schism of 1054, Protestantism in 1517 prompted by Marty's 95 Theses. TH2 doesn't subscribe to Spengler's cyclical historical determinism, though given that it's 2012, seems were due for another visit from a certain Mr. G. Reaper. If the G-Man is to use his scythe to slice and separate, who most deserves to be chucked off the barque of Peter? You'd have to be a couple of French fries short of a Happy Meal not to realize that the Modernist Left are the principal instigators of confusion, rebellion, division, heresy, openly since 1965, covertly for the 50+ years previous - and that's the point. Aforesaid editor and his type are zooming in solely on the schismatic potential of the traditionalist SSPX (a small society) but are quiet like mice on tranquilizers when it comes to Modernist schismatic potentialities (a pervasive, global phenomenon). No condemnatory words for the "Call to Disobedience" priest group in Austria. No finger wagging at the LCWR. Why not? Just the other day former LCWR prez Sr. Joan Chittister called on the sisters to "disband canonically and regroup as an unofficial interest group".[17] A blatant declaration of schism, however don't think we'll be seeing an WCR editorial on that anytime soon, or ever.

Para. B: This paragraph is misleading. When aforesaid editor writes "Vatican has bent over backwards to prevent a schism" this disregards the latae sententiae excommunication decreed in 1988, which meant the SSPX was already in de facto schism. Canon 1364: "a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication". That is, until 2009 when B16 lifted the excommunications of four bishops ordained by Marcel Lefebvre.[18] Argan is overemphasizing a kind of tension whereby forces of the two parties are moving away from each other. Yet all available information show two parties attempting to move toward one another, therefore meaning lesser strain, so to speak. Just the fact that Pope Benedict lifted the excoms evidences the latter.

Para. C: The key sentence here is: "followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, will never accept many central tenets of the Second Vatican Council". Firstly, SSPX is a society, a "priestly fraternity" officially. The "followers" ascription is derogatory, devaluing them to mindless, cultish automatons, when presently the SSPX just lacks canonical status/regularization. Secondly, it is presumed that every aspect, all "the documents" (as is often said), and all the theological-liturgical-sociological "fruits" of Vatican II are just hunky dory, no problemo. Contrastingly, consider what CDF Consultor Msgr. Nicola Bux recently wrote in an open letter to Bishop Fellay: "It is undeniable that numerous facts of Vatican II and of the period that followed it, related to the human dimension of this event, have represented true calamities and have caused intense pain to many great Churchmen. But God does not allow His Holy Church to reach self-destruction". The reader will further note that V2 superstars rarely highlight the council as pastoral, not dogmatic. Moreover, there are many Catholics without the SSPX, the Trads and the trad-inclined, who reject "many central tenets" of V2, or whatever aforesaid editor means by that unstipulated phrase (and that's the trick, keep it all non-specific and ambiguous).

Paras. D & E: Ah, yes, calling the SSPX "Lefebvrists'" - another cheapening label, the secular media like that term too. We'll let that one go. But what is specifically meant by "Catholic teaching... did evolve at the council"? When aforesaid editor speaks of the "liturgy", is this a reference to commonplace liturgical abuses and irreverence witnessed at OF Masses? When he speaks of "religious freedom", is there an awareness of the confusion caused by Dignitatis humanae, a document with unclear phraseology contradicting Pius IX's 1864 encyclical Quanta cura?[19] When he speaks of "ecumenism, interfaith dialogue", does this mean the religious relativism endorsed by the CCCB's Canadian Centre for Ecumenism? Then he states the council is "still not obviously bearing fruit". But isn't 50 years enough time for fruit to be borne? As previously quoted, "the post-Vatican II renewal... will likely take at least 100 years". Well, 50 years have passed. Logically, shouldn't we be half-way through the "renewal" process? Undoubtedly, something's amiss. Where, then, does blame go? Modernist Glen knows: "we must overcome the suffocation which held that Catholicism was a static entity, never changing, not only in doctrine, but even in practices". Of course, those villainous orthodox Catholics are preventing the Church from being "creatively faithful". Fabulous and fabulist.

Paras. F & G: These two paragraphs deal with doctrinal development. Now according to aforesaid editor it is a "sad irony" that people "more Catholic than the pope" (how quaint) refuse to "accept" doctrinal development. A distinction is then made between doctrinal development as such and "accommodation to changing societal trends". Doctrine develops "as the Church faces new issues". Thusly, the question arises as to whether certain Vatican II developments are "genuine" or "corruptions". Accordingly, let's make reference to the authority that is Bl. John Henry Newman and his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Newman enumerated seven factors aiding in the differentiation of true developments from corruptions: (1) Preservation of its Type, (2) Continuity of its Principles, (3) Power of Assimilation, (4) Logical Sequence, (5) Anticipation of its Future, (6) Conservative Action upon its Past, (7) Chronic Vigor. Have all these prerequisites been satisfied? Or does the SSPX have a valid concern? Has the "original" Novus Ordo as it was celebrated, say, in the early 1970s, been preserved in the virtual circuses we observe today at St. Happy Clappy Parish? Why is there today so much talk about the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" and a need to abolish the "Hermeneutic of Rupture"? Have decades of ecumenical shindigs assimilated non-Catholics into the Church or have ecumaniacs been sucked into that swirling, non-judgemental, multi-denominational whirlpool of relativist-universalist syncretism? Ripping out communion rails, then decentralization of the tabernacle, then Communion in the hand, then an army of "eucharistic ministers" lining up to the sanitary gel dispenser, thereafter distributing the Body of Christ like party crackers - is this a logical sequence? Is the colossal decline in Sunday Mass attendance over the last 50 years an anticipation of the future? Has the subterfuging, conniving, attempted abrogation of the Latin Mass by liberal bishops been an indication of a conservative action upon the Church's past? Of "chronic vigor", Newman wrote: "the course of heresies is always short... the abounding of iniquity is the token of the end approaching; the faithful in consequence cry out, How long? as if delay opposed reason as well as patience".[20] Anyone read the Catholic blogosphere lately? What we see in Paras. F and G is another attempt by liberals to hijack Newman's "liberalism" and claim his Essay for themselves.

