30 April 2010


Since Mr. Scampers recommended it in his fake Twitter feed, and because the soon to be posted essay deals with the strange realm of biblical gnosticism as advocated by someone who claimed Christianity is but a mental emanation, find below for your enjoyment the classic instrumental La Villa Strangiato by my hometown band RUSH.

From the Album: Hemispheres
Original Recording: Rockfield Studios, Wales (June/July 1978)
This Live Version: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2002)

--------------La Villa Strangiato (An excercise in Self-Indulgence)

----------------I. Buenos Nochas, Mein Froinds!
----------------------II. To sleep, perchance to dream...
----------------------III. Strangiato theme
----------------------IV. A Lerxst in Wonderland
----------------------V. Monsters!
----------------------VI. The Ghost of Aragon
----------------------VII. Danforth and Pape
----------------------VIII. The Waltz of the Shreves
----------------------IX. Never turn your back on a Monster!
----------------------X. Monsters! (Reprise)
----------------------XI. Strangiato theme (Reprise)
----------------------XII. A Farewell to Things


25 April 2010


TH2 sometimes feels that, one of these days, he's gonna do a Luther.


A culmination of things:

  • Holy Eucharist dispensed/served like party crackers.
  • Stupid "Parish Bulletin" announcements. Can't anybody read anymore?
  • Clapping. This isn't some gaudy off-Broadway musical.
  • Felt banners. What's with this kindergarten krap?
  • Children gathering around the altar. Hey kids, its playtime. Get your snacks.
  • Music Director: Hey gramps, your acoustic guitar is out of tune. Smoke one too many doobies last night? Oh, and tell your buddy Haugen that he's a menace.
  • Silence. What's that? After Mass, I'm gonna drive my SUV in the parish parking lot and ram the Music Director's Prius.
  • Liturgy Committee Member: Sieg heil, my little Nazi princess. Where's your whip? You Nordic bombshell you...
  • Guy relaxing in pew with arms outstretched. Dude, you bring the lawn chairs? Throw me a burger on the BBQ will ya?
  • Indecent apparel/clothing... and those @#%&$#* flip-flops! Hey lady, what's your problem?
  • Hey pal, what's with the coffee? I thought Tim Hortons was down the street. Get lost.
  • So-called "sign of peace". Awkward. Forced. Therefore: inauthentic. And I have no idea where that person's fingers have been.
  • Holding hands/singing the "Our Father". It's the Rembrandt Weakland Show !
  • Altar girls - and altar boys aren't distracted? Ya right.
  • "Worship space" - What the...? Up yours.
  • Parish architecture: Community Center. Shopping Mall. "Attention K-Mart shoppers..."
To these TH2 declares his ANATHEMA.

The Temple of God has turned into a repulsive marketplace.
The Mass has turned into a Protestant jamboree... starring Everybody!
Little by little.
Sunday after Sunday.
Abuse after abuse.
Abomination after abomination.
How long, oh Lord? How long must we wait?

Wouldn't it be nifty to see Our Lord effectuate some good old fashioned Old Testament justice?
(yes, nifty and effectuate are words I like using)

How about those most spectacular Egyptian plagues ?

Water to blood. WICKED.


Lice. NICE.


Livestock Death. COW TIPPING B.C.

Hailstorm. GROOVY.

Locust swarm. NEATO !

OK, we live in modern times. Then why not modern technology?




23 April 2010


Man-o-man is this Voris guy good...


14 April 2010



Grammatically speaking, the word “block” can be taken in two acceptations, as a noun or a verb.

If a noun, then a block can be defined as something that is solid and immobile. Now what qualities do we note when making an appraisal of a block of cement? Admittedly, not exactly a stimulating exercise, as cement blocks are not very interesting existents. Nonetheless, we might still glean some insight.

Now the first property we observe is that the block of cement just sits there. It does nothing. It presents itself as such. It is what it is. That is all. It is bland and boorish. It takes no notice of that which is outside itself. Offer your hand to it in friendship and it remains motionless. If you speak to it, no rejoinder comes. Silence. Thus its alien, inorganic presence becomes even more obtrusive. It has accomplished its first task - obviousness. Any attempt at communication with this thing is fruitless. Any word or deed which makes an effort to go through the block is, in the final analysis, an impossibility. The block is impassable.

Alienation is not imposed upon the block. It alienates itself by its very substantive attributes. Both its existence, or its physical aspects (e.g. rigidity, hardness), and its essence, or its nature (i.e. how it is represented to the person who senses it) are the same.

The block cannot really know about anything outside itself since it is enclosed within itself. Anyone who does not assent to it is shut out. If you pour some water on the block to cool down on a hot summer day the water only flows over the sides into the ground. If some water does pool atop the block, it rapidly evaporates. The water does not interpenetrate the block. It functions only as a transient sheet, a juxtaposing veneer, temporarily soothing the severity of a desiccating heat which the block experiences. Water and the block concatenate but do not intermix. The water does not go through so as to transform.

