26 May 2011


I. Unless missed, haven't seen one his columns at the Register in a while so, I reckon, its publication in Canada's preeminent Catholic newspaper means he's quite upset and has something important to say. That, and/or the editorial board is using Fr. Ron Rolheiser to indirectly communicate a message. Cannot really blame Rollie, to be honest. The last few years hasn't been happy time for liberal theo-pop peddlers. The Anglican Ordinariate, the emergence of Michael Voris, the blogger revolt and, to top it off, B16 just fulfilled the covenant of Summorum Pontificum with the issuance of Universae Ecclesiae. "Mr. Chekov, engage course correction and get us outta here. Warp Factor 9. Destination: Planet Orthodoxy". Goodbye Disco Duck, cheerio Annibale, farewell hippydom. It's been a pleasure.

II. Sounds triumphalist the aforementioned does, it is true. News like this makes me want to fire up a cigarillo and enjoy a nice, cold Heineken. But let's not get too complacent here. Before "the biological solution" comes into full effect there is still much SV2 Romper Room riff raff that requires attention. Let us not forget that the kiddie kareerists are still manipulating the levers even though they've been told time and again that playtime is over. Try as they might to delay and counterposition, the trending return to orthodox Catholicity is an unstoppable force. All that the kids can do now is scream, whine and complain. Accordingly, Rollie the unorthodox liberal provides us with a kind of emblematic reaction as he and his ilk deem the return to orthodoxy as an existential threat. Thus he must clear the canvas, start from the basics, and tell us what orthodoxy is "from the other side". Does that phrase seem ambiguous and logically inconsistent to you? Exactly. Anyway, he's definitely agitated:
There are more ways than one in which our belief system can be unbalanced so as to do harm to God and to the Church. What makes for a healthy, balanced, orthodox faith? The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines orthodoxy as "right belief as contrasted to heresy". That's accurate enough, but we tend to think of this in a very one-sided way.[1]
Why a Catholic priest would reference a Protestant book to define Catholic orthodoxy is beyond my capabilities of apprehension. That one reviewer remarked on its "Anglican bias" and "impress of critical Anglo-Catholic scholarship"[2], it would seem, is of minimal concern. Maybe I am being too "one-sided". After all, we should just accept the fact that Rollie has this compulsion to approvingly quote from any non-Catholic commentator with the exception of perhaps Larry Flynt.
For most people, heresy is conceived of as going too far, as crossing a dogmatic boundary, as stretching Christian truth further than it may be stretched. Orthodoxy, then, means staying within safe perimeters. This is true in so far as it goes, but it is a one-sided and reductionist understanding of orthodoxy.
So he presumes that "most people" think of heresy as a going beyond limits. Well, what "most people" think is irrelevant in this context. Here he's just putting words into other people's mouths. Sorry Rollie, the strawman routine only works with those poor people that attend your inner light seminars on the "Wisdom of the Elders". Etymologically, the word heresy is of Greek origin, meaning to choose, take or select. But let's get legalistic here and make the old boy squirm. Canon law defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Can. 751). So if one subalterns Christ in the Holy Trinity, he is a Subordinationist heretic; if he obstinately rejects the Old Testament, he is a Marcionite; if he doubts the Real Presence and more so favours a symbolic definition, then say hello to Berengar of Tours; if he says God dwells in the natural world, then he is a dime-a-dozen pantheist. Allllrighteee, then. Clear enough. Sounds good to me.