Para. H: Why is aforesaid editor frowning upon a priestly fraternity that is "strongly anti-communist"? As if an atheistic-materialist-totalitarian ideology responsible for the murder of countless millions isn't justification enough, or at least a valid counterargument warranting consideration. I have always found it interesting that persons who downplay the consummate evil of Communism invariably promulgate this from the safety and comfort of free societies in the West (not so much free at present, but that, too, is another post), far away from whatever Communist country. Such armchair ruminators never have spoken privately with a person who escaped from whatever Communist country, never attended a lecture where an escapee recounts his horrendous experiences. Let alone the fact that these armchair ruminators never have visited or lived in, say, Romania under Ceausescu. Instead, they guzzle down gallons of Kool-Aid, seemingly mesmerized by counterfeit benevolence like this...

...without realizing the ridiculousness involved. But, then, in response, the whole notion of religious freedom as interpreted at Vatican II is introduced into the argument, along with the Ostpolitik of ++Casaroli and company. Depending on who you read, Agostino the legendary Vatican diplomat was either a hero or a rogue. Ostpolitik was a policy wielded by the Vatican/Cardinal Casaroli in the 1960s and 1970s in an endeavour to ensure some level of betterment for Catholics living in Eastern Communist bloc countries. Dialogue and the "human face" of Communism supposedly supplanted the modes of denunciation and resistance of the past. Modernists went gaga for Ostpolitik, not only because of their love affair with sub-Marxist variants (e.g. liberation theology), not only because of Dignitatis humanae. They also saw it as an improvement in Vatican diplomacy with anti-Christian political regimes, superior than, for example, the so-called "silence" and inaction of Pope Pius XII in his dealing with the Nazis, another contrived postwar anti-Catholic myth that refuses to die. As it turned out, Casaroli's posthumously published memoirs showed a man who castigated Communism as an "abominatio desolationis",[21] surely evoking consternation in the Modernists, like aforesaid editor who "sadly" looks down upon the SSPX for its "strongly anti-communist" stance. It also turned out that Ostpolitik failed in Russia, harkening back to what Our Lady forewarned at Fatima in 1917: "Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church".[22] Marxist-Communist expansion in Asia, throughout Africa and Europe, across the Atlantic to Cuba and Central/South America, to inside the North American academe, via the combinatorial assistance of Antonio Gramsci's method of quiet interpenetration, Saul Alinsky and theories of cultural subversion formulated by the Frankfurt School.

Para. I: Desperatio in Occidentum.

XIII. The above critique was not a call for anyone to join the SSPX, neither was it an exercise in setting up a strawman. Its purpose was to expose the lies regularly thrown at the SSPX, and that grievances the society has with the post-conciliar era are justified. A decision on the SSPX is anticipated to come by the end of this month of May. If a formal agreement comes, it still could be that an obstinate faction will hit the road, inevitably leading to the City of Sedevacantism - and good riddance to them. If things don't work out, so be it... the Gates of Hell and all that cosmos shattering stuff the Lord of History decreed to St. Peter at Pan's Sanctuary in Caesarea Philippi. It is well to remember that May is the month of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Exterminatrix of Heresy. So I'm optimistic and praying for the good news of a SSPX homecoming. Yes, Exterminatrix - specifically referring to heretics already existent within because, indeed, an injection of a healthy dose of SSPX into the system, along with Summorum Pontificum and Anglicanorum coetibus, will help to exterminate the Modernist virus, albeit slowly, very slowly, as in decades, but surely nonetheless.

XIV. Forget that demographic "Future Church" crap disseminated by the weaseling John Allen, Jr., a shuffler par excellence. It's an Arian wasteland out there, Catholic peoples, and persecution is coming. Like the notorious heresy of old, Modernism will persist for some decades until, at last, the Lord of History wills its termination. In future years the Church will become smaller, but still with staying power. As B16 famously remarked: "normally it is the creative minorities that determine the future, and in this sense the Catholic Church must understand itself as a creative minority".[23]. So the current trend of a reclamation of authentic Catholicism is not a manifestation of the schismatic potential of orthodox groups. Rather, it signals a fading away of Modernism and a repair to the damage it has wrought. The aging neo-Modernists are well cognizant of the circumstance, hence the desperation. They secretly want the SSPX negotiations to tank, they want Anglicanorum coetibus to fail, they will fight, unto the death, to emplace structures within Catholic institutions that work to impede the spread of the Latin Mass. Why? Because the trend back to tradition places all their assumptions and unswerving views of Vatican II into question. Alas, time's running out. Tick tock tick tock tick tock...


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. R. Mickens and E. Curti, "New path to Rome", The Tablet, October 24, 2009.

2. See H. White, "U.S. Feminist Nun Urges Liberal Religious Orders to Resist 'Hostile' Vatican Visitation", LifeSite News, March 6, 2009; S.M. Schneiders, "Why they stay(ed)", National Catholic Reporter, August 17, 2009.

3. Quoted in M. Bauman, "Vatican announces reform of US women's religious conference", Catholic News Agency, April 18, 2012. See also A. Carey, "How Is It Going? An update on challenges to the apostolic visitation of sisters", Catholic World Report, January 16, 2011.

4. R. McClory, "LCWR: Why are we not surprised?", National Catholic Reporter, April 24, 2012.

5. G. Argan, "Author's opting out from Church gives a heads up", Western Catholic Reporter, September 6, 2010.

6. G. Argan, "A feminist perception of the Spirit", Western Catholic Reporter, July 26, 2010. For more on Johnson see T.M. Baklinkski, "Catholic University to Give Award to Goddess-Worshipping Theologian", LifeSite News, November 13, 2007.

