CRAZY-EYED V2 VISIONS (Part 2d)

I. RECAP. It seems Part 2 of this analysis of SPU/V2 2012 conference attendees will be subdivided even further, with this one and a few more posts, until the conclusions finally come in Part 3. True, overextended, tangents here and there. Although, a lot of subject matter pertaining to Catholic Canada is covered therein and thereabouts. So, perhaps, readers might consider these longwinded posts as an ongoing Chronicle of Catastrophe. In Part 1 we looked at the conference's keynote speakers, that one being a kind of continuation of Ominous Signs, which examined the apostate cesspool that is the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Part 2a covered some of Professor Catherine Clifford's heretical notions as inspirited by Vatican II, then a summary of Modernism and its principles, ending with a discussion on Bernard Lonergan's transcendental Thomism. Part 2b examined "collegiality" as endorsed by Clifford, followed by a summary of the hydra-headed Neo-Catholic menace, finishing with the internet's role in the Catholic conversation. Part 2c sidetracked, evaluating the increasingly disturbing aspects of the Bergoglio papacy, plus glance at Michael Coren's Neo-Catholic showmanship and of his "support" of sodomites in seminaries.

II. SHOWMAN SUPPORTS FAGGOTRY (AGAIN). Recently in another column, again in Catholic Insight, Coren upholds (inadvertently?) the homolobby, this time with regard so-called "same sex marriage". Sayeth the Showman: "I've heard some pretty compelling arguments for it over the years... gay people can enjoy full rights". Apparently, he maintains the Church's teaching on marriage, "never close to giving in", although an obliviousness to the inimical effects of a homosexualized culture is apparent. With such statements of delicate rationalization, (you know) the wink-wink-nudge-nudge type position that hides an internalized mental struggle with the Church's unconditional teaching on this matter (cognitive dissonance, as one of my commenters said), Coren's writhing tolerance effectively opens up a tiny gateway for justifying, eventually legalizing, "same sex marriage", which is how the presently dictatorial, law-sundering, in-your-face homolobby first gained recognition three decades back. At a time when the movement was relatively small and fringe, and when many Catholics were unafraid of branding sodomy for what it is: a sin against nature, an abomination crying out to God for vengeance. First, the homolobby wanted "rights" because of supposed "hate" and "fear", denaturing the natural revulsion most people felt when encountering such degeneracy. Second, change the language of public discourse (e.g. "homophobia"), disparaging those who deem aberrant sexual activity a grave sin. Third, demand "justice", and to do so construct a flourishing victimhood industry for gradual social acceptance, for further pervasion of perversion into every nook and cranny of the culture. Fourthly, utilize Alinskian tactics to intimidate all foes into silence. Fifthly, judicial activism, arguing so eloquently for the normalization of a behavioural abnormality and discounting natural law. Finally, after new laws are enacted, say goodbye to the family unit, and to society as such, because the family is the cell of society... Continuing, Coren brushes off opponents as histrionic, i.e. those persons unprivileged to wine in dine inside the Magic Circle: "in the last few months, I have seen certain Catholics obsessing about it in anger and extremism".[1] Like falling dominos, legislatures in Western countries are succumbing to homo-marriage, with no concerted counteraction from bishops, a large part of the reason being that many of them are closet queens. Anger isn't justified, then? And there's that word again - "obsess", in a mode reminiscently Bergoglian, recalling the pope's first atrocious interview with the Jesuits. It would be advisable that Coren have a real good, concentrated read of Randy Engel's recently issued "Open Letter to the Pope" or of Fr. Oko's widely-read essay on the homomafia[2] or of this summarizing statement by legal philosopher Mario Palmaro:

Christianity's judgment on homosexual conduct has been undoubtedly very severe for two thousand years: the first losing move consists in progressively softening this judgment of truth, which anyway does not take away the message of forgiveness and redemption for the sinner, as the same for every other sin.

Perhaps, then, Coren would realize the depth of depravity embedded within the Church. Then he might reconsider his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Then realize his "extremism" potshot is a boomerang. So, then, in Part 2d additional observations on Pope Francis, further notes on media demagogue Coren, plus final analysis on Clifford's dealings with the secular media.

III. "COUNCIL OF THE MEDIA". A few days after his abdication announcement, Pope Benedict, as if finally released from the triumvirate restraining forces of Sodomy, Marxism and Freemasonry that defile church structures worldwide, spoke candidly about the contributions of the so-called "virtual Council" to the collapse of the Catholic Church since 1965:

"The world interpreted the Council through the eyes of the media instead of seeing the true Council of the Fathers and their key vision of faith... The journalists' interpretation of the Council was political", he continued, and as a result Council was often trivialised with disastrous consequences for the Church..."the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media. So the immediately efficiently Council that got thorough to the people, was that of the media... the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics".[3]

Now at the get-go I will opine that the whole idea of media manipulation of the Conciliar documents - by journalists or by whomever commentator or in whatever theological treatise, that this was and is the principal explanation for a currently existent moribund Church, is a symptom, not a cause, of the Nu-Church disease. That incessantly sung melody going by the title "Documents Good, Implementation Bad" is an analgesic, temporarily lasting, an escape hatch, drawing eyes askance from the origins of the debility. That is, ambiguity in the Vatican II texts and assorted declarations therein at irreconcilable variance with pre-Conciliar teaching. Call it "rupture". Call it "discontinuity". I call it an unprecedented breach. And it's not just a non-entity blogger like yours truly who argues this viewpoint. In December 2010 at a conference in Rome Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in addition to calling for a new Syllabus of Errors, said: "From the pastoral nature of the Council's texts it is evident that its texts are, on principle, open to further completion and to greater doctrinal clarification".[4] Recall also Walter Cardinal Kasper, who earlier this year astonishingly stated that "compromise formulas" were deliberately inserted into the Conciliar texts, permitting for open-ended interpretation: "the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict".[5] It is astonishing because ++Kasper, not only a big-gun Cardinal, is a well-known liberal.

IV. MODERNIST MESSAGING. Although the V2 compendium of "documents" constitute the core of the crisis, in that it was the launching pad for a doctrine-pillaging Modernism (neo-Catholicism included, partnering as its liberalized and somewhat naive little brother), it still must be admitted that the media's role, even if a piggybacking epiphenomenon, has scored some serious damage over the decades, compounding the crisis. The problem is exponentially worse in 2013 than it was in the 1960s and 1970s, a situation literally gone gonzo ever since. This relates directly to a near-instantaneousness of global dissemination of news and information via satellites and the internet. Signal transmitted, immediate awareness, quick response is now the habit, often done without forethought. The new mediascape is a two-edged sword, however. On one hand, it's fantastic for ostracized outsiders. That is, independent Catholic researchers, journalists, investigators and bloggers who, with some diligence and free access to copious amounts of data in the public domain, can quickly expose, for example, whatever execrable "pastoral plan" Bishop Spineless and his posse of Grima Wormtongues have concocted. Or simply to sidestep the anodyne ramblings published in the diocesan broadsheets, thereby adding a little more, shall we say, excitement and engagement to Catholicism. On the other hand, unfortunately, for the neo-Arians who control the buildings of the institutional Church, with secure investments and financial backing from an antinomian glitterati, their message that the Church is on the ascent, "vibrant", "relevant", also "goes direct" to the Catholic masses. For the bulk of these baptized Catholics, the Faith, of course, plays no significant role in their lives, save for showcasing their kids at First Communion or figuring the Sacrament of Matrimony as a quaint pre-game show for the drunkfest that follows at the wedding reception. And those scantily-clad bridesmaids with "cupcake", "slut", "broad" and butterflies tattooed on their necks and navels - indeed, sophisticated, denoting a profound devotion to the Holy Church. Wielding greater measures of authority or popularity, media messages relayed by the more influential latter group work to circumvent dogma/doctrine, perfectly tailored for the Indifferentist-Universalist sensibilities of the Catholic majority, complacent and nonchalant in their apostasy - sinful behaviours and attitudes, if not completely affirmed, at minimum lessened as to their consequences on eternal destiny after death. "Who am I to judge?" is the motto nowadays.

V. MEDIA CHANNELLING. This is precisely how Pope Francis has been functioning, quite intentionally, with his galling interviews with "the media". He will churn out anti-Catholic, jaw-dropping bombs like: "Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good", fully cognizant of its immediate and real effects on the Catholic conversation globally. He is the Vicar of Christ, after all. The evidence is showing unofficial media channels are being implemented to advance an agenda - Peronist, populist, maudlinist, democratic, appeasement, Bread and Circuses. Official channels aren't necessarily used, don't want to be used. His Holiness phones journalists personally. But when you "make a mess", how afterward can you disentangle the spaghetti of "obsessed" pro-lifers; the bizarre ascription of "Pelagian" Rosary devotees; the surrealism of a beach ball offering to the Mother of God; the "solemn nonsense" of proselytizing; the "most serious" evils in the world are youth unemployment and lonely elderly persons; an atheist gaining free entry into Heaven notwithstanding a malformed conscious; "there is no Catholic God"; "nuns must not be too spiritual", hooray says the LCWR; "Jesus Christ has saved you", blatantly Protestant; casual acceptance of a frolicking fruitcake to advise on the Vatican Bank; assigning the attention-seeking Signora Chaouqui as a consultant; the indignity of a pope touring around Rome in a Ford Focus; invitation/private chat with Gustavo Gutierrez, liberation theology pin-up priest; separating the joined hands of a boy in prayer as public instruction, and so on with the antics. When such incidences are taken as a whole, recurrent, seen in pattern - not as infrequent, lighthearted or inconsequential happenings which only scrupulous people admonish, how can you provide any measure of logical consistency to them and at the same time establish an overall coherence to Catholic doctrine? You can't because it's impossible. Mutual exclusivity, when considered in a Catholic framework. Ever listen to Fr. Federico Lombardi's circumlocutions at a press conference? Highly recommended. Here's a classic line from the Director of the Press Office for the Holy See: "Francis is not so much aiming for precision as shooting the breeze".[6] That's hilarious. Poor Fr. Lombardi.