III. Note also how Rolheiser keeps running on about one-sidedness. This is a bad thing. So, for instance, when Chesterton wrote that "a convinced Catholic is easily the most hard-headed and logical person walking about the world today"[3], he was expressing a rigid, closed mindedness during olden times when the referent to orthodoxy was truth. The prefix is from the Greek orthos, meaning straight, right, true. Correct me if I'm wrong, truth is one-sided by nature and cannot be manifold. But, you see, this view is unhealthy and imbalanced. Instead orthodoxy, sayeth Rolheiser, must be "healthy, balanced" and its definition should be expanded to include two meanings:
Orthodoxy has a double function: It tells you how far you may go, but it also tells you how far you must go. And it’s the latter part that is often neglected. Heresies are dangerous, but the danger is two-sided: Faith beliefs that do not respect proper dogmatic boundaries invariably lead to bad religion and to bad moral practice. Real harm occurs.
Now we come to the fallacy. In addition to being mindful of "safe perimeters" (falsely/condescendingly implying a lack of inquisitiveness and imagination, easy comfort, no doctrinal development, etc.), orthodoxy "tells you how far you must go". Really? Obviously, this is code for "push the limit", to breach traditional boundaries into zones of danger, however slyly it is worded. Notice further: we "must" do this, as if by command. Where can one find justification for this in Catholic teaching? A reference? This is not orthodoxy at all. Rather, it's a subtle means of condoning/advocating heterodoxy with mercurial language, which we all know is Rollie's forte.
Dogmatic boundaries are important. But, equally important, we don't do God, faith, religion and the Church a favour when our beliefs are narrow, bigoted, legalistic or intolerant. Atheism is invariably a parasite that feeds off bad theism. Anti-religion is often simply a reaction to bad religion and thus narrowness and intolerance are perhaps more of an enemy to religion than is any transgressed dogmatic boundary.
Now he's really angry. Why else summon the normative retaliations of "narrow, bigoted, legalistic or intolerant"? As a Catholic, is it narrow minded to believe there is no salvation outside the Church? Okay. If by bigoted does he mean anyone who recognizes Mohammedism as a theocratic, anti-human, violent worldview? Fine. If quoting from the Code of Canon Law, does that make one legalistic? Uh huh. Indeed, Gratian was wasting his time when he compiled the Decretum and the boys on the Supreme Council of the Apostolic Signatura are a bunch of ambulance chasers in it for the bucks and prestige. Is the Catholic Church "intolerant"? A certain John Henry Newman thought so:
There is a religious communion claiming a divine commission, and holding all other religious bodies around it heretical or infidel; it is a well-organized, well-disciplined body; it is a sort of secret society, binding together its members by influences and by engagements which it is difficult for strangers to ascertain. It is spread over the known world; it may be weak or insignificant locally, but is strong on the whole from its continuity; it may be smaller than other religious bodies together, but it is larger than each separately. It is a natural enemy to governments external to itself; it is intolerant and engrossing, and tends to a new modelling of society; it breaks laws, it divides families. It is a gross superstition; it is charged with the foulest crimes; it is despised by the intellect of the day; it is frightful to the imagination of many. And there is but one communion such. Place this description before Pliny or Julian; place it before Frederick the Second or Guiznot. "Apparent diræ facies". Each knows at once, without asking a question, who is meant by it. One object, and only one, absorbs each item of the detail of the delineation.[4]
Newman wrote the abovementioned while still a Protestant. Unlike Rolheiser, he evidently saw these so-called "narrow, bigoted, legalistic or intolerant" characteristics of Catholic orthodoxy in a positive light. For just a short time later in October 1845 he was received by Fr. Barberi into the Catholic Church.