7. G. Argan, "Scrutiny of U.S. nuns opens door to future renewal", Western Catholic Reporter, May 7, 2012.

8. Cf. C. Orlet, "Give Us That Old Time Religion", American Spectator, April 26, 2012.

9. P.B. Craine, "US Bishops: Bloggers play 'critical role' in defending the Church", LifeSite News, April 12, 2012.

10. B. Mattson, "Knocking the kinks out of the Internet", BC Catholic, April 5, 2011.

11. J.H. Westen, "CCCB President on Websites Confronting D&P: 'they're not part of the church, they're not Catholic'", LifeSite News, June 25, 2009.

12. M. Ryan, "What if we said 'wait'? The case for a grass-roots review of the new Roman Missal", America, December 14, 2009.

13. A.J. Cernera and E. Korn, "The Latin Liturgy and the Jews: What the pope's letter means for the church's 'elders in the faith'", America, October 8, 2007; J.M. Kubicki, "More Than Words: The many symbols of the liturgy", America, May 26, 2008.

14. See, for example, D. Thompson, "The English bishops are trying to smother the Ordinariate. How long will Rome tolerate this situation?", The Telegraph, December 15, 2011.

15. L. Verrecchio, "Is SSPX homecoming imminent?", Renew America, April 11, 2012.

16. G. Argan, "Lefebvrists remain unbending in rejection of Church teaching", Western Catholic Reporter, March 26, 2012.

17. Quoted in J.J. McElwee, "Vatican orders LCWR to revise, appoints archbishop to oversee group", National Catholic Reporter, April 18, 2012.

18. "Pope Benedict lifts excommunication of bishops ordained by Lefebvre", Catholic News Agency, January 24, 2009.

19. "Declaration on Religious Liberty", In: (gen. ed. A. Flannery) Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents (Boston: St. Paul & Books Media, 1992 revised edition), pp. 799-812. Originally promulgated on December 7, 1965. Cf. also P. Kokoski, "On Religious Liberty, A Critique of Dignitatis humanae", Catholic Insight, May 2012, vol. XX, no. 5, pp. 11-14.

20. J.H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Notre Dame, IA: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), p. 204. First published in 1845.

21. See S. Magister, "Beyond the Myth of Ostpolitik: A Lesson for the Challenge of Islamism", Chiesa, September 16, 2004.

22. Quoted in A.M. Martins, ed., Documents on Fatima and the Memoirs of Sister Lucia (Alexandria, SD: Fatima Family Apostolate, 1992), p. vii.

23. See S. Magister, "Interview with Pope Benedict: De-Christianized Europe. Church as a 'Creative Minority'", Chiesa, February 10, 2009.

DESPERATIO IN OCCIDENTUM

EXOTICA RANDOMLY SELECTED AND PERUSED, WITH OPINIONS PROFFERED THEREAFTER

This time around we cast our net widely across the Canadian Catholic waters to see if we can catch us some monster fishes of whatever species. Forget me now or believe me tomorrow, the reader should nonetheless be advised that there exists an immense number of unsavoury things down there in the deep, dark ocean. The pickings are aplenty. Thus we commence our analysis...

I. ITEM THE FIRST / THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING BLOG POST. Something strange happened on my return to the Salt + Light website. On February 5th the S+L blog posted a short article by Pedro Guevara Mann, entitled "Supporting the Komen Foundation?" Your host scanned it briefly but elected to return later so as to fully absorb the piece. It was on the controversy regarding the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its turnabout decision to cease funding of Planned Parenthood. Strangely, an attempted visit two days later failed, the post evaporated into the ether. "Where is it?", "Heavens to Betsy, what's going on?", were two questions TH2 elicited aloud. Intrigued, a search was then commenced with the increasingly Orwellian Google search engine. It yielded a single hyperlink, but only to a 404 error at the S+L site. See here (note the http address). A tweet advised on the post, though the shortened url, too, links to the 404 page. Another search was attempted on February 13 - and the article is indeed posted, not at the S+L site (404 still in effect), but at the CatholicTV website (originally, at 8 pm on February 5th), based in Watertown, MA. See here. The CatholicTV site also supplies the dead hyperlink with an "Additional information" label at the base of the post (screenshots were acquired).

II. Upon discovery of this most bewildering phenomenon, TH2 scratched his head and wondered a great wonder: Does Toronto know that the Americans posted the article? Apparently, there's nothing wrong with the piece, standard S+L fare in the sense of it being middle-of-the-road in viewpoint. To give him credit, however, Mr. Guevara Mann rightly highlighted the "well-documented and researched connection between abortion and breast cancer", the latter of which is the focus of the Komen Foundation. Moreover, he posed an extremely relevant question that all Catholics must deliberate upon before donating to charities: "How can I, in good conscience support the work of the Komen Foundation if I know that they are in turn, funding the work of Planned Parenthood?" The post ended by asking readers for input. Good stuff. Still, the mystery remains: Why did Guevara Mann's blog post do a Jimmy Hoffa? Could it be that, upon realization of the post content, powers aloft instructed that it be removed due to a prickly issue that some persons would rather not be publicly recognized? "But TH2, you scandalous vulgarian, that is an unsubstantiated allegation, vaguely worded, devoid of evidence, insinuating that something ulterior is operative", a reader might justifiably argue. In my defence, the following information is provided for your consideration: the CEO/Director of Venterra Realty is on the Board of Directors of the Salt+Light Catholic Media Foundation. There is also this graphical extract with an exclamation point:

Click that image and it will take you a site describing Venterra Realty's October 2011 participation in a "Race for a Cure" in Houston, TX. Further evidence of the Venterra-Komen connection can be found here and here (n.b. Venterra's support of the Komen Foundation was first pointed out to me by my American friend Allen, who runs the excellent blog Is Anybody There?).