VI. INSIDE OUT. In any case, official channels cannot be used for such purposes because the Holy Ghost ensures heresy cannot be promulgated ex cathedra. Thusly, bewildering messages by the true and legitimate head of the Catholic Church get out per media infidelis, accepted as legitimate and unerring, celebrated as such since they acquiesce to, or approximate, the "spirit of the world" - and all this minus "media spin", despite the drone otherwise by an untrustworthy Catholic MSM. Yet, that which battles against the "spirit of the world", because it is not "of the world", namely the Magisterium, is overridden (true obedience to the latter is of no concern to anyone except a diminutive population of comparatively uninfluential Catholics of traditional bent). It's a typical Modernist trick and rather ingenious when you think about it because it allows for someone to appear orthodox from the inside (dogma remains unchanged) while at the same time hacking away at Church teaching from the outside. But, today, outside is inside. For goodness sake, the interview with Eugenio Scalfari (atheist founder of the secular La Repubblica) was uploaded at the Vatican website, only recently deleted, insisted upon by Cardinal Müller (it's still viewable at The Way Back Machine here). Don't forget: the draft was approved by the pope and he has not formally retracted anything. Besides, it's too late. The poison already has been injected into the system. This modus operandi only exacerbates tensions, fostering clashes between groups, and - yes - finds its antecedent in the Marxist ploy of class division.

VII. BERGOGLIO IMBROGLIO. This is not to overlook those promising statements and actions of Francis, when unambiguously orthodox, connecting to the past and Tradition, albeit rare, of which I believe he must be supported... cautiously, thanks expressed... prudently, prayers for him always. This issue does not question fidelity to the Holy Father, which goes without mention. Nonetheless, Orthodoxy must be the norm, not an anomaly, although the latter is undoubtedly preponderant. The direction to which he is leading seems to be encapsulated in this phrase: "make a mess" - a term, it can be argued, pointing toward reform and amelioration, yet at the same time unsettling because it also denotes recklessness and chaos. Positive and negative intertwined. Which is it? The evidence demonstrates skewing toward the latter, confusion, disorientation. If you get caught with your hand in the Modernist cookie jar, after telling pro-lifers they are "obsessed", or smearing Rosary bead counters as "Pelagians", then do some damage control. Throw a few bones to placate those antediluvian "triumphalists", making sure to incite a strong emotional reaction, then add a dash of more confusion into the mix. Talk about the Devil to counteract the inherent relativism of "Each of us has a vision of good and of evil". Say you are going to consecrate the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the World. Yet, when the appointed day comes, don't even invoke the "Immaculate Heart", leave out "World" from the text, transform the "consecration" into a generalized, almost innocuous, "entrustment".[7] Forbid the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from continuing to celebrate the Latin Mass,[8] but show a manufactured empathy, albeit obliquely, for those annoying "restorationists" by celebrating Mass versus Deum. Say "the Church is not an NGO", but then handpick a Cardinal Advisor, Óscar Maradiaga (member of the "Gang of 8"), who proclaims that the Church's "foremost goal is to care for the penultimate (hunger, housing, clothing, shoes, health, education)... a spirit of service to humanity".[9] Back and forth, back and forth, keep them guessing, hodgepodge it, get someone to compile an Apostolic Exhortation, pleasing this faction over here with a little of this, flinging bird seed over there for a little of that. Pretend you're on a fishing expedition by throwing your nets far and wide, beyond the principled limits set by the Magisterium. Because, ladies and gentlemen, the name of the game is Moving Target, and the first person to pounce on any detractor of this charade wins the prize of Establishment Church endorsement, with a big, wet sloppy kiss from Jimmy Akin as an added bonus. Topping it all off, kiss a ailing man whose entire epidermis is plagued by boils.[10] Get a close-up photograph, make it graphic. That will hit the presses, it'll be a smash and, you Professional Catholics, make sure no mention is made of past pontiffs who performed similar gestures, unlucky in the sense of these acts not being captured on film nor of living in an age of split-second information availability. Then everyone is overwhelmed with joy, the tears flow, omnipresent smiles, cartwheels in the Piazza, an unchallengeable awesomeness of personality, of groundbreaking humility. Our new, humble pope: "I have the humility and ambition to want to do something"???!!! [11] Then everyone will forget those statements beforehand causing distress, then all will be sunshine and lollipops. Not really...

VIII. PENALTY FOR PERPLEXITY. Because the passage of time is the best truth-teller in this context, even over a short eight-month duration since coronation... pardon, inauguration. And time, indifferently running its predetermined course through human affairs since Adam and Eve, can be brutal. There are real, dire repercussions to "off-the-cuff" remarks by the Ambassador of Jesus Christ on Earth, once again proving the enormous, supreme authority that is Kephas, since it was conferred directly by Our Lord Himself onto St. Peter. For example, Francis' "who am I to judge him?", a comment issued to the media last July whilst in transit, regarding homo-mafioso Monsignor Battista Ricca[12]:

...sparked a wave of soul-searching by several Catholic lawmakers who had battled to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sworn duty to represent their constituents who were increasingly supportive of gay rights even as Cardinal Francis George remained opposed. "As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion and justice for all people," said Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia... House Speaker Michael Madigan also cited the pope's comments in explaining his support for the measure. "For those that just happen to be gay - living in a very harmonious, productive relationship but illegal - who am I to judge that they should be illegal?"[13]

It's the "New Pentecost"! Rationalize away and let's all be pro-gay (wink wink nudge nudge). Hey, he's kept unrepentant pervert-advisor Ricca on board to watch over the Vatican Bank. Think about that for a second. Then look here, then over here. Do you feel the love? Really, think about it. No enabling going on here... and, still, there are those Catholics, online and elsewhere, who, if not conspicuously silent, expecting them to denounce such manifest calamities are, with much exertion, hailing Francis' pontificate as the best event to arise in Christendom since when Our Lady of Guadalupe prompted the conversion of millions of bloodlusting, cannibalizing pagans in Latin America, Bergoglio's homebase. All this stuff is mesmerizing, it's a mystery, and it is also very depressing. Accordingly, it's time for a break. Take a break with Cardinal Bergoglio and watch a puppet "mass". Even better, watch his participation in a tango "mass" (Rationalizers, please insert comments here). For you realists out there, here's some consolation from the battle-wearied Fr. Melchior Cano, theologian (later bishop) at the Council of Trent:

Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthen its foundations.

More recently, Mario Palmaro again (H/T Tancred):

Whether people "like" the pope is completely irrelevant in the two thousand year old logic of the Church: the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and must please our Lord. This means that the exercise of his authority is not absolute, but subordinate to the doctrine of Christ, which is found in the Catholic Church, in Her tradition, and is nourished by the life of grace through the sacraments. This means that the Catholics may be critical of the Pope himself and criticize under the condition that this is done out of love for the truth and that the tradition, the Magisterium is used as a standard gauge. A pope who would contradict a predecessor in matters of faith and morals should be criticized without doubt. We must be against both the secular logic and suspicious of a pope, assessed according to the good pleasure of the democratic majority, as well as to the temptation of a papolatry, according to a "the Pope is always right".

IX. MICHAEL COREN AS NEO-CATHOLIC DEMAGOGUE. The latent papolatry explodes in all its irrational ferocity - typically by people affiliated with whatever "recognized" Catholic outfit - when any critic of the Bishop of Rome states the obvious, usually reluctantly and with a heavy heart. For example, in yet another column for Catholic Insight, this time a "guest editorial" at the opening pages of the magazine, Michael Coren squeals like a hysterical feminist in his demagogic assault on Traditional Catholics [TH2 insertions]:

...spare me your theological wrangling and talk of Paul rebuking Peter. He's the pope for God's sake; he is, precisely, the pope for God's sake, the sake of God...[i.e. Between God and the Pope there is no distinction, one in the same. Francis speaks, thus the Holy Ghost descends upon him immediately, inspiring, anytime, anywhere, "for God's sake". Not only does this opinion overlook the Magisterium, it in effect this makes God to be a kind of fumbling minion to the Holy Father, because any detrimental statement made by Francis, already numerous, already demonstrated, already published, no "media spin", no recanting, can be rationalized. This mindset also blots out any possibility of, for example, an exiled St. Anthanasius, authentically defending the Faith contra the Arian equivocations of a Pope Liberius, not canonized] Do not shuffle into the bunker of despair and resignation shaking your head, [contrariwise, Traditional Catholics, the reader may have noticed, are coalescing, more emergent, strident, even exuberant, in the Catholic conversation, after decades of shunning and vilification by Coren and his ilk, who now seem to feel threatened] but walk tall and proud into the public square of debate and evangelization [this is exactly what Traditional Catholics are starting to do, infracting upon Coren's self-constructed media fiefdom]. Remember, there are those on the right as well as the left who will pervert the pope's messages.[standard Neo-Catholic tune of transcending the Thesis/Anti-Thesis dualism, ascending to the heady Hegelian heights, floating amongst the clouds of Synthesis, whereat all is balanced, moderate, calm, praise from sycophants below in abundance, and where everything is right with the world and in the Church] They [i.e. "rad trads", as he likes to say on Twitter] thrive on tired cynicism, conspiracy, and misplaced nostalgia, [yawn, standard canards, 23+ documents by the popes against Freemasonry, multiple condemnations of Marxism, precipitous declines in Mass attendance, sodomite/pederast sub-culture worldwide - nah, nothing wrong here, move along] and it's as harmful - if not as influential - as the relativism and liberalism that have enjoyed too much power since the 1960s.[14] [but Coren's "welcome" of sodomites into seminaries, being "compelled" by arguments advocating homo-marriage, and permitting for "full rights" of homosexuals, isn't potentially harmful?]