If a reversion is made to violence by taking a sledge hammer and pounding the block into minute fragments, one could still not understand how the block is within. Such an action would only modify the relative magnitude of the block’s internal contents. Each of the shattered remnants would maintain the same identity as the original block. It is what it is.

The second grammatical acceptation of a block is conveyed with a verb. Here the block functions, it acts, meaning that which impedes progression or that which interferes with an attainment. It forms a blockade, prohibiting interchange, designating unbreachable boundaries. It interrupts the affairs of the day, so to speak. Resultantly the block as a verb in this context isolates itself from that which is outside itself. It bars off from view that which does not accord with its aims.

Is there a block of cement in your life?



09 April 2010

MSS / No. 17



04 April 2010


Christianity, unlike any other religion in the world, begins with catastrophe and defeat. Sunshine religions and psychological inspirations collapse in calamity and wither in adversity. But the Life of the Founder of Christianity, having begun with the Cross, ends with the empty tomb and victory.

Bishop Fulton Sheen, Life of Christ

The Lord of History is risen.

Thus humanity enters into an existential tailspin...

But do not despair.
As you are falling or after you fall,
Call upon His Most Holy Name.

A Pierced Hand will take hold of you.
It will lift you up.
It will guide and protect you.

The Lord of History is risen.
Humanity is redeemed.

Glory be unto God.
Amen. Amen.


01 April 2010


Following a previous post on Ron "the borderline dweller" Rolheiser, below find another analysis of a column (dated March 14, 2010) by the Canadian priest who is ashamed to wear his collar. [TH2 analysis in bolded square brackets]
The Imperative for Ecumenism [I'm OK, you're OK]

Home is where we start from. T.S. Eliot [American born poet, playwright, literary critic and Anglican convert] wrote those words and they are true for all of us in terms of religion and our understanding of the particular denomination [Roman Catholicism is not a "denomination", Christ made St. Peter the Rock upon which to establish His ONE "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church"] within which we were raised.[notice: "within which...", as if a separated group, not singularly distinct, not in fullness. The word "denomination" means the name of a category amongst a mosaic of others on an assumed equal footing. Mathematically, the denominator constitutes a fractional number, a common trait, the average level - this all ties in with Rolheiser's "ecumenism", which is doublespeak for a subtlety advocated religious egalitarianism].

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic with deep roots. My parents had a strong faith and they made sure that faith and religious practice were central to every aspect of our lives. [sound like wonderful parents, God bless them] We went to mass [notice: no capital M in "mass" - and Rolheiser is a Catholic priest] whenever we could, daily when it was available, went to confession at least every two weeks, prayed the rosary daily in our home, recited the Angelus together at least twice a day, learned a good number of prayers, memorized the Catholic catechism, had a picture of the pope hanging in our house, and believed that Roman Catholicism, among all religions [shove it into the mix] and Christian denominations [again: Roman Catholicism is not a "denomination"] was the sole true faith, the only fully valid religion.[excellent - if only more families would be like this today] We didn't believe that others, Protestants and peoples of other religions, would not go to heaven [correct], but we were not exactly sure how this would happen [okay, fair enough], given that we believed that they were not of the true faith. [correct again, they are not of the "true faith"] Because of this, we lived in a certain suspicion of other denominations and religions, secure in our own truth, ["own truth", as if truth is a function of the self] but cautious always about intermingling religiously with others, fearing that somehow what we believed might be watered-down or contaminated by religious contact with non-Roman Catholics.[the watering down of Catholicism has been in process for the last 40+ years, to which Rolheiser fails to emphasize]

And that was, and is, a good place to start from. I am deeply grateful for having such strong, conservative, religious roots. But [here we go...] a lot of things have changed for me since I was a young, idealistic, Roman Catholic boy growing up in an immigrant community on the Canadian prairies. [i.e. I rejected that rigid Catholicism of old, naively believed by those stupid, uneducated peasants.... Obviously, Rolheiser was suckered in the by the "spirit" of Vatican II, its liberalism and "openness" to everything without qualification, etc.] Early on in my seminary years, my professors, honest scholars (and mostly Roman Catholic priests), exposed me to some wonderful Anglican and Protestant biblical scholars and theologians whose insights and commitment deepened my understanding of Jesus and helped rivet me more firmly in my own religious life.[TH2 wonders: Who were these professors?]