III. So, then, what's going on down there in the peanut gallery? Why did the blog post disappear? Correlation or causation? A very good friend of the Salt + Light Catholic Media Foundation, a certain John Allen, Jr. at the National Catholic Reporter, once wrote something that, methinks, applies to this situation: There is "nothing wrong with asking where a group that takes positions on public policy gets its money, and how that funding might influence its judgments".[1] Indeed, sir. Here, Mr. Guevara Mann's important question in the now-missing S+L blog post necessitates reiteration: "How can I, in good conscience support the work of the Komen Foundation if I know that they are in turn, funding the work of Planned Parenthood?". Let's rephrase that just a smidgen: How can Venterra Realty, in good conscience support the work of both the Salt+Light Catholic Media Foundation and the Komen Foundation if it knows that the latter is in turn, funding the work of Planned Parenthood? That's right, Catholic peoples - my spidey sense is tingling.

IV. ITEM THE SECOND / HERMENEUTIC OF DISCONTINUITY. Carrying on with the fantastical world of blog posts at Canada's "Catholic Channel of Hope", there's a recent commentary on Vatican II wherein we read [TH2 emphasis]:

It is important for Catholics today to hear this [sic] affirmation of the Second Vatican Council. It certainly was a great grace to the Church in the 1960's considering, not only the many social and cultural shifts which had taken place globally since Vatican I (1869-70), but also the breaking of a long-standing mentality of authoritarianism within the Church itself. The result of the Council was a great paradigm shift in the Church’s relationship to the world and its peoples, emphasizing dialogue and communion. Today it may be worth asking why those documents, which are so revolutionary in nature and filled with the Spirit, have not been consistently and zealously implemented at every level of the Church over the past half century.[2]

Whether it was a "great grace" is certainly open to question. Shucks, I don't know - dizzying declines in church attendance, Jim and Tammy Faye Masses, anodyne homilies from the pulpit, scores of pro-abort/contracepting Catholics, polyester pantsuit nuns going on endlessly about the Enneagram and "saving the climate", cornball catechesis for the kids, Star Wars inspired church architecture, the domination of Catholic MSM by liberals, heresy taught at universities, Catholic school policy succumbing to sodomite imperatives. From one perspective, I guess, all this lovely stuff can be deemed as "a great paradigm shift". Certainly, a "revolutionary" aspect is involved. But it is my understanding that V2 was a pastoral council, not dogmatic. Unless you've been mesmerized by the kaleidoscopic outfits of this woman...

...(hello Joe), or if you think yourself too sexy for Milan, New York and Japan - like this tush-shaking male model...

...(hello again, Joe) the evidence if plain that there's been a hefty number of dogmatic breaches since Joanie, Hans and the suit-wearing remainder administered their hallucinogens those decades ago.

V. Then there's the old "mentality of authoritarianism" trick. Gosh, seemed to work swimmingly for nearly two millennia. Some examples of its detrimental effects would have been helpful. References? Documentation? And what exactly is meant by "authoritarianism"? That word, never precisely defined, is passed around like a monster spliff at a Cheech & Chong doobie festival. The reader may recollect that anti-authoritarianism was a chief motivating principle behind the 1960s Counterculture Revolution. Then, for a finale, there's this howler: the V2 "documents... have not been consistently and zealously implemented". Seriously? Ever heard of Gaudium et Spes? Hellllooooo, McFly. Goodness gracious, where's Fulton Sheen when you need him? That's right, Salt+Light, just keep on truckin with the smiley face routine. You know, the post-Vatican II Church is "vibrant", puppy dogs, bunny rabbits, butterflies, moonbeams, sunflowers, cotton candy, lollipops and...

Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

Cellophane flowers of yellow and green,
Towering over your head.
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes,
And she's gone.

Lucy in the sky with diamonds....

How true, innocence and ignorance walk hand-in-hand. TH2, too, harkens back to his salad days, with a mixture of fondness and unhappiness, but mostly unhappiness.

VI. ITEM THE THIRD / UNSCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING. Let me put forward this scenario: Say you're on the editorial board of Canada's most prestigious Catholic newspaper. Moreover, let us say that the gang is sitting around a table in the boardroom, discussing which topic in the news warrants editorializing in this week's issue. Say the subject of "when life begins" (moment of conception) is proposed, in reference to an MP who recently introduced a motion in Parliament, having the intention of starting a debate on this question. The Canadian Criminal Code states at a person is not human until after "complete birth", thus the child in utero has no legal rights according to this code. Furthermore, let us say that this politician desires the issue to be debated exclusively within the domain of scientific research/data. Well, in fact, such is the case, the politician's name is Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative MP, and the Catholic Register did publish an editorial for this story on February 7th. To supposedly give the column some historical context, a few sentences were devoted to the relationship between the Catholic Church and science.