The voluble tripe Coren has been dishing out lately really needs to be called out. It's now time for Canadian Catholics of traditionalist propensity to stop biting their tongues whenever he broadcasts his version of Catholic-lite from whatever rostrum. That he has been able to publish such words in the last few issues of Catholic Insight, one of the last outposts of orthodox Catholic periodicals in Canada, is intimating the start of a troubling turn in the magazine's philosophy since Fr. de Valk's recent retirement from editorship. Analogous to the Neo-Catholic predominance, if not takeover, eventuating after Mother Angelica departed EWTN. I think it would be a good idea for Coren's unquestioning plaudits to reassess. To understand, firstly, he is not immune from criticism, shattering any preconceived notion of him being this country's indomitable "conservative Catholic voice", just because he has managed to wiggle into acceptability within the realm of mainstream media. Secondly, the transformation into freewheeling demagogue is unmistakable now that he enjoys dominance on TV, radio, print, the lecture circuit, and in the Canadian Catholic conversation. Characteristic of such Neo-Catholic demagogues is to use catchphrases to hook an audience, unsubstantiated claims stated boldly, distinctions begone!, emotions often prioritized over reason, to enflame prejudices of a largely ignorant Catholic populace. Ultimately, to garner influence and, equally, respectability from the right people. The stratagem, of course, must remain in sync with the direction to which the sentimental wind is currently blowing inside the Establishment Church. Otherwise, he would be disallowed from penning a column for the diocesan-controlled Catholic Register. You can push, but only so far, then you must hop like a bunny whenever we command. To guarantee that you not veer off course, make sure you acquire an agent "to assist in development of strategic plans, as well as manage public relations and personal brands".

X. SURFACING TO PROVIDE COVER FOR ENEMIES WITHIN. It's pedestrian, from a Catholic standpoint, to criticize an external secular culture supersaturated with nihilism. Shooting fish in a barrel. Such commentators are a dime a dozen. However, the thought of digging deep into Church matters, "on the inside", locally, specifically, of conducting laborious research thereof, of corroboration, of tackling thorny subjects head-on, regardless of discomfort levels and likelihood of banishment from the Magic Circle, is anathema. This is exactly how and why the Neo-Catholic commentariat rationalize any of the patently stupid statements enunciated by Pope Francis. Popularity, "personalism" and personality supersede, a persistent problem since John Paul II the "rock star". Effectively, all that they are doing here is masking corruption inside the Church. The reader will note that, despite Coren's self-made image as champion of orthodox Catholicism in Canada, regardless of all the grandstanding in defence of the Catholic voiceless, even with a gift to charm almost anyone across the ideological spectrum, never does he address the crux. Yes, admirable work when determinedly contending secular liberals of whatever variety. Though it's all surface analysis when it comes to the crisis in the Church. That is, never does he challenge by name, nor discuss in detail without kid gloves, bishops, clerical/lay leaders, liberals and especially so-called "conservative" ones, inside CanChurch who are, individually and collectively, by their actions and inactions, chiefly responsible for the demolition of the Faith over the last fifty years and, along with it, the loss of countless souls. Why, then, does he provide cover for these people? Here's why.

XI. TRANSPOSITIONS. Let's now bring this subject back to another front in the culture wars. SPU/V2 conference player Catherine Clifford, as discussed previously, is a out-and-out Modernist. Recall that vague language is utilized by such heretics as a shifty way to elevate theories of theologians above Magisterial teaching. Here she is in action:

The Catechism itself is a compendium of traditional teachings. It should not be used uncritically as a catechetical resource. By this I mean that its teachings must be transposed for contemporary believers.[15]

The definition of "transpose" in my trusty Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) is given as: "to change in form or nature". Hence, change is the operative word here, a synonymous substitute for "transpose", also one of the key motivators of the Modernist mind. Church dogma must be changed to suit the signs of the times. One prime sign being Relativism, where limitless change for the sake of change is its trademark. This transpositioning is effected with defiance-inspired questioning disguised as valid criticism, including phraseological acrobatics, themselves fishing lures in the Modernist tackle box. As St. Pius X stated: "In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas".[16] The thing the reader must understand here is that Clifford has zero concern for the durance, the viability, the demonstrated truthfulness, of Catholic dogma. True, some of it makes us cringe and recoil, much in it is difficult. Yet the causations for these are traceable back to Original Sin. Resolution came with the Cross. It makes no difference to Clifford that, for example, the latest Catechism was promulgated by Apostolic Constitution, the highest decree of the infallible Ordinary/Universal Magisterium. Wrote John Paul II:

...the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.[17]

For the record, the 1992 Catechism certainly is not my favourite. There are a issues therein which raise eyebrows, like the "twofold" equalization of the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage (no. 2362). The pre-Conciliar Church always stressed the former, but post-1965 the former is subordinated and the latter overemphasized. This, manifested in NFP hype and abuses presently, let alone a Bay City Rollers-like fanaticism over "Theology of the Body", including Christopher West's Manichean rendering of it. Again, Vatican II ambiguities factor into the situation. The point in my highlighting this, however, is not an endeavour to change or "transpose" dogma. Rather, to note an inconsistency, a Vatican II-instigated novelty, with noticeable injurious ramifications, and to underscore that proper amendment (not wholesale change) can only be accomplished by backtracking to Tradition.

XII. WOLVES ATTACK VULNERABLE ANIMALS. In their attempts to overstep dogma, because it is impossible to actually change it, especially for a layman, what heretics do, if wanting to market a pet theory directly to the public, so as to goad skepticism, leading to dissent (then rebellion, the unspoken aim), is to assail from outside Church structures. The most popular and easiest way to do this in the Information Age, now bolstered by "social media", is to consort with those members of the secular press based in large metropolitan centres. As everyone this side of the Underworld knows, they are no friend of Catholicism, orthodox Catholicism specifically. However, sympathy for Modernism abounds, since its advocates yearn for changes which mimic what these urban elitists want changed in the Catholic Church. As discussed above, this also appears to be the Bishop of Rome's methodology. As it turns out - big surprise, Clifford is a go-to-girl for prominent newspapers here in Canada. Here is one of her quotations from an interview with the Toronto Star earlier this year [TH2 emphasis]:

Any of these questions - expanding roles for women, ordaining married men - for these things to change, the style of the church's governance has to change. We have to create spaces for dialogue. We don't have to look upon people as being disloyal Catholics for raising these questions. One far more consultative, with more space for the voices and experiences of Catholics from different regions of the world... Not everything can be decided at the centre. Is the present form of the priesthood adequate? Are we receiving all the gifts women and lay people have to bring to the service of the church? Is there a space to think about human sexuality in a different way? What is the relationship between Christianity and other religions? But trying to think about them in new ways is often greeted with suspicion. These questions are not just raised by radical theologians but also by bishops who are responsible pastors. These questions are being raised by very faithful Catholics.[18]

The opportunism is evident as this was published just four days after Pope Benedict announced his resignation from the papacy, an extraordinary event in that the last abdication occurred about 600 years ago. To the Modernists, 7+ years of Benedict exhibited an alarming trend back to Tradition, after 4+ decades of "change". But then the stunning announcement. Yes! A moment of vulnerability in the Church. The time is now, attack!, go for it, pull out all the stoppers. In the interview, Clifford rolls out an extensive array of issues necessitating "change" and "questions", as per usual expressed euphemistically: (1) "expanding roles for women", i.e. female ordination, (2) "ordaining married men", i.e. ending of priestly celibacy, (3) "church's governance has to change... Not everything can be decided at the centre", i.e. collegiality, democracy, anti-hierarchical, (4) "gifts women and lay people", i.e. feminism, even more laymen participation in liturgy, commissions, etc., (5) "dialogue... relationship between Christianity and other religions", i.e. inutile ecumenism, doublespeak for Indifferentism and Universalism, (6) "think about human sexuality in a different way", i.e. pro-sodomy, lesbianism, pro-contraception, (7) "questions are not just raised by radical theologians but also by bishops", i.e. goes to obedience, theologians elevated above Magisterium. Did Clifford call the reporter to get the word out, or vice versa? The reporter is one Leslie Scrivner, notorious for her stream of anti-Catholic articles. The Vox has also noticed Scrivner's handiwork.