IV. Get the popcorn out and prepare some refreshments because the saga continues...
God, religion and the churches are, I suspect, more hurt by being associated with the narrowness and intolerance of some believers than they are by any theoretical dogmatic heresy. Right truth, proper faith and true fidelity to Jesus Christ demand too that our hearts are open and wide enough to radiate the universal love and compassion that Jesus incarnated. Purity of dogma alone doesn't make us disciples of Jesus.
Now notice how he sneakily shifts focus away from the Catholic Church specifically: "religion and the churches" are "hurt". Is not Catholic orthodoxy being addressed in the article? Seems not. Remember: we are here dealing with the Generalissimo of Generalization. And since when did matters pertaining to dogma become "theoretical"? According to the Catechism - and I apologize for the legalism - defined dogmas are "truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to a irrevocable adherence of faith" (no. 88). Does that read as "theoretical"? What Rollie is doing in these sentences is the liberal trick of minimizing dogma and/or subtly attempting to disassociate it from "universal love and compassion", almost prioritizing the latter over the former, if not eliminating the "irrevocable" aspect of dogma. More legalism from the Catechism: "There is an organic connection between the spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate and make it secure... if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of the faith" (no. 89). It is important to note that the domination of immanentized, me-centred emotionalism that came in the wake of Vatican II - e.g. "religion and the churches" are "hurt" (feelings) - makes anyone who appeals to dogma (Revelation, Magisterium, reason) in whatever way as a heartless scoundrel preoccupied with legalisms. That old ruse just doesn't work anymore. Sidebar: The reader should know my feelings aren't squelched out whatsoever. Just recently, I leapt for joy after hearing about Oprah's final show.

V. Continuing... Keep a close eye on the last statement in the paragraph as this is where the situation gets dicey:
Suffice it to say that Jesus is clear about this. Anyone who reads the Gospels and misses Jesus' repeated warnings about legalism, narrowness and intolerance is reading selectively. Granted, Jesus does warn too about staying within the bounds of proper belief (monotheism and all that this implies) and proper morals (the commandments, love of our enemies, forgiveness), but He stresses too that we can miss the real demands of discipleship by not going far enough in letting ourselves be stretched by His teachings.
It would be really nice if Rollie would elaborate on what it means to let ourselves be "stretched" by Christ's teachings. That word has twice been mentioned so far. What does it mean in a specific sense? Is there a particular verse in the Gospels where it's described? Does it involve yoga? Lots of stretching in that activity... Scratch that. Obviously, our concern here isn't with Jane Fonda's Workout. Again, what he's getting at is this notion of "how far you must go". But notice: how far we "must" go is left undefined, the field is wide open without a moral compass, entering into a nebulous territory where (apparently) most anything and everything can happen. Is it, then, self-defined? Who knows? This is a hazard which Rolheiser either ignores or overlooks.

VI. Put those ribbons on and reduce your carbon footprint because now it's time to enter the realm of Political Correctness:
True orthodoxy asks us to hold a great tension, between real boundaries beyond which you may not go and real borders and frontiers to which you must go. You may not go too far, but you must also go far enough. And this can be a lonely road. If you carry this tension faithfully, without giving in to either side, you will no doubt find yourself with few allies on either side, that is, too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals.
The minor point to note in that paragraph is its look-at-me-I'm-a-martyr complex. It is a "lonely road" with "few allies". Woe is me, it's a tragedy (cue Eric Carmen). Anyhow - irrespective of worldview, conservative or liberal, theist or atheist or whatever, most persons feel or are isolated and friendless for whatever time in their lives. It's a kind of spiritual suffering, whether one is aware of it or not. You might also note that the saints do not broadcast the fact. Chesterton: "All sanctity is secrecy".[5] This is not to say that there shouldn't be love, comfort and support from others. Only the principle of the matter is being addressed. To make this kind of suffering exclusive to indecisive borderline dwellers is plain wrong and, to borrow a word, "narrow".