VII. Now one would reasonably assume that, to qualify as a member of the editorial board for an eminent Catholic newspaper, at least a modicum of knowledge of Church history would be one prerequisite for the appointment. We're not talking a doctoral degree in medieval history, just the basics without the Whig spin. A fair assumption? Yes? Then please explain this:

There was a time, of course, when the Church believed some questions were better left unasked. But the days have long passed since the likes of Galileo or Darwin were considered threats. Today, the Church embraces science, particularly when it can advance the common good of mankind... like the Church in the Middle Ages, Parliament wants no part of a scientific and medical investigation that could raise questions about entrenched beliefs.[3]

Listen, I realize Popular Mechanics is a fun magazine for finding facts and figures n'stuff, though I fail to understand how this farcical drivel can be formally presented in a Catholic periodical without embarrassment, assuming no malcontentedness. Firstly, the whole Galileo affair related more to matters theological rather than scientific. But just go ahead and feed the ravenous secular MSM more fodder to body slam the medieval Church. Secondly, the Church never had a problem with the Theory of Evolution within the framework of biological/material change and adaptation. Still, like any scientific theory (which it is, still), it's open to modification, improvement, even refutation. In 1868 Cardinal Newman observed: "the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill". Any theological qualms with it belong to the Protestant Creationists, biblical literalists or whomever Concordist. Unfortunately, the falsifiable hypothesis called "Intelligent Design" - a kind of "scientific" form of Creationism - has muddied the waters of this debate, suckering in not a few conservative Christians, including Catholics, even the meddlesome Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna.[4] Where the Church does draw the line is when Darwinistic materialism is used to explicate the immaterial mind or soul of man, as that interrelates to the whole Freewill versus Determinism argument. Rather, the Church regards man's total material/immaterial being (essentially, ultimately) as elevated above a this-world materiality, as a "discontinuity, an ontological leap"[5], to use an interesting descriptor by Pope John Paul II.

VIII. What is mind boggling in the quotation is the debonair use "of course" in relation to scientific questions the Church allegedly "left unasked", and the nonchalant manner by which it is claimed the medieval Church wanted "no part of a scientific and medical investigation" - as if these are verified historical actualities. One expects to read such uninformed, slanted, Whiggish remarks in Maclean's, or THIS Magazine for that matter. What a contrast that remark is to another speaking of "the extreme liberality of the Catholic church during the close of the Middle Ages towards the meditations of the philosopher and the experiments of the physicists".[6] That was written by Pierre Duhem (1861-1916), world renown mathematician, physicist, philosopher/historian of science. He was also a very devout Catholic. What Duhem demonstrated, to the consternation of the secular intelligentsia, was that only the monotheistic/orthodox Catholic worldview of the Medieval Schoolmen, who promoted a - yes! - rational, non-theological approach to the physical world, could foster the true genesis of science, allowing it to advance in succeeding centuries, to the modern day. In other words, science could only have originated and progressed within a traditional Catholic cultural matrix. Granted, most of Duhem's works are in French, with few English translations. But then there was the internationally known Hungarian priest-theologian-physicist-polymath-polyglot Fr. Stanley Jaki (1924-2009). He spent a good part of his intellectual life corroborating, and expanding upon, Duhem's findings. If one explores books and articles on the history of science prior to AD 1500 (i.e. before the Protestant Reformation), eventually, inevitably the names Duhem and Jaki are encountered.

IX. Just a few examples of medieval science in action: Adelard of Bath (fl. 1130): his "insistence that natural causes could be studied without impinging on theology, and that it was essential to assemble and correlate facts as part of one's reasoning process was new to many of his contemporaries... he was the key contributor to the conceptual revolution which initiated scientific methods"[7]; Gerard of Brussels (ca. 10th/11th century): kinematics; Jordanus de Nemore (fl. 1170-1237): theory of motion, algebra, geometry; Friar Roger Bacon (ca. 1214-1294): commentaries on telescopes, flying machines, horseless carriages, suspension bridges, submarines, self-propelled boats; Dietrich of Frieberg (ca. 1250-1310): magnifying lenses to improve eyesight, colour spectrum, rainbows; Jean Buridan (ca. 1300-1358) theory of impetus, inertia; Blasius of Parma (ca. 1345-1416): hydrostatics (see my essay on the origins of science here for more information on this fascinating subject).

X. But the king of medieval scientists was the Bishop of Lisieux, France, namely Nicole Oresme (ca. 1323-1382). That he was "one of the most significant authors of mathematical and physical works during the Middle Ages is now beyond dispute".[8] Oresme's research anticipated three major scientific advancements: the Earth's diurnal rotation (prefiguring Copernicus); a coordinate system to graphically represent mathematical functions (prefiguring Descartes); the law of freefalling bodies (prefiguring Galileo). Said Fr. Jaki: "if one is to trace the antecedent of Newton's definitions of motion, momentum, and inertia, the line of investigation leads inevitably to Oresme's inquiring mind, guided by a firm profession of faith".[9] So, not only did it "embrace science" during the Middle Ages, contrary to the CR editorial's assertion otherwise, the Roman Catholic Church fostered its origination, thus allowing it to develop into a self-sustaining enterprise in later centuries. Accordingly, Jesus Christ is not only the Saviour of Humanity, He is also - as Fr. Jaki entitled a book - "The Saviour of Science".[10] Dear Catholic Register, is the abovementioned a big 10-4? Do I hear a Roger Dodger? Allllrighteeee, then...

XI. ITEM THE FOURTH / SKY WORSHIPPING NUNS WITH BISHROPIC SUPPORT. In his never-ending quest to promote every fashionable left wing grievance spanning from the Transantarctic Mountains to the Bering Strait, CR associate editor Michael Swan gives voice to the poor habitless Sisters of St. Joseph, with an article entitled: "Bishops' silence on climate change baffles nuns".[11] Here, meet a sister and be baffled. For more entertainment, learn about the enthralling goings-on at the "Office for Systematic Justice" and the "Ecology Committee": "We have a vision that sees Jesus' prayer 'that all may be one' accomplished in the fiber of all species, including humans and in Earth herself". Good grief. Now, normally, one expects nuns to be mostly engaged with prayer and the care of souls. Not these latter day cupcakes. The Gaian gals, reportedly, are in a kerfuffle over the climate. They're upset that the CCCB declined to sign the "Canadian Interfaith Call for Leadership and Action on Climate Change". Ever heard of that? Neither has most everyone else north of the 49th parallel. Considering that the climate has perpetually changed for billions of years, that the anthropogenic-induced "global warming" theory is in its death throes (remember the University of East Anglia emails?), it's difficult to understand why the sistas are in a tizzy. Firstly, temperatures for this winter season in North America have so far been anomalously warm, i.e. the climate has effectively changed, a kind of miniature "global warming" if you will. Yet I've neither heard or read any news reports of any pan-continental environmental calamity actuating shifts in the North American Continental Plate. Secondly, the bishops may have refused to sign the aforementioned declaration, but being the super troopers they are, les garçons du nord are preparing a "reflection paper". According to Star Chamber spinmeister René Laprise, it's going to examine the "theological and ethical principles to assist Catholics in responding to the questions and challenges of climate change".[12] See, girls, there's really no need to be baffled because, in reality, the bishops, like you, are just as eager to bow down before, and submit to, the sky gods. All hail Aeris maximus!