XIII. CONTORTING CANON 915. Let's now head back to 2005 and peruse another interview, this time in the Ottawa Citizen via the Canadian Press. In this one, ignorance is shown on a subject that should seem to be rudimentary for a theology professor. The piece concerns the denial of Holy Communion (by parish priests) from two public figures, due to their stands against Catholic Church teaching. The first was Charlie Angus, NDP Member of Parliament, who at the time was backing the federal government's homo-marriage bill. The second was pro-abortionist Celina Symmonds, past manager of a Planned Parenthood "office" in Medicine Hat, Alberta. To any Catholic with even a dribble of catechesis, it is axiomatic that these two persons be denied Holy Communion. Not so to the Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Saint Paul University. Catherine Clifford to the rescue! [TH2 emphasis/insertions]:

We receive the body and blood of Christ, represented by the bread and wine... The reality that it signifies for us is union with Christ. But it's also unity in the body of Christ, that is the church... Only those who are baptized may receive the eucharist... [denial of Communion is] a very serious and painful thing... It's a form of exclusion from the community... Because you're labelling someone as heretical. You're saying they do not hold the faith of the church and are therefore excluded from the sacramental life of the church... [It is odd] to just withhold communion and say but you're not really excommunicated. Withholding communion is excommunication. It means the person is not welcome to receive any of the sacraments. The way back for them is through the sacrament of reconciliation.[19]

Firstly, notice what is not being addressed, what is left unsaid: no connections are made to the particular reasons why Holy Communion was denied, namely pro-homosexual and pro-abortion stances. As if no corollary is involved. A form of quiet affirmation. Emphasis, rather, is on emotional effects (e.g. "painful thing", "not welcome"). I dare anyone to straightforwardly ask Clifford about her positions on abortion and homosexuality. In all likelihood, the response will be mealy-mouthed or she will simply refuse to reply, nor even to acknowledge your existence, as we shall see momentarily. Secondly, it is interesting that she characterizes Holy Communion as that which merely "signifies", but I'll let the reader ponder the implications of that one (hint: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book IV, chapter xvii). Thirdly, the statement "withholding communion is excommunication" is false. To demonstrate, I'll quote a canon lawyer [TH2 emphasis/insertions]:

Denial of holy communion... is quite distinct from excommunication. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty. It is imposed or declared on those who have committed a certain type of canonical crime. In most cases, specific procedures have to be followed for the effects of excommunication to be fully visited upon an individual... one of the consequences of excommunication is the loss of the right to the receive holy communion, but it is only one of the consequences that accompanies excommunication. Finally, an excommunicated individual has to follow, in most cases, certain formal steps to have the penalty lifted... denial of the Eucharist under canon 915 is not an ecclesiastical penalty but a sacramental disciplinary norm. It is designed to prevent the immediate harm that can be caused by the reception of the Eucharist by those whose own actions have demonstrated a fundamental disregard for the teachings of the Church...[like Mr. Angus and Ms. Symmonds] Canon 915 allows the Church to respond more quickly in the face of public sin.[19]

Those good parish priests did respond quickly to public sinners. Quite unlike our current caboodle of irenic, confrontation-averse bishops, regardless of their mellifluous speechifying at "Theology on Tap" get-togethers.

XIV. DEFENESTRATION FROM THE IVORY TOWER. Being all Chatty Cathy with a wicked secular press is perfectly acceptable. Certainly, it is encouraged by Magic Circle dwellers, as they hunger for those subtle nods of approval from their secular masters. You are not going to be challenged by any self-regarding "investigative reporter" from the Toronto Star or Ottawa Citizen. Media productions, instead, will be customized to promote whatever sub-Catholic cause you fancy. However, if, ill-fatedly, you are a journalist from an unapproved Magic Circle media agency, don't expect anything from them except to be expectorated upon. Take the case of LifeSite News, a stellar organization defending life and the family, whose reporting is consistent with Catholic teaching. In 2009 LSN provided coverage of a speaking event at the Faculty of Theology, St. Paul University (advertised by the Archdiocese of Ottawa, incidentally). Featured keynote speaker was ex-priest Gregory Baum, adversary of the Church's teaching on homosexuality and contraception, amongst a multitude of others. The article ends: "LSN did not hear back from the St. Paul University contact for the event, Dr. Catherine Clifford, after repeated attempts".[21] Then in 2012 LSN gave coverage to the SPU/V2 conference, currently written about in this blog series. An omnibus of heretics, a cornucopia of CanChurch personages, and a conference organizer by the name of Catherine Clifford. The article ends: "Saint Paul University did not respond to LifeSiteNews.com by press time".[22] The reason no responses came is the simple fact that LSN, if given the chance to converse with you know who, would have posed challenging questions, at loggerheads with the heresy quoted above. You have to be one of the right people, think the right way, the groupthink way. So much for the touting of "dialogue". Modernists do not tolerate criticism.

XV. THE MAGIC CIRCLE SHIELD. Whenever coming across such occasions of unfairness levelled by our so-called respectable Catholic intellectuals, I'm always reminded of a dictum by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: "The intolerance toward criticism is the certain sign of characteriological inferiority. It is the masses and the mass man that cannot bear contradiction".[23] Yet for Professor Clifford, there is really nothing about which to worry. She has the support of her bishop, as is evidenced in this photograph[24] - and that's the thing even more ominous. Most Catholic universities in Canada have an ensemble of these heretic theologians who disseminate dissent by mingling with a sympathetic secular media. Yet they are rarely, if ever, publically corrected or disciplined for doing so. It's as if they have an all-encompassing invisible magical shield blocking and deflecting away all inquiry by suspicious onlookers, and the point of emanation of this magical shield seems always to originate from Chancery HQ. Resultantly, such theologians develop within themselves, as if psychologically, a kind of "diplomatic immunity" whereby they feel that they have been awarded free license to violate laws of the Magisterium, making scandalous pronouncements at their leisure, without an iota of concern for punishment... Hey, you pathetic peasant Catholics, deal with it. That's how us cool cats swing down at the Casbah, beyotch.


NOTES / REFERENCES
 
1. M. Coren, "What we are called to so", Catholic Insight, October 2013, vol. 21, no. 9, p. 13.

2. R. Engel, "An open letter to Pope Francis: On a Papal Commission of Inquiry into Homosexuality, Pederasty and La Lobby Gay in The Catholic Church", November 9, 2013. Published at Renew America; D. Oko, "Z Papiezem przeciw homoherezji", Fronda, 63, June 2012, pp. 128-160. An English translation of Fr. Oko's detailed analysis is all over the internet.

3. "Pope Benedict's last great master class: Vatican II, as I saw it", Radio Vaticana, February 14, 2013.

4. A. Schneider, "The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Pastoral Council. Historical-Philosophical-Theological Analysis", Conference of Studies on the Second Vatican Council Toward a Right Hermeneutic in the Light of the Tradition of the Church, Istituto Maria SS. Bambina, Rome, December 16-18, 2010.

5. Quoted/translated from an interview in L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013.

6. Quoted in M. Schmitz, "Vatican Spokesman: Don't Parse Pope Francis", First Things, October 4, 2013.

7. J. Vennari, "Pope 'Consecrates' World to Immaculate Heart with no mention of 'Consecration' or the 'Immaculate Heart'", Catholic Family News, October 15, 2013.

8. Cf. G. Warner, "Ban on Latin Mass has put Pope beyond the pale", The Scotsman, August 4, 2013.

9. Quoted in J.A. Esteves, "Francis: 'The Church is not an NGO'", ZENIT, June 11, 2013; The importance of the New Evangelization", Keynote speech by Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga at Synod Closing Assembly, Archdiocese of Miami, October 28, 2013

10. "Pope Francis embraces man with tumorous disease", Catholic News Agency, November 6, 2013.

11. E. Scalfari, "The Pope: how the Church will change", La Repubblica, October 1, 2013. Transcript of Scalfari's interview with Pope Francis.

12. Cf. S. Magister, "The Prelate of the Gay Lobby", L'Espresso, no. 29, July 19, 2013.

13. Quoted in M. Garcia and M. Long, "Illinois lawmakers approve gay marriage in historic vote", The Chicago Tribune, November 6, 2012.

14. M. Coren, "Successor to St. Peter", Catholic Insight, November 2013, vol. 21, no. 10, p. 4.

15. C.E. Clifford, "The Joint Declaration, Method, and the Hermeneutics of Consensus", Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Winter 2001, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 79-94.

16. Lamentabili Sane, Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907.

17. Quoted in On the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Prepared Following the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Promulgated on October 11, 1992.

18. Quoted in L. Scrivener, "Challenging the Vatican: Progressive Catholics say reform must begin with church governance", Toronto Star, February 15, 2013.

19. Quoted from Edward Peters' book Excommunication and the Catholic Church, posted by M.C. Abbott, "Excommunication and the Catholic Church", Renew America, April 4, 2013.

20. Quoted in "Ontario Member of Parliament, Woman Activist Denied Communion", Ottawa Citizen, July 6, 2005.

21. P.B. Craine, "Ottawa's Saint Paul University to Feature Dissidents Gregory Baum and Bishop Remi De Roo", LifeSite News, October 1, 2009

22. P.B. Craine, "Catholics urge Vatican Cardinal to skip dissenting conference on Vatican", LifeSite News, July 23, 2012.

23. E.R. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Mill Publishing Company, 1943), pp. 301-302. Published under the pseudonym Francis Stuart Campbell.