VII. Major point: This maintaining of a so-called balanced "tension" between conservatives and liberals is, to quote Heine on Kant's Second Critique, "the farce after the tragedy". In reality, it shows an obstinate unwillingness to make both a reasoned and faith-inspired attempt at a firm choice of either "yes" or "no", right or wrong, good or evil. Lukewarm indecisiveness it is, and we recall what Christ said of such individuals: "Since you are neither hot nor cold, but only lukewarm, I will vomit you out of my mouth".[6] It comes across as "balanced", but really isn't. Instead, it is a quasi-gnosticized, self-determined endeavour at false transcendence, to rise above everyone "without giving in to either side", i.e. a defiant/disguised relativism. Only the "I" is correct, there is no extraneous reference, no Really Other. In less abstract form, read the President's Message and see its social incarnation at Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas - it's a real beauty:
...wide and inclusive Catholicity. We seek to be a place that heals rather than divides, a place where conservatives and liberals are equally at home, a place that respects everyone regardless of race, language, clerical status, or gender, a place that models how people can get along.
How lovely. I feel like a jiggly bowl of jell-o right now... Do not identify. Do not distinguish. No labels. These are untrue, man-made "structures" (as the mantra goes) that work to "divide" and "hurt" one another. We're all the same. Clearly, all this so-called "respect"/"equally at home"/"get along" nonsense, this false charity Rolheiser is advocating in his article, is not only a subterfuging denial of real, objective differences between persons and ideas; it is furthermore, ladies aside, an instrument that facilitates the emasculation of men. Scenario: a group of guys are out for a beer and debating the affairs of the day. Say, for example, the topic of religion comes up, commonly involving intense discussion. Now imagine, as they trudge through a particular subject where there is disagreement, John says that he "respects" Jim's position, and Tom says he hopes he didn't "hurt" Mark's feelings, and Paul says he wants a "healthy, balanced" discussion, and Luke suggests that they should "stretch" beyond their "safe perimeters" because they are all "equally at home", and Dave, seeing how the debate is starting to "divide" them into factions, wishes that they all would just "get along". Sheesh. This is pantywaist city. I'm outta here. TH2 has left the building.

VIII. In a rare occurrence, reference is made to an orthodox thinker further into the article:
... tension is an innate, healthy disquiet, something we are meant to live daily in our lives rather than something we can resolve once and for all. Indeed the deep root of this tension lies right within the human soul itself: The human soul, as Thomas Aquinas classically put it, has two principles and two functions: The soul is the principle of life, energy and fire inside of us, even as it is equally the principle of integration, unity and glue. The soul keeps us energized and on fire, even as it keeps us from dissipating and falling apart. A healthy soul therefore keeps us within healthy boundaries, to prevent us from disintegrating, even as it keeps us on fire, lest we petrify and become too hardened to fully enter life.
Perhaps it depends on preference of writing style, yet what we see above is, in my view, Rolheiser's classically verbose and mushy method of presentation. It has the shades of Teilhard's long-winded emotionalism. He takes a systematic, precise, even legalistic theologian like St. Thomas - a Doctor of the Church and one of its greatest minds - and goes about characterizing Tommy's Treatise on Man [7] with hazy descriptors like "fire inside of us", "energized and on fire", "keeps us on fire". Does "fire" represent the will? The appetites? The intellect? Emotions? Reason? It's hard to tell - and that is the tactic at work here. Orthodoxy as such, then, becomes lost in this confluence of linguistic imprecision. However, orthodoxy isn't poetry. It shuns inexact characterizations. Rather, orthodoxy points to specificity in thought, word and deed. It is specificity, so to speak. Recall: orthos = straight, right, true.

IX. Now we get to the danger of Rolheiser's shtick:
...the soul itself is a healthy principle of orthodoxy inside us. It keeps us within real limits even as it pushes us towards new frontiers. We live always in the face of two opposing dangers: disintegration and petrification. To stay healthy we need to know our limits and we also need to know how far we have to stretch ourselves. The conservative instinct warns us about the former. The liberal instinct warns us about the latter. Both instincts are healthy because both dangers are real.
As above, orthodoxy has a "double function": he speaks of keeping "within real limits" while telling us to concomitantly "stretch ourselves" (third time the word "stretch" is conjured). He also warns of dangers. He sees "most people" as clinging to "safe perimeters" which, from his perspective, is not orthodoxy in its fullness. In addition, we "must" be cognizant of orthodoxy "from the other side". Well, then, let's consider this "other side" as it can be assumed that Rolheiser believes what he preaches.