XII. One shepherd who appears to be quite excited about getting in on the climate action is Whitehorse's Bishop Gary Gordon. It's a "pastoral priority", reportedly. "Let's look at this in terms of what each individual person is doing in terms of their own conversion - lessening their consumption, sustainable living".[13] His Grace even arranged for the construction of a residence with a reduced energy "footprint". What a laudable action! Glorious! Logically, one assumes that such a respectful gesture toward Mother Earth would even excite radical environmentalist David Suzuki. Like Suzuki, +Gary originates from the nature-worshipping West Coast (in Vancouver, BC), so his dream for a "carbon-neutral diocese" isn't that much of a shock. However, you have to wonder if +Gordon's assignment of climate change as a "pastoral priority" is indicative of a shepherd with convoluted priorities. It is my understanding that a bishop's principal responsibility is to wield his authority to save souls, not "save the climate". Salus animarum lex suprema est. Yes or no? Perhaps some exploratory data analysis will demonstrate what I am getting at...

XIII. Figure 1 shows the number of Catholics in the Diocese of Whitehorse from 1950 to 2010. From 1950, the trend line shows a steady, then marked, increase in the Catholic population, peaking at 14,135 in 1999. The trend line plummets afterward. By 2010 the number was 9300, corresponding to a 34% reduction in just over 10 years (the WH diocese website gives the current Catholic population as even lower, at 7500). Between 1999 and 2010 the percentage of the total Whitehorse Catholic population declined from 32% to 21%. This blogger has been unable to find specific data on what proportion of these Catholics even attend regular Sunday Mass, but it would not be unreasonable to posit that the percentage is comparable to the 2005-2008 national average of 29%.[14] Figure 2 displays trends for three parameters. The black curve denotes the number of parishes in the WH diocese. We can clearly see the precipitous decrease in parish numbers following Vatican II, 42 in 1966, nose-diving to just 2 between 1976 and 1980. Circa 2000, numbers ranged from 24 to 26, showing recovery, but declined again to 19 by 2010 (the WH diocese website says that the current number of parishes is 23, including missions). Figure 2 also shows a steady decline in the number of priests (blue line) and female religious (red line) since Vatican II.

XIV. VIS reports that +Gordon was appointed bishop of Whitehorse in 2006. Accordingly, let's now focus on some numbers in the years just prior and after the appointment to check for effects, if any. The total territorial population of Whitehorse increased from 36,395 to 42,150 between 2000 and 2010. During that time range the number of Catholics within this territory decreased from 11,287 to 9,300 (i.e. 9% reduction in the Catholic population); the total number of priests declined from 13 to 11; the total number of female religious went from 7 to 4; and the number of parishes (excluding missions) diminished from 24 to 19 (source). TH2's conclusion on effects post-2006? The declination continues unabated. So, then, in the context of a bishop being the shepherd and the spiritual authority of a diocese whose main priority must be to bring souls to the Lord of History, what these depressing statistical trends suggest is that someone needs to forget about fashionable secular causes and get his ass in gear.

XV. ITEM THE FIFTH / CATHOLIC SCHOOL SEXUALIZING PRE-TEENS? If you want to get a sort of insider's view of how a post-V2, moribund Catholicism operates and disheartens at the local level, to witness how the heretical/apostatic-induced chipping away of Catholicism affects the lives of Canadians on a personal level, one of the best places to go and learn about this mournful situation is the Letters to the Editor section at Catholic Insight. This section is only available in the magazine's print edition. Still, as an aside, it would be worth your while to subscribe and thus support Editor Fr. Alphonse de Valk and his tireless team. One letter recently catching my attention was from a gentleman whose daughter attends the École secondaire catholique Renaissance in Aurora, Ontario (just north of Toronto). His daughter, in the 7th-grade, informed him that she was taking a sex education course under the school's "Health program". The parents requested a copy of the course and found it to be "full of pornographic expressions that teach fornication and sexual sins".[15] On October 15, 2011 the father met with two school officials, namely M. Yves Lévesque, President of the South-Central Catholic District School Board, and Fr. Jean Al Alam of the St. Frère Andre Catholic Mission. Fr. Alam told the parent, according to the letter submitted to CI, "that in some circumstances the Church allowed contraception". M. Lévesque stated the course was approved by the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario (ACBO), further telling the father he should contact the Archbishop of Toronto with his concerns (good luck with that).

XVI. Once again we have evidence of how a parent's authority to teach their children Catholic moral values is being violated, undermined and overtaken by apostatic educrats, an infestation within Ontario's Catholic school system. I was unable to locate the course outline referred to above. But just knowing the course was approved by the ACBO intimates that something is definitely rotten in Denmark. Sure enough, a little investigation yielded more proof of a kind of soft and subtle libertinism at work. Using the ACBO page on Episcopal Commissions as a jumping point led to the Institute for Catholic Education (ICE) website. Then click the "Ontario Catholic Curriculum" tag on the menu bar, then click on "Catholic Course Profiles". Here, for example, click the Grade 9 bullet, then on the next page select the "Health and Physical Education" link. Then click the course profile for Unit 3 and find the following about midway into the text: "methods of preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are important concepts in this unit".