24. D. Gyapong, "Research centre on Vatican II launched", Prairie Messenger, October 19, 2011.

CRAZY-EYED V2 VISIONS (Part 2d)

CRAZY-EYED V2 VISIONS (Part 2b)

I. OLD TRICKS: Two successful ploys wielded by heretics, commonly exercised by post-Conciliar theologians to sucker in the unwary and their admiring careerist colleagues, involve: First, to employ ambiguous language when communicating their preferred form of defiance, be it in the book or by broadcast on whatever other media format. That is, heresy is cloaked with euphemistic, subtlizing phraseology, used to assail long-established norms of the Faith, as professed accurately and lucidly in, say, dogma. Hence precision in definitions is diminished, explanations become open-ended with no limitation in view, and therefore doctrine can be construed in multiple ways, creating backdoor access for extrinsic heretical schemes to seep into the system. Unless already observant of such linguistic nuance or, more exactly, subterfuge, a good way to train your mental faculties is to read a bit of Bl. Johannes Duns Scotus (1266-1308). He's renowned for the concept haecceitas, meaning the "thisness" of a thing. True, difficult material, yet there is an exploratory sense in the Subtle Doctor's writings as, for instance, at the time he was undertaking to explicate the yet to be dogmatically-declared Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. So, attempting to understand Scotus might help improve your heresy detection abilities. At least I benefited. The second ploy is for heretics to unwarrantedly assign/declare themselves as authentic interpreters of Church doctrine, elevated above and distinct from the Ordinary/Universal Magisterium. The first ploy, i.e. nebulous diction, assists in disguising the second, i.e. theologian superseding Magisterium. These and associated topics are touched upon in an essay I wrote a long time ago, On the Identification of Heretics. Continuing from Part 2a, then, we're going to continue with SPU/V2 luminary Catherine Clifford by looking at how these two artifices factor into her Modernist storytelling. We are also going to dive deep into Neo-Catholicism and look at how the lately emergent "new media" of the internet has changed the Catholic conversation.

II. ONE TWO THREE, HERE COMES EVERYBODY: The last post started off with mention of the decentralization process occurrent in the Church over the last five decades. Power transference from pope to bishops then to laity. In terms of ecclesiological models of organization, soonafter the Second Vatican Council ended the framework transformed from a vertically-inclined hierarchical structure, with the pope at the pinnacle, transcendent in aspect (focussed first on God), to one that is horizontally-orientated, immanent in its comportment (engrossed by things of "the world"). Anyone who tells you that the resourcement and aggiornamento have been in perfect balance since 1965, or that today the so-called "seamless garment" remains sturdy and strong, is either lying, deluded or has been smoking too much crack. As such, over the last fifty years the modus operandi in Catholic affairs has involved a combination of democratization and collectivization. Leanings thereto occur in varying degrees, depending on how much successive prelates in your diocese have succumbed to, or been persuaded by, Modernist imperatives. Yes, the laity have played an overextended role in the Catholic Church since Vatican II. Justification coming from, for example, the Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People, wherein, breathtakingly, Jack and Jill Catholic were authorized to have "an apostolate infinitely broader and more intense".[1] Ever wonder why at Mass the number of "Eucharistic Ministers" at the altar greatly exceeds the number of parishioners in the pews? Well, now you know.
 
III. COLLEGIALITY: However, because they are heirs to the Apostles, it is the bishops who wield ultimate authority over whatever deconstructed hub of Church activity. At least in theory, but not always in practice. This, due to both laymen-run and religious-run fiefdoms, countless, and therefore difficult to administer (a problem intensified by pervasive ignorance and disobedience), reigning either at the chancery office, at our numerous Catholic institutions, or at your parish down the road. The buzz word for this post-Conciliar fragmentation, the term used most in characterizing this dispersion of power, is "collegiality". Meaning, bishops around the globe "teach, govern and sanctify" as an indistinct, ever-shifting aggregate, with a working assumption that degrades the pope merely to "the first among equals". This minimizing coefficient, implicit to the collegial equation, is regularly disavowed, only admitted as "true" (according to opinion) seldom and usually privately. Though, if Ambition is your name and Gallicanism is the game, inevitably you're going have to appease the forces of liberal democracy prevailing outside Church walls - forces already presuming a hierarchic-operating Church in a scenario right out of a Dan Brown novel. Brutal authoritarianism, albino monk assassins, torture chambers inside the Vatican, gnostic cryptography, historical revisionism (made worse by free association), amateur hour theology, and all the rest of it. So you put on a happy face, grovel before whomever secular dignitary you desire as a "friend", then tell him, "Yes, Caesar, we bow unto you. There is no distinction between us. The Catholic Church really is democratically disposed. Liberté, égalité, fraternité, we say - and the pope is merely an esteemed member of our compassionate community of believers". A certain media cleric, mouthpiece of the Canadian bishops, and lackey for our State Broadcaster, recently did the dirty deed for the debonair Peter Mansbridge in a televised interview. Compounding the disgrace, this act of submission to the CBC, orchestrated to be sure, was showcased in a basilica, right in the middle aisle, with the altar distinctly, symbolically observable in the background. Hark!, the herald angels sing, glory to the secular king.
 
IV. TYPES: Collegiality manifests in various forms. In its strictest designation appertaining to bishops, it appears as synods or, more influentially, as episcopal conferences, which are better categorized as self-ruling, insubordinate "national churches", in that directives issuing from Rome are mostly laughed off as the antiquated expostulations of some raving lunatic. This subject was methodically addressed in Ominous Signs. Scaling down and now incorporating the laity (we must as bishops today invariably have a retinue in tow), collegiality also functions at the diocesan level, in more localized "municipal churches", if a term may be invented. Think of the bishop and his entourage of advisors, consultants, assistants, attendants. Think of the profusion of employees, "partners" and departments at the chancery. Especially that most necessary of animals in the Information Age, viz. the Office of Public Relations and Communications. Collegiality can be extended even further to the point of absurdity when you consider the explosion of effectively autonomous "singularity churches", so to speak. These, mainly commandeered by agenda-driven careerists and assorted ignoramus' who desperately want to "get involved". We see this materialize in that menagerie of commissions, committees, subcommittees, councils, panels, boards, working groups. Peopled by "facilitators", "coordinators", "directors", "leaders" and "greeters"- right down to that dynamic duo of babyboomer female busybodies managing the parish office: bossing Father around, recruiting an armada of "Eucharistic Ministers" and altar girls, ensuring New Age music plays continuously in the Adoration Chapel, planning Tai Chi retreats for the kids, ordering vats of tofu and reams of bean sprout sandwiches - on whole wheat bread! - for the parish picnic. You get the idea (hello ladies).

V. COLLEGIALITY=DEMOCRACY: Collegiality is the party line and, really, it's code for a democratic church in most quarters, notwithstanding what your hear from official channels, whereof statements are regularly issued to draw minds away from the paradigm change. For example, earlier this year Cardinal Camillo Ruini spoke the following in an interview [TH2 bolds/insertions hereafter]:

There is a structural problem, already addressed by Vatican Council II, but which has not yet found a satisfying and stable solution: that of the relationship between the primacy of the pope and the college of the bishops... Then there is the problem of the relationship of the curia with the pope, and also with the bishops of the whole world.[2]

The "structural problem", i.e. effects of collegiality, is properly identified, acknowledged. Yet to claim the Council "addressed" this problem is another instance of avoidance whereby the arrow is intentionally shot to a mark just shy of the bulls-eye. Pope Francis' preference for being called the "Bishop of Rome" isn't helping matters either. In reality, Vatican II - helped by vague wording in its documents - instigated and facilitated this "structural problem", perpetuating it to the present day. For to admit the cause would be to cast suspicion on the credibility of the Council, upon which so much do the Modernist vampires suck their lifeblood. Purportedly, collegiality represents and fosters more freedom, candidness, tolerance, charity, creativity, commonality. It's the "new collective consciousness", as Professor Clifford would argue. It's groovy, it gets with the yoof, its hip, its suave, the new-fangled cognition, it's how us whiz kids swing down at the Casbah. Collegiality is crackerjack, superfly! FULL STOP.

VI. CONSEQUENCES: It's forever abnegated, and a lot of misinformation is levied about to conceal a bleak actuality: Collegiality, especially with the emergence of the "bishops' conference", deracinates the authority of an individual bishop, setting up an ecclesiological arrangement which very potentially makes him subject to a coercing, irrational, apostatic mob. Or, to speak more delicately, cede to majority rule of whatever bishop cooperative. Not only is this bishops' independence subverted, if not squelched out altogether, de facto the pope's supreme authority is equally debased as well, so there's no ultimate recourse. Here's some confirmatory data originating from the highest authority, regarding an occurrence at Castel Gondolfo in August 2005:

During an audience with the Pope [Benedict], Bishop [Bernard] Fellay [SSPX Superior General] found himself alone with the Pope for a moment. His Excellency seized the opportunity to remind the Pope that he is the Vicar of Christ, possessed of the authority to take immediate measures to end the crisis in the Church on all fronts. The Pope replied thus: "My authority ends at that door".[3]

So there ya go. The consequences of collegiality five decades running. Free for all, flattened management, zero answerability. What do you do, then, when societal circumstances become dire? When politics intrudes upon religion? When the psychopathic State gets it jollies by clubbing the Church over the head? What happens when, as history attests, liberal democracy inexorably devolves into a totalitarian regime, be it hard or soft? You're screwed. Dogma is not democratic, it's no friend of the modern State. Church organization and discipline is not based in Egalitarianism. Relativism is the enemy of Catholic morality. If, say, you have an Arian crisis type situation, where, in the Colosseum, there's a singularly loyal St. Athanasius battling the throng of remaining politically-motivated prelates, who are in agreement as to their denial of Christ's divinity, chances are high that this individual bishop will be subsumed by heretical consensus. Eventually, a critical threshold is surpassed whereupon the distinction between Church and State disappears, the two meld into one. Then, on Caesar's whim, traditional Catholics, now criminalized as retrograde renegades, will be fated to years of exile and persecution. It's that simple.