X. Last January Fr. Rolheiser and his friend Fr. Richard Rohr held a conference at the New Agey Center for Contemplation and Action (see my analysis here). Previous conferences at the CCA have covered the following bizarro topics: "Holding the Tension: Prague" and "Emerging Church / Naked Now". It appears that Rohr and Rolheiser have much in common with regard to "tension". Rohr: "I have found that a great deal of wisdom comes in the world through people who creatively hold the tension of opposites on difficult and complex issues".[8] Rohr is a notorious Pelagian heretic. Amongst other things, he advocates the Ennegram and homosexual activity. Not a heretic, you say? Then peruse what he blurted in 2001:
Everything the Catholic Church offers in the way of its sacramental rituals and moral and doctrinal teachings is an obstacle to having a relationship with God.[9]
Don't know about the reader, but that seems rather Protestant to me. You know, "I'm spiritual, not religious". Here's another disturbing tidbit from a report in 2006:
Father Rohr is well known for his "Wild Man Retreats" where men sometimes take their clothes off and touch each other in certain parts of their bodies - to release the demons.[10]
Not kosher methinks. Indeed, dangerous. So is this what is meant by "new frontiers"? Is this what is meant by "stretching Christian truth further than it may be stretched"? And why is someone that collaborates with a creepshow like Rohr lecturing us on Catholic orthodoxy? I don't know. I'm asking.


1. R. Rolheiser "Seeing the view from the other side of orthodoxy", Catholic Register, May 17, 2011.

2. G. Gould, "Book Review: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church", Theology, 1998, vol. 101, p. 58.

3. G.K. Chesterton, "Some of our Errors" in The Thing (London: Sheed and Ward, 1929), p. 192. Subnote that Chesterton wrote his classics Heretics (1905) and Orthodoxy (1908) well prior to becoming a Catholic in 1922.

4. J.H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pt. II, ch. VI, p. 208. First published in 1878.

5. G.K. Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas, "The Dumb Ox" (New York: Doubleday, 1956), p. 139. First published in 1933.

6. Revelation 3:16.

7. Cf. Sum. theol., i, q. 75, art. 1.

8. Quoted in B.A. Sibley, "The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon", New Oxford Review, March 2006, vol. LXXIII, no. 3.

9. M.C. Abbot, "Priest: 'The boy always gets naked...'", Renew America, January 23, 2006. LINK

10. Ibid.


15 May 2011


I. The convention at this blog has been to focus on a single target and then go in for the kill. A good analogy to this approach would be the SBD Douglas Dauntless dive bomber, used during WWII in the Pacific Theater, most notably at the Battle of Midway. A gorgeous machine with a singular purpose, push the stick forward, get your target in the scope, scream downward at near-vertical, pull the stick up at near-immanence, then release your ordinance at just the right time. Flashpoint and detonation, shockwave and annihilation. Wonderful. True, not the most pleasant of approaches, certainly not the most popular, especially with the higher-ups, shall we say. Outrageous, uncharitable, inquisitorial, depraved, as messages in my e-mail inbox attest. Other approaches exist, of course, and the one used will depend on the circumstance and personalities involved. One direct hit can sink a carrier, however it is important to emphasize that dive bombers were not the best at manoeuvrability. In fact, their greater than normal rigidity of structure diminished manoeuvrability (TH2 stares at shoes). Besides the target, the pilot must also remain aware of happenings in the surrounding airspace and operate the aircraft accordingly within its limitations. Perhaps this was why the SBD was outfitted with a tail-gunner component.

II. So much is happening out there in the news. Controversy and debate, essays and commentary, apostasy and heresy... you name it. Be it interesting or boring, exciting or infuriating, hilarious or saddening... the whole gamut of reactions does one experience. This, therefore, necessitates an awareness of many subjects. Yet monitoring of the omnifarious information influx, and properly responding to multiple items in a single blog post, can be an overwhelming experience. This is especially true for persons with single-minded dive bomber mentalities or otherwise those who find multitasking difficult.