XVII. Okay, it's my understanding the Catholic Church teaches that unmarried people, let alone 14 year-old/Grade 9 kids, are not permitted to have intercourse until they are, well, married. I also thought that only one method, i.e. abstinence, was the rule for Catholics. The cunning use of the word "methods" (plural) infers, well, other methods, which obviously is a euphemism for contraceptive techniques. Yet why should 14-year old (assuming mostly Catholic) kids be taught "methods" of pregnancy and STD prevention if Catholic teaching disallows sex outside of marriage? But, you see, that's the trick. It is assumed that these "methods" will indeed be used by the kids (for we do not want to impose our Catholic morality by saying contraception is wrong) and, likely, these "methods" are taught or justified as legitimately "moral" means to an end. Let's be clear: such "methods" are not provided (as they should be) as base facts as such to outfit young people with the intellectual equipment to defend and witness to Catholic morality when challenged by extraneous, secular, anti-Catholic forces that pressure kids to use these "methods". Deviation from the Catholic norm has become the norm, so to speak. And if you think the encyclical Humanae vitae is mentioned in the classroom, then you probably also believe that Snooky from Jersey Shore obtained a Ph.D. in non-linear fluid dynamics at MIT. Correspondingly, when ICE's website states that one of the agency's objectives is "to foster a common vision on issues and policies that promotes and protects Catholic education", we can confidently conclude that this claim is bullshit. Working backwards, then, there is also the ICE connection to the ACBO, meaning that the Ontario bishops are ultimately responsible for the implosion currently occurring within the Ontario Catholic school system, in that they have not, for whatever reason, wielded their authority to arrest and/or remedy the contagion of antinomianism unleashed by that ever-growing militant and powerful class of apostatic educrats and teachers. And who are the bishops on the ACBO Executive Committee? Ah, yes, we know them well: +Fabbro, +O'Brien, +Plouffe and its President...

His Eminence Thomas Cardinal Collins, which brings us to our next item...

XVIII. ITEM THE SIXTH / LOWER YOUR EXPECTATIONS. The Consistory has come and gone and YYZ has a new Cardinal. Archidioecesis Torontinus has in recent decades been a jurisdiction well-known for red hat assignments (e.g. ++McGuigan, ++Carter, ++Ambrozic) so ++Collins' elevation to Cardinal isn't that much of a head-turner. Caveat: Collins is altogether unlike predecessor Ambrozic in numerous ways. Baby boy gossip columnist at the Whispers in the Loggia blog says Collins "will bring the sense of orthodoxy Pope Benedict wants, but also the common touch so many people appreciate".[16] The "common touch" ascription is just a cutesy wootsy way of saying he's non-confrontational, which is the case. Whereas Aloysius was firm, strident, unafraid to say uncomfortable things, could instantly spot heresy at 20+ kilometres down range, and was no friend of the CCCB, Collins is subdued, internalized, even timid, a behind-the-scenes kind of guy, and is amicable with the boys down Ottawa way. But the question is this: Are these qualities sufficient enough to tackle the anti-Catholic onslaught, from without and within, currently underway in Canadian society? It depends on the circumstance. For sensitive/internal church matters necessitating discretion, Collins style is conducive to getting the job done without any hoopla. Recall that B16 recently dispatched Collins, along with other Irishmen (including rock star ++Tim Dolan, also just elevated) on an Apostolic Visitation to the Emerald Isle, to assess seminaries and the sexual abuse controversy following the release of the Ryan/Murphy Reports. As for dealing with social/moral matters at home in the public square and within Catholic institutions, my opinion is that, regardless of the prestige and greater influence that comes with the cardinaliate, we are going to get the same lacklustre performance observed since he took the helm as TO Archbishop in late 2006.

XIX. Two examples to justify: Firstly, you might recall that during H1N1 flu virus "outbreak" of 2009, His Eminence "suspended" Holy Communion on the tongue, despite the CDW's Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, wherein it reads:"each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue".[17] Whether Collins succumbed to the advice of some proportionalist canonist advisor or to terror mongering from media reports of a "pandemic" (or both) is an open question. Evidently, a qualified, unbiased epidemiologist was not consulted prior to the communiqué's issuance by the chancery office. In the meantime, not a few Torontonians were frustrated, if not infuriated. Unsurprisingly, it turned out that the whole H1N1 "health scare" was a false alarm. Secondly, there is the atrocious issue of a mounting homosexualist assault on the Catholic school system over the last number of years, i.e. "gay-straight alliances", "clubs" to prevent "bullying" and so forth, now enforced by the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty (if a certain bishop had any real gumption, he would formally, publicly, immediately excommunicate this pro-abort "Catholic" apostate, Latae sententae isn't working). And what is Collin's mode of approach when addressing the homo agenda? Here's a clue:

The bishops of Ontario agree with a January 13, 2011 Globe and Mail editorial when it says, "It is not for the Church, by itself, to run Catholic education in Ontario"... There are numerous partners involved in the formation of our young people, all playing critical roles in the educational journey... In our publicly funded Catholic schools, however, as bishops it is our role to help to weave the thread of faith in our schools by offering guidance, as well as pastoral leadership and support, to our partners in Catholic education on a host of issues relating to the faith foundation of our schools.[18]

Almost fell out my chair when I first read that flower talk. Agreeing with the Globe & Mail? An "educational journey", "weave the thread of faith"? You're kidding, right? Hey, it's not just me thinking Ontario's bishops collapsed like a house of cards. After the elevation to Cardinal: "Fr. de Valk suggests that this would be an opportunity for Cardinal Collins to take a strong stand against Premier McGuinty and his subversive sex-ed policies, and re-assert the moral high ground of Church and family".[19] If you read between the lines of that quote, it's obvious that Fr. de Valk isn't a happy camper - and rightly so. That's because, notwithstanding the elevation to Cardinal, as archbishop (since 2006) Collins, along with his other non-confrontational ACBO buddies, was certainly within his authority to stop, or at least mitigate, the Gaystapo influence on Ontario Catholic schools.