VII. OMNIPRESENT "STRUCTURES": Perhaps I've extrapolated the effects of collegiality, i.e. "democratic Catholicism", too far into the future. Well, maybe not that far, considering current cultural tendencies and a "diabolical disorientation" exhibited in the words, actions and inactions by members of the establishment church. Speaking of which, Professor Clifford is evidently gaga for collegiality:

...collegiality is not merely an expression of the communion of local churches on a universal scale, but that it is a present and active in a variety of intermediate structures that foster a more effective exercise of episcopal ministry and witness to the synodality of the whole Church.[4]

Indeed, collegiality is chuck full of "intermediate structures", which is the swanky Modernist way of saying gigantic bureaucracy. As above: laity overflow, redundancies galore, committees ad infinitum, a nuclear detonation of "reports", anodyne, prolix, inutile, diverting, delaying, denying. You name it. Collegiality and bureaucracy go hand-in-hand, made for one another, a perfect match. Like Beavis and Butthead, like Donny and Marie or, even, like the Captain and Tennille. More democracy, more personnel, more paper shuffling. More careerists, more collectivity, less personal responsibility. And all these wedded to equivocal language. Like this: "synodality of the whole Church". Or, elsewhere, this beauty on ecumenism: "the apostolicity of diversity in the expression of faith and the ecclesiality of other confessional churches".[5] Now that's just craptastic stuff. Aw shucks, Professor, please stoop to my Neanderthal level and spare me this... this... highfalutinality. Golly, where be my pork rinds, NASCAR iz startin soon. Yet, according to Clifford, it is an actuality, at least to a considerable proportionality, that collegiality begets "a more effective exercise of episcopal ministry"?! That's hilarious. Really, "more effective"?

VIII. BUREAUCRATIC INERTIA: Ever wonder why no decisive action is ever taken after writing a letter of vital concern to the Chancery office or a diocesan newspaper editor? Ever wonder why dubious postings at the CCCB website exclude the author's name? Ever wonder why the Development and Peace scandal has continued for three years and counting? Ever wonder why nothing is ever done about that pro-abort lesbian RCIA director who's just a tad too enthusiastic about animal rights and veganism? Ever wonder why nothing significant ever came of the petition sent to Canada's nuncio regarding the SPU/V2 conference? These sins of omission are spawned and flourish in a runaway bureaucracy. Logistically, impossible to oversee, unless these "intermediate structures" are scaled down drastically by a housecleaning type episcopacy with no predisposition to collegiality - a species gone extinct circa 1965, unfortunately. In the final analysis, collegiality or, more properly, democratic Catholicism, is a means for lukewarm and apostatic Catholics, bishops, religious and laymen - be they wannabe game-changers or wheeler-dealer careerists, to assert to the world their self-appointed importance. To their advantage, an attendant collectivist bureaucracy shields them from personal responsibility for the trickle-down effects of their heresies and the failures/irrelevancies of their petty agendas. Heresies and agendas horizontalized, immanentized, so as to be in conformity with the "spirit of the world". Said Franz Kafka: "The Revolution evaporates, and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy".[6] The workings of the post-Conciliar church in a nutshell.

IX. TRUTH UNLEASHED: Today, a major vicissitude to the Modernists - which is driving them bonkers, inflicting sleepless nights and, incidentally, filling yours truly with indescribable elation, is the recent arrival of the internet. A clear and present danger it is to Magic Circle dwellers, be they Modernist liberals or even Neo-Catholic "conservatives". This, for two principal reasons. First, elements of the Magisterium, unredacted, in the form of an "original source", the Deposit of the Faith in its authenticity and totality, is freely available and easily accessible for study, catechesis, enquiry, investigation, edification, referencing. Clickety-click... Barba-trick. Second, the internet gives voice to the once Catholic voiceless. Shut out, ostracized, insulted, excoriated for decades they have been, by bishops, clerics, careerists, straight and sodomitic. Not as unqualified, unknowledgeable and inexperienced as the upper echelon puppet masters presuppose, these once suppressed Catholics (orthodox Catholics, that is), beforehand and still banned by so-called Canadian Catholic publishers/periodicals, now wield "social media" for expression. Most efficaciously through blogs, upstart news sites and aggregators. Thanks to fiber optic cables, cell towers and geostationary satellites, dissemination is worldwide and near-instantaneous. Hence, official channels have been by-passed. Silence no more. The Age of Reefer Madness has, mercifully, come to its termination. Ignored letters of concern to the chancery office or to the diocesan newspaper editor (really, the same entity) can now be uploaded online for everyone to peruse. Moreover, com boxes allow for additional input and, oftentimes, more interesting discussion, debate and revelation arise therein than in the original posting. Now you can respond to the widely-syndicated Ron Rolheiser whenever he sublimates his frustrated effeminate libido. Now you can expose those nature worshipping vulgarians who litter and louche up the liturgy at St. Gaia parish. Man stuff - cigars and pipes, beer and whiskey, steak and pizza, argumentation, retaliation, divisiveness, courage, steadfastness, acuity, clarity, honesty. Factuality and reality. Resultantly, eventually, after the dust settles, Catholic truths bubble to surface... to the utter horror of those who populate the apostatic offices of the establishment church, from coast to coast. And, lo!, multipacks of Depends underwear doth vanish from the shelves at grocery stores everywhere. It's fantastic!

X. DEMOCRACY OF DATA: The internet bolsters "free speech" or, more appropriately, it allows for a Collegiality of Information, if you will. Yet, ironically, the heretofore comptrollers of Catholic information flow regularly impart their displeasure with this new populist configuration of the mediascape. Well, not ironic. Actually, it's hypocritical because superstars of the Nu-Church, particularly attendees at the SPU/V2 conference and those of like mind, ceaselessly extol on about openness, fairness, sincerity, liberty, transparency, accountability, including the laity's greater role in the Church. This has been proclaimed from the mid-1960s onward. It's fabulous for all of us, they joyously holler to we Citizens of the World... unless you're a Catholic with traditional inclinations. It's the standard "Liberals are tolerant so along as you don't disagree with them" thing. They're worried, they feel threatened, trapped in a corner like a wild animal, which can be unpredictable and vicious if approached. Hence, Professor Clifford, who is on record as stating theologians supplant Magisterial teaching, conveys her distress:

At a time in our church when much of the council's teaching is being minimized, dangerously interpreted, or altogether ignored, an authentic and informed understanding of the council is more important than ever.[7]

That, presently, Vatican II teachings are "altogether ignored" is laughable. The audacity of these people has no bounds. Decrypted, that we require an "informed understanding" means she looks negatively upon opposing viewpoints of (implied) plebeians as they contradict hers and those of her sophisticated, Perrier-sipping colleagues inside the Magic Circle. That the Council has been "dangerously interpreted" indicates Clifford is rather uncomfortable with the fact that Modernism, especially when articulated as the "dawn of a new age" in Christian history, is starting to lose its steely grip on the post-Conciliar narrative. Questions and critiques of the "the documents" and interpretations of Vatican II, devastatingly convincing and certainly justified given the post-Conciliar collapse of Catholicism, are now popping up everywhere, transmitted everywhere via the internet. Concisely, Clifford and company are being challenged and they don't like it. Catholic productions extra Circulum Magicae, mainly facilitated by the internet (of which they have no control), has the semblance of an onslaught issuing in from all directions. Strange that us outsiders are so impactful. We're such a small minority, a "creative minority", as Pope Benedict characterized.