III. In recent years the science of "Situational Awareness" (SA) has arisen to address this very issue. Technically defined, SA involves the perception and apprehension of all elements existing in one's environment, both in time and space. The meaning of each element in this environment, and its interassociations with others, must be properly understood in real-time, including a foresight and/or forecasting of how they will change in the near future. Simply defined, SA means to be cognizant of all information and events that surround you, and how your responses to these affect your objectives presently and in the near term. Obviously, SA is very important for decision making in dynamically complex work environments with high information flow. Some examples would be air traffic control, aviation and emergency situations involving police/fire departments. Here's another description related to SA:
Interaction in virtual reality has yet to match prognostications..., but the concept of graphic boundaries to operational status should, in time, enhance performance by adaptively displaying the invariants in dynamical operational phase space. In sum, we see value in the phenomenon called situation awareness. We expect to see it and other, even clearer, manifestations of consciousness as we design and evaluate purposive human-machine-environment systems.[1]
Wowsers! Does that techno-talk bring back memories. It could also pass for what some Derrida wannabe would write in a paper submitted to the Journal of Pointless Crap. Not going to decipher that one. Mental preparation would require viewing of a Golden Girls marathon and a quick slug down of a 6-pack immediately after. That Sophia, boy was she witty... In actuality, SA is a legitimate discipline under the umbrella of "Human Factors" research. These are smart people with immense responsibilities as they often have to deal with human tragedy.

IV. Still, it would be nice if an easier interpretation of Situational Awareness were available. Something that gets right to the point from which I might easily learn. Unlike previous posts, yours truly would periodically like to commentate summarily on a series of topics in a single post, rather than punish the reader detailedly in one long post. One liners belong to Twitter. So whilst ruminating on this matter over the last little while, as luck would have it, I came across a masterpiece of introspection entitled Fabio Fitness.[2] At last, someone who really understood and could effortlessly relay the essential aspects of Situational Awareness. Laughing, are you? Don't believe me? Then take a gander at this Amazon book review:
I'm a huge fan of Fabio, and this book has helped me enormously... If anyone is qualified to give advice on this topic, it would obviously be Fabio. The results of his own fitness routine speak for itself. Along with some fascinating insights... this book tosses in some... fine common sense.... Love Fabio, love the book, and I wish it were back in print so more people could be exposed to the great ideas inside.
So, you see, the key to a proper grasp of Situational Awareness is not just a clear and open mind, but also a healthy body. Seems good to me. Now at this point that dreaded date of March 27, 1999 should be recalled, approximately two years after the publication of Fabio Fitness. Reportedly, Mr. Lanzoni got clocked by a goose whilst riding a rollercoaster at Busch Gardens in Williamsburg, Virginia.[3] Apparently, he momentarily forgot about the perception of all elements and their interactions as they existed in his environment, i.e. he had no Situational Awareness. Hey, nobody's perfect, so let's give him a break. I mean, just look how calm and collected he is in the picture, despite the multitudinous requests for his signature by the ladies. That's high information flow in a dynamically complex environment... Fabio knows what's going on.

V. GREEN WINE. Now that that's done, let's do our first item. In an effort to "keep greenhouse gas emissions in check"[4] some churches in Quebec are starting to use locally produced wine for consecration at Mass. You see, transporting wine from distant locations causes an increase in emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other nasties, heightens temperatures, produces global warning, let alone actuating shifts in the Earth's obliquity, opening up cracks in the space-time continuum, and being the causation of other transdimensional anomalies. "It is part of our efforts to become more ecologically responsible", said Brian McDonagh. Perchance he is oblivious to those released e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Mr. McDonagh is the Montreal Archdiocese's "Director of Social Action" - and if that isn't a giveaway, then please St. Andre show me the light. It seems that a certain Norman Levesque got the whole thing started: "It's very symbolic. By taking bread and wine and replacing those elements with ones that are more environmentally friendly, we are touching the core of people's faith". Really? "Symbolic"? The "elements" are replaced? The "core of the faith" is better reached by using locally produced wine? Sheesh. It's certainly good to know the Quebec dioceses have their priorities set aright.