XX. Whether it be the homosexualist lobby, teachers unions (e.g. OECTA), or just the apostatic educrat class in general, the thing to be realized here is that you're dealing with a significant number of individuals who have been, in the Marxist sense, thoroughly proletarianized. Oh yes, they dress nicely, they play golf on the weekends, they're all smiles and sunshine at first appearance. But don't be fooled. Once the debate gets going and matters come to a head, the cloak falls: obviousness in mannerism, incessant profanity casually expressed, over-the-top self-righteousness, petty fiefdoms to be protected, union due jackpots to be guarded, grantocracies and retirement benefits to be guaranteed, hedonistic or otherwise depraved lifestyles and fetishes to be accepted as "normal", anti-Western sentiment, cultural relativism, and a multi-group-alliance advocating every other radical Left wing cause or idea at stark variance to the Magisterium. All meaning that you'd better have some street sense and a good measure of testicular fortitude because these punks have stone-cold agendas, and will stab you in the back faster than you can say Jack Robinson. Remember, people, we're here talking about well-organized, clout-wielding enemies of the Roman Catholic Church, not Ward Cleaver and his band of merry men. Welcome to the jungle, baby!... and let TH2 assure you, it's not fun and games.

XXI. ITEM THE SEVENTH / D+P VULTURES CIRCLING OVERHEAD. Lent has just started so, regrettably, this means Development and Peace will soon be at a parish near you to pew-beg for donations via pretty little envelopes. Anyone who has followed Canadian Catholic news over the last three years already knows about the incontrovertible evidence demonstrating D+P's support of pro-abortion groups in the so-called "Global South". If not, check out the D+P page at LifeSite News here. You are also probably aware that the CCCB banned LSN at its plenary session last October (a despicable act that, astonishingly, caused no uproar in the Catholic blogosphere). This time around we get the usual empty promise from Star Chamber prez +Richard Smith: "Development and Peace is well aware it too must adapt and improve".[20] Blah blah blah... Thusly: give ZERO DOLLARS to D+P or, like me, consider inserting a discount coupon for a Che Guevara T-shirt in the envelope that comes your way. Remember: D+P is an enemy of the Roman Catholic Church, an enemy operating within. By funding pro-abortion groups, and by working ever so hard to deny and obfuscate this fact, it therefore has made a deal with the Devil. The cover provided by the CCCB shows the bishops are complicit in this deal. Sleep well, Mr. Big. Have a nice hot meal and a warm glass of milk before retiring tonight. And when you lay your head on the pillow, and as you enter the beta state, smile... and think happy thoughts. Evidently, your conscious is crystal clear.

Thus concludes our exercise in carpet bombing.
With much love and affection...
I am ever your humble servant,
Sincerely yours, TH2
OOO XXX


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. J.L. Allen, Jr., "Incivility hurts the pro-life cause", National Catholic Reporter, September 11, 2009.

2. S. Gnomes, "What did the Church do with the talents bestowed at Vatican II?", Salt+Light, January 16, 2012.

3. "Scientifically speaking", Catholic Register, February 7, 2012.

4. C. Schönborn, "Finding Design in Nature", New York Times, July 7, 2005.

5. From Pope John Paul II, "Theories of Evolution", Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996. Published in First Things, March 1997, no. 71, pp. 28-29.

6. P. Duhem, Medieval Cosmology, Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds, ed./trans. R. Ariew (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 510. Selections from Duhem's multi-volume Le Système du Monde.

7. L. Cochrane, Adelard of Bath, The First English Scientist (London: British Museum Press, 1994), p. viii.

8. M. Clagget, "Some general aspects of physics in the Middle Ages", In: Studies in Medieval Physics and Mathematics (London: Variorum Reprints, 1979), Paper I, p. 38.

9. S.L. Jaki, Science and Creation, From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Scottish Academic Press, 1986), p. 240.

10. S.L. Jaki, The Savior of Science (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1988).

11. M. Swan, "Bishops' silence on climate change baffles nuns", Catholic Register, January 15, 2012.

12. Quoted in ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. "Notes on International Mass Attendance", Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

15. C. El-chaar, "To Catholic bishops of Ontario", Catholic Insight, February 2012, vol. XX, no. 2, p. 10.

16. Quoted in C. Lewis, "Archbishop of Toronto joins Vatican’s inner circle as cardinal", National Post, January 6, 2012.

17. Congregation for Divine Worship, Redemptionis Sacramentum, On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, ch. IV, pt. 2, para. 92.

18. Quoted in P.B. Craine, "Evangelicals disappointed at lack of Catholic leadership on homosexuality push in Ontario schools", LifeSite News, January 26, 2011. You would think ++Collins would at least refer to Rome before making such vacuous comments to the media. Quoting the following would be helpful: "The Church identifies this task [Catholic education] as its own... and claims it for its own competence, regardless of the nature of the school (State–run or non–State–run, Catholic or non–Catholic) in which such teaching is given... Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any schools whatsoever are subject to the authority of the Church... It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it", Congregation for Catholic Education, Circular Letter to the Presidents of Bishops' Conferences on Religious Education in Schools, sec. III, paras. 13-14.

19. "Archbishop Collins Elevated", Catholic Insight, February 2012, vol. XX, no. 2, p. 23.

20. Quoted in D. Gyapong, "D&P's Share Lent appeal launches", Catholic Register, February 14, 2012.

EXOTICA RANDOMLY SELECTED AND PERUSED, WITH OPINIONS PROFFERED THEREAFTER