XI. NEO-CATHOLICISM EXPLAINED: Accordingly, let's now consider matters in a wider context so as to explain the Rosica-like-conniption reactions to this Collegiality of Information. Or, even, to explain the cartwheels that surely eventuate after CCCB personnel and chancery employees check out what hapnen in the Catholic blogosphere. From the mid-1960s to the 1970s commentary and analysis on Church affairs were under Modernist dominion. No dispute. Presently, they still do dominate to a hefty degree, of course. Although, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s - still prior to the internet, another kind of Catholic narrative arose into prominence, partnering the forefront with Modernism, in the English-speaking world at least. Namely, "conservative" Neo-Catholicism. It was and is a reaction to Modernism that hopes and attempts to recapture a lost Catholic orthodoxy robbed by the Modernists. However, Neo-Catholicism is in some aspects a form of Modernism, albeit mitigated, since its proponents downplay Church teachings prior to the Council, prioritizing those afterward. Neo-Catholics are unambivalent about celebrating Vatican II, seeing nothing at all problematic in its promulgations. Neo-Catholicism is American rooted, inspired, fixated, with a heavy duty political impulse. There is trustworthiness, devotion, way too much, to America's "Founding Fathers" and their religious/political principles, as if these are entirely commensurate with Catholic doctrine, or can be refashioned as such. These governing principles are undergirded by the thought of Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, a Calvinist. Locke's notion of tabula rasa said the humans are born as a "blank slate", ideas are not innate, that we are rather determined by our external surroundings. The implication of this explanation of man was, thus, a tendency to the equalization of people, a "levelling out" of humanity. How, then, could there be an instilled "divine right" of kings? How, then, could the king legitimately head the government?[8] The tabula rasa was outlined in Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1690. In the preceding year, he anonymously published Two Treatises on Government, which many scholars say comprises the fountainhead of American governance. Man, Locke wrote:

...seeks out, and is willing to joyn in Society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and Estates, which I call by the general Name, property. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.[9]

From a purely orthodox Catholic standpoint, Ven. Bishop Fulton Sheen identified the precarious linchpins in Locke's system, now in twenty-first-century Amerika exhibiting signs of fragility and breakdown: "The first is the substitution of an economic for a spiritual basis of government; the second is the emphasis on property rights rather than personal rights".[10] Entertaining and sad at the same time it is whenever I read Catholic commentators dancing and darting around these unnerving facts. Understandable, however, given the explosive conclusion involved, as these go to the very core of America's make-up as a country. For the record, I'm not anti-America. I love the American people, travelled throughout, lived in the U.S. for a while myself. There is also that proudly used portrayal capturing the essence of the American spirit: the "regular guy", outfitted with high technology and a Southern drawl, who pops out of nowhere in the midst of a crisis and nonchalantly "saves the day", winks to the amassed crowd, then hops on his horse and rides into the sunset. Ya, I like that. Still, as a Catholic first and foremost before everything, including love of country, harsh reality must be confronted and dealt with head-on, in the raw. Otherwise national exigencies/dilemmas, regardless of country, will compound, remain unresolved, continuing in a downward spiral until it finally hits Lucifer's paydirt of anarchy and all-out nihilism.
 
XII. FREEMASONRY: Neo-Catholics shower praise on America's esteemed ancestors in spite of the fact that several were deistic Freemasons. They disregard the Church's condemnation of Freemasonry and its satanic hand in international upheavals, especially since from the years leading up to the French Revolution, when scores of religious were slaughtered and exiled.[11] Just mention the word Freemason and you're castigated as a "conspiracy theory nut job" (see my essay on conspiracy theories here). If Freemasonry is just an innocuous, uninfluential organization, why would the Chair of Peter, undoubtedly the greatest "listening post" of global affairs (with its perdurable and worldwide network of nuncios, missionaries, religious orders, dioceses, institutes, etc.), reprimand it, do so regularly, insistently, vehemently, over these last few centuries? Must be something there, yes? Why would the supreme pontiffs compose texts addressing the matter? Clement XII (In Eminenti, 1738), Benedict XIV (Providas, 1751), Leo XII (Quo Graviora, 1825), Leo XIII (Humanum Genus, 1884) - and these are just a scant collection. As the motto goes: "The Catholic Church, outlasting oppressive governments since 33 AD". Methinks the popes knew a little more about Freemasonic machinations than some uptight culture pundit who merely dabbles on the subject during his coffee break. In addition to the Freemasons, Marxists and Sodomites have also infiltrated the Church over these last decades. It has happened and is happening. Readers, don't be fooled by the spinmeisters or the Canadian Catholic MSM, the latter completely ignoring or snubbing this triple-pronged malevolence.
 
XIII. REVOLUTIONARY CORRELATIONS: Not only do Neo-Catholics acquiescence to the un-Catholic concept of "Nature's God", they overlook unpleasant connections and causations existent between the American Revolution of 1775-1783 and the fervently anti-Catholic French Revolution of 1789 (a sensitive subject, tread carefully). Pace my American friends, recall that Auguste Barthold's creation known as the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France to the US, was inspired by Eugène Delacroix's La Liberté guidant le peuple, a painting celebrating the 1830 Revolution which overthrew the Orleans monarchy. Surely, that image is archetypal of the rejection and toppling of the Ancien Régime. Specifically, a negation of a long and distant Catholic past, not the more recent and shorter Protestant past. Where Modernists reject the Church's past/tradition wholesale, Neo-Catholics de-emphasize or omit particular doctrinal elements of the pre-Conciliar Church. Sometimes because of innocence and ignorance (many are converts from Protestantism, a combinatorial corollary of being born in Protestant America while being educated/catechized in a post-Conciliar theological circumstance manoeuvred by Modernists, characteristically disdainful of Church history/tradition). Other times because of an irritating, tension-inducing, but vital tidbit of the historical record that doesn't jive with the central thesis in a book otherwise sure to be a bestseller. And don't you dare criticize any statement or gesture made by the post-Conciliar popes. Else the Neo-Catholics will gang up on you like a cackle of hyenas, slice you open, rip out your heart and entrails, then feast and party like its 1999.

XIV. AMERICANISM: Neo-Catholicism is also tainted by the Americanism heresy, tackled long ago by Pope Leo XIII in his 1899 encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. Directed specifically to James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, Maryland, it focussed on the American notions of the "separation of Church and State", civil liberties, individualism, of how these pose hazards to Catholicism as traditionally understood. Think of the exclusionary particularism inherent to the popularized phrase "Shining City on a Hill". That has a quasi-utopian twang to it, an "American Church" placed on pedestal, above the Holy See even, singled out by God for a specialized purpose. As Pope Leo wrote: such an attitude "would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world". Leo's encyclical did work to restrain Americanism for a time, but only until Vatican II. By then the chains were broken, by a particular priest, of whom we shall return to momentarily. In the meantime, it is important to remember that, for the post-Conciliar era, Neo-Catholicism is/was fronted by a triumvirate: Michael Novak (philosopher, diplomat, formerly affiliated with the Rockefeller Foundation), George Weigel (educated at St. Michael's College, Toronto), and the Canadian-born Lutheran convert Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (d. 2009), founder/editor of the influential First Things magazine - intellectuals with several acquaintances inside the Washington Beltway.

XV. IT'S SHOWTIME: Marketing, profit-making and self-promotion, personified in the guise of a "Salesman Apologist" with a cheezy moustache or a cowboy hat or as a smiley face "nice guy", is also part of the movement's impetus. The lecture circuit, books sales, very "clubby", hobnobbing, backslapping, "Have I gotta deal for you!", and so forth. Here we see tracers of the much lauded American salesmanship frequently pushed outside the bounds of normal secular commerce. Almost to levels of ridiculousness on par with bellowing, money-grubbing Fundamentalist preachers with their loud suits and sculptured hairdos. On the internet it manifests with celebrity bloggers, well-intentioned, sometimes likeable, but dilettantish, USCCB-deferring, way "too hip", often boorish, saccharin, attention-seeking and self-absorbed. Prime examples are to be found at the National Catholic Register and Patheos. Mark Shea, a histrionic diva obsessed with attacking Michael Voris, is the first name coming to mind. Also, there is Jimmy Akin with his gnostic tinged "Secret Information Club". Nifty, do I get a secret decoder ring if I become a member? Elsewhere there is Scott Hahn, peddler extraordinarius, who to me comes off more as a motivational speaker than apologist. An unsolved mystery associated with many of the male types of this breed is that they have a predilection for growing scruffy beards. Maybe they want to look like Jesus. Who knows? Anyway, very much image-driven, it helps more if you're a pretty boy, the laaaaadies like that. Or if you're a delicious little honey pot with a sassy attitude, prompting the guys to give their undivided attention whilst they drool onto their keyboards. Publicly or formally presented, you will see avatars/photographs of them with an enigmatic smirk, a quirky smile, head tilted, peeking at you above their lowered sunglasses, or in a thoughtful stance, staring at the sky, ruminating in a luxuriantly vegetated mountain setting. It's the whole gamut of "Look at ME" phenomenology. To get an idea just open up your Sears catalogue to the fashion modelling section. I'm also thinking of Catholic Answers and EWTN. The latter, incepted by the wonderful and longsuffering Mother Angelica, has, unfortunately, been overtaken by establishment hacks, chiefly in its news and current affairs programming. And there certainly was a rationale for Christopher Ferrara's book EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong. Just think of the former crowd pleasing Fr. John Corapi, with his Just For Men coloured beard, pathetically garbed in a Harley Davidson leather jacket after his downfall. Things were better when it was only Mother Angelica Live!, the Rosary with the Nuns of Our Lady of the Angels Monastery and the occasional documentary. But that's a fleeting memory now.

XVI. CANADIAN/BRITISH EXAMPLES: On the Canadian side, there is Fr. Raymond de Souza, EWTN commentator and First Things contributor coincidentally, also columnist for both the Catholic Register and National Post. A nice comfortable balance between the establishment church and the secular world. Here, we can also throw CR columnists Peter Stockland and Michael Coren into the mix. There is also popular blogger Kathy Shaidle, very perceptive to leftist hypocrisy, a superb polemicist. Albeit her Neo-Catholic style is punk-anarchist with a pop culture focus enlivened by proletarian humour and its attending excessive use of profanity. Hence she writes for the libertarian "conservative" Taki's magazine. It's the "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" shtick. Cool, slick, trendy, witty, funny, edgy, intelligent, entertaining, kinda weird, pro-Rush Limbaugh, anti-Obama, anti-Islamic - not so bad in themselves to a degree. But certainly in a stall mode in terms of approaching/embracing the "fullness of the Faith" with all of its difficult aspects, which is an apt descriptor for Neo-Catholicism as such. Across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom, the closest comparison to Neo-Catholicism, or at least a hybrid of it, would be the people and programs associated with Catholic Voices. Principally, it's represented by Jack Valero and Austen Ivereigh. The latter is European correspondent for the Manhattan-based America, that magazine run by limp-wristed Jesuit princesses. These two personages and Catholic Voices in general have been skillfully critiqued, unexpectedly enough and seemingly in favour of a more "orthodox" Catholic position, by Irish leftist blogger Splintered Sunrise (at various posts, see here, here, here and here for samples in sequence). Orthodox Catholics in Britain tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum, bordering on Fabianism sometimes, a strange brew indeed. Hard and complex to explain. I mean, these are the people who brought to the world Downton Abbey and Lark Rise to Candleford (throws hands up). But, then again, this blogger enjoys old Bollywood films. So I guess all us Catholics are permitted quirks.
 