VI. ROGERS DORKSNET. "Mr. Goddard was a freelance contractor and in recent weeks it had become clear that he is not the right fit for our organization".[5] So said Dave Rashford, Communications Director at Roger's Sportsnet, one of Canada's leading sports broadcasters. Damian Goddard was fired. Why? Because on May 10 at 12:03:29 PM he tweeted the following:
I completely and whole-heartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.
Goddard was reacting to hockey agent Reynolds, who created controversy when he criticized a New York Rangers player for doing a pro-homosexual marriage TV ad. Reportedly, there were many "angry viewers". Man-o-man, since when did Canadian sports fans, predominantly male, become so sensitized and feminized? To be sure, gone are the days of "old time hockey" as in Slapshot, when players and broadcasters were real men. They should get a lesson or two from Fabio. Immediately after pantywaist viewers started complaining the pantywaists at Rogers switched into Politically Correct mode: "Today's tweet from Damian Goddard does not reflect the views of Rogers Sportsnet". There's a religious element to this pathetic affair of course. Goddard: "In terms of what I said, I stand by it. I'm a devout Roman Catholic. It's not about hate at all. The truth will come out". Here we have yet another example of the MSM's soft totalitarianism against traditional morality. The unflattering, vilifying photograph of Goddard in the Toronto Star article works well to portray him as an enemy of society. And lest we forget that Bell, Canada's other big telecommunications provider, dropped EWTN from its programming line-up just last February.

VII. NCT DESPERATION. It seems the luvvies at New Catholic Times are really upset with the recent election that again voted in Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, this time with a majority. In an editorial thereon, the routine mantras are mouthed against conservatives: now that Harper is re-elected, nothing is going to be done about "health care", "child poverty", "National Day Care Plan", "fighting global warming", "the embarrassing ecological foot print of Alberta's Tar Sands", and so on and so forth ad nauseum.[6] Interesting that, as a so-called Catholic paper, the editorial omits the PMs recent statement on how he isn't going to open a public debate on abortion, for which he should be criticized from the Catholic perspective. Another disturbing thing is NCT's anti-Israel stance, whereof the article speaks of the government's "terrible tilt toward Israel", the "thuggish activity of Israel occupying another land" (i.e. code/precursor to blatant anti-Semitism). Thus NCT becomes another link in that long chain of useful idiots, playing into the hands of Jihadists, grovelling before the NDP, and generally aligning itself with the Revolutionary Left. More acrimoniously than I would write, Oswald Spengler made a good point that applies to this situation:
We find a certain... scum which drags the faith and the dignity of the Church into the dirt of party politics, which allies itself with the powers of destruction and while mouthing the phrases of altruism and protection of the poor helps the underworld to destroy the social order - the order on which the Church irrevocably and fatally rests.[7]
Spengler was a big time Schopanhauerian pessimist. Nonetheless, the gist of his observation is right on the money.

Well, that's about all the Situational Awareness I can muster for today.


1. K. Smith and P.A. Hancock, "Situation Awareness is Adaptive, Externally Directed Consciousness", Human Factors, 1995, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 137-148.

2. F. Lanzoni, Fabio Fitness, ed. S. Raimondi (New York: The Summit Publishing Group, 1997).

3. R. Rivenburg, "Fabio Survives Goose Encounter, but Take a Gander at His Honker", Los Angeles Times, April 9, 1999.

4. C. Cornacchia, "Going green for God: Quebec churches switch to local holy wine", National Post, May 8, 2011.

5. C. Kelly, "Fired Sportsnet host Damian Goddard 'stands by' tweets", Toronto Star, May 12, 2011.

6. Editorial Group, "A time for purpose not politics: Canadian election 2011", New Catholic Times, May 9, 2011.

7. O. Spengler, The Decline of the West, trans. C.F. Atkinson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926), vol. 1, Form and Actuality (originally published in 1918). My notes indicate the quote is from Volume 1, after reading it many years ago. I might be wrong in the designation and am open to correction. Nevertheless, the words are Spengler's.