Later on in my seminary years, I was joined in the classroom by men and women from various Christian denominations, all of whom were studying for ministry and all of whom had a deep commitment to Christ. Friendship with them and respect for their faith did not lead me to leave Roman Catholicism and join another denomination, [yet again - "another denomination"] but it did begin to reshape my thinking about what constitutes true faith and true religion. [To what degree were you reshaped?] It helped me, too, to realize that our commonality as Christians largely dwarfs our differences. [see how he so subtlety and effervescently waters down Catholicism into a pleasantly tasting soup slurry]

Since my ordination I have taught and ministered in various countries and in various universities and seminaries. [spreading "feel good" egalitarian religiosity] I have prayed with, shared faith with, lectured to, and become deep friends with men and women of every kind of denominational and religious persuasion: Anglicans, Episcopalians, Protestants, Evangelicals, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and sincere humanistic searchers.[what a jet setter, a man of the world, he's seen it all and knows it all] I have been nurtured deeply in both my faith and my spirituality by Anglican and Protestant thinkers such as C.S. Lewis, Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jim Wallis, Jurgen Moltmann [Marxist influenced Protestant theologian, liberation theology], and Alan Jones, among others. [notice how Rolheisher admixes C.S. Lewis, a good friend of Catholicism, with a radical like Moltman - because, of course, they are really the same, i.e. no religion is preponderant] Today, alongside my Roman Catholic community, among those who help anchor my religious commitment, soul mates [how quaint, in a New Age kind of way] in the faith, there are a good number of Anglicans, Episcopalians, Protestants, Evangelicals, and persons from various other religions. Their faith and friendship has helped me internalize something that Virginia Woolf [radical novelist, extremely troubled individual, darling of feminist dilettantes] once said: Why are we so hard on each other, she asked, when life is so difficult for all of us and when, in the end, we value the same things? She was speaking about the lack of empathy between the sexes, but she could just as easily have been speaking about the lack of empathy between different denominations and different religions. [But different religions/denominations DO NOT "value the same things". Pagans, ancient and modern, put high value on the earthiness, pleasure and power. Buddhism puts great value in its (useless) attempt to escape from suffering. Mohammedism places great value on violence against infidels. Are these the same as Catholicism? Are there no real differences? Rolheiser is romanticizing. Why? Because he lives in Liberal La La Land.]

This is not to suggest that all religions are equal or that all denominations within Christianity are equal paths to God.[the aforementioned betrays otherwise; notice also: "within Christianity", not Catholicism as distinct- remember he is a Catholic priest]. There is nothing parochial or narrow in believing that one's own church is the right one or in believing that belonging to a certain church is more than a matter of historical accident or simple ecclesial taste. Deep loyalty to the truth as one perceives [again: making the un-Catholic claim that truth is a function of what one thinks/senses, i.e. "as one perceives", not as extraneous] it is one mark of a genuine faith. [No, it is not. Rather, it is a telltale mark of a vulgar Kantianism.]

But this does suggest that we must be open to a new empathy towards those whose church is different than ours and to a wider understanding of what it means to belong to a particular denomination or religion. Sometimes we must repent too of our denominationalism.[see how he relentlessly pounds the idea of "our" Catholicism as a mere denomination, but now uses the term denominationalism, which specifically means narrow mindedness, sectarian and is - strictly speaking - a term belonging to Protestantism]

Perhaps what this suggests most of all is that we must be open to a deeper understanding of the ineffability of God and the humility that asks of us. I'm still a committed Roman Catholic, but [here comes the Catholic-diminishing qualifier...], like the Evangelist, John, I know now that Jesus has other sheep that are not of this fold. I'm glad for that, glad too for the words of the 14th century Persian poet, Hafiz: "Would you think it odd if Hafiz said, I am in love with every church, and mosque, and temple, and any kind of shrine because I know it is there that people say the different names of the one God?" ["We are the world... we are the children... Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya..."]

It all comes down to this for Ron Rolheisher: I'm OK, you're OK. Were really all the same in our beliefs. This is why, at his website, he presents himself as "Ron Rolheisher" and not (as it should be) "Father Ron Rolheiser". This is why he does not formally present himself in priestly garb. At core, he wants to equalize all religions and philosophies of life. As a Catholic priest, he does not want to be a sign to the world. Moreover, all this betrays a defiance in not wanting draw non-Catholics to the Holy Faith. Just typical liberal "talk" without action.

It is important to realize that nowhere in this column on "ecumenism", nor in other columns since October 20, 2009 - with the Anglican Ordinariate issuance - has Rolheiser commented on this great work of Christian unification effected by Pope Benedict (see his column archive here). Even more tellingly, unlike prominent Canadian Catholic priests such as Fr. Raymond de Sousa, Rolheiser has not - so far as I am aware - come out in defence of the Pope amid the recent priest sexual abuse scandal in Germany, nor has he castigated the lies and disinformation spewed by the New York Times.

  • Rolheiser's silence speaks volumes.
  • Rolheiser works in ever so subtle ways to diminish the singularity and truth that is Roman Catholicism. He is a borderline dweller.
  • Rolheiser's writings and views are not to be trusted by Catholics.