XVII. UNSPOKEN DILEMMA: Anyhow, if you were a revert in North America during the 1980s or 1990s, already dismally catechized as a Gen-X youth, and correspondingly needing to really learn about the Faith, to delve in and scrutinize the riches of a Catholic Church hijacked by the Modernists, the dissemination of contemporary "Catholic Orthodoxy" mainly came via magazines, periodicals and books published by Neo-Cat/Neo-Con outlets, distributed out of America. You would read Neuhaus, Weigel, Dinesh D'Souza, their colleagues at Crisis magazine, National Review and the American Enterprise Institute. Yet, there was always something pricking your conscious in those quiet moments. "Something's not right, here", I repeatedly said to myself. Why this superelevation of politics and economics? Why so many hagiographies and shout outs for Ronald Reagan? Before being "rehabilitated" in old age, it was always bothersome that William F. Buckley, a popular Catholic libertarian who acted as a kind of intellectual nexus where Neo-Catholics would gather and discuss the affairs of the day, was given third-rail treatment when it came to his dissent against the Church's position on contraception.[13] A polished persona and knowing the right people does have its benefits, it seems. Why be automatically branded as an anti-Semite for pinpointing facets of Jewish history/philosophy in those instances when they clearly differ with the Catholic worldview? Why be labelled as antediluvian if you deemed suspicious any person or group endeavouring to achieve some sort of consensus between Catholic and Protestant theology? Why the assertion, megalomaniacal at times, of the "separation of Church and State"? That's not Catholic, the popes have condemned that notion, and it's inconsistent with what you read in that book purchased from TAN Publishers. That's raising secular nationalism above the Church. Jesus Christ is the Lord of History. Period. All authority, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Redeemer of Humanity. Period. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Period. Not a plurality of churches and perspectives. Despite Fr. Neuhaus' prolific writings on the role of religion in the "naked public square", why is the Neo-Catholic intelligentsia so adamant on something that, in the final analysis, after those spin doctors fade away into the night when the cocktail party ends, dispenses with Christ altogether from politics? It both counters and effaces the "Social Reign of Christ the King", as expounded by Pope Pius XI in his 1925 encyclical Quas primas. This is done from the "Right". On the "Left", the same is effected by Marxist Modernists, except they employ a contorted form of "social justice", substituting a "this world"-vectored State disassociated from a transcendent-pointing Catholic Church.
 
XVIII. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY/LICENSE: Where, then, do Neo-Catholics get their justification for this Church/State segregation? Why do they talk endlessly, with an ideological thrust, about "religious liberty", pluralism and liberal democracy, as if these are unassailable absolutes? Then you come across Dignitatis humanae, the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, wherein no avowal of the Kingship of Christ is to be found. Instead, it reads like the American Constitution, it sounds like the Declaration of Independence. Then you learn that the American contingent of bishops at the Second Vatican Council effectively had full say in drafting up Dignitatis humanae,[12] with the brains behind the operation being - here he comes... Fr. John Courtney Murray. He was an American Jesuit, who made the cover of TIME magazine on December 12, 1960. The reason he became a media darling was his essay compilation book We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition. Reportedly, upon returning to the U.S. after the Council closed, he announced the following to some colleagues:

Gentlemen, we have just cleared the church's decks of certain nineteenth-century business. We have not even begun to deal with the issues of the twentieth century.[14]

That was where Neuhaus, Weigel and Novak took their cues, latterly prominent, thereby corroborating the arrogant grandiosity in Murray's remark. Not often alluded to is that Fr. Murray was silenced by his Order in 1954, impelled by the Vatican, because of his endorsement of religious liberty and the separation of Church and State. Another Jesuit troublemaker, evolutionary pantheist and pseudo-scientist Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, was, a year later in 1955 (the last year of his life), forbidden by his Order from attending the International Conference on Paleontology.[15] Remember the "Piltdown Man" hoax? The dissidence of especially these two famed, oft-read Jesuits - in the years just leading up the Council, portended of what was to come after 1965, something wicked methinks... The abovementioned, I venture to say, is what Professor Clifford would call Vatican II "dangerously interpreted".

XIX. CANADIAN WASTELAND: So, that was the haute couture matériel you were spoon fed if making a resolute attempt at returning to orthodox Catholicism during the 1980s or 1990s. Yet in the secret depths of my heart it always left me spiritually malnourished, yearning for something more, more along the lines of meat and potatoes Catholicism. Murray, Neuhaus, Weigel and cohorts, cozying up with Vatican II to abnormal extents, were serving up Americentric buffets. Quite unlike the international banquets hosted by Sheen, Jaki, Gilson, Grisar, Belloc, Dawson and Kuehnelt-Leddihn. These men setting their scopes back two millennia to the Crucifixion and eras previous. If a Canadian, and wondering at the time what CanChurch was promoting... well, you were pretty much shafted. Left to wander in a desert wasteland of Leftism, Progressivism, Marxism, "social justice", liberation theology, where Christ was consigned to but a protest rally afterthought. Homely, depressing, politicized, fourth-rate, feminized, infantile, uninspiring and so boring that you may have even considered becoming a Moonie just to get a modicum of excitement in your life. The Catholic Register, Prairie Messenger, Western Catholic Reporter, Catholic New Times, Novalis Publishers, CCCB reports, habitless lesbian nuns over here, lisping Jesuit queens over there, Mary Jo Leddy, Ted Schmidt, Michael Swan, Remi de Roo, Ron Rolheiser, Gregory Baum - oh man, what a bloody nightmare! Still is today. Just go to the Salt+Light website or watch this interview. At least from the early 1990s onward there was Fr. Alphonse de Valk and his team at Catholic Insight to relieve some of the heat exhaustion. When residing in Canada in 1997, historian Preston Jones penned the following in New Oxford Review:

At least in America there's some cultural debate. Put it this way: The essay you are now reading could probably not get published in Canada. Canadian cultural conservatives and orthodox Christians must look south for intellectual sustenance. Canada's indigenous media, with a few noble and small exceptions, sing in nihilistic unison.[16]

Bingo! There was nothing there. Becoming Catholic in 1983, NOR was the precursor to the "snarky" Catholic blogs of today, particularly and uproariously as manifested in the obviousness of its cartoon advertisements (check out and enjoy the NOR Ad Gallery here). It was also one of the first U.S. Catholic periodicals to swerve away from the Neo-Catholic narrative before 2000.

XX. SHIFTING AND DRIFTING: Thing is, post-2000 we have the internet, providentially, I contend. Accordingly, the conversation has now gone global, so much larger. Academics and institutionalists - well connected with the establishment church, many of them having bromances with bishops - aren't lording over the Catholic conversation anymore. Also promising, "Professional Catholics", especially business savvy Neo-Catholics (early on making sure to acquire key "social media" positions, thus presuming they rule this conversation with papal authority), are beginning to be confronted by unaffiliated faithful laymen and priests equipped with blogs, podcasts, online radio programs, video channels - all armoured with virtual warehouses of data and information. Most importantly, there was a definite signal of a course correction, the commencement of a drift back to traditional Catholicism (just Catholicism, that is), after Pope Benedict took the helm in 2005. Summorum Pontificum, lifting of the SSPX excoms plus negotiations therewith, return to liturgical reverence, and so forth. The conversation, then, is becoming not just about Catholicism predominantly communicated from America, i.e. provincialized Neo-Catholicism broadcasted from a few mainstream facilities. Neither, in general, is it being reigned over as much by the Modernists. Aging and Luddite-prone, they trail behind new waves in high technology, therefore lagging in terms of taking advantage of telecommunication progress. Deliberation is now on Catholicism as such, and the word "Catholic", let us recall, means "universal". So the focus has definitely shifted, taking on a global paradigm.
 
XXI. DEMOGRAPHICS/ECONOMICS: Correspondingly, careerists in their once serene bubbleworlds are presently feeling the heat, intimidated without really understanding the underlying cause and purpose of the shift in Catholic conversation. Thus we get reactions of contempt and anger from members of the establishment church. Let them sweat for a little while, I say. See what it's like. Gladly, these are the death convulsions of a faltering and waning Modernism/Neo-Catholicism. In the long run, the Modernists can't recover since all they have done is to cultivate generations of "cafeteria Catholics" and "practical atheists". Pro-contraception, pro-abortion, anti-nuclear family, pro-sodomy - they've already sterilized themselves and thus will be unable to reproduce at "sustainable levels". The population pyramid becomes top-heavy, flips and fossilizes, where the aged population significantly outweighs the younger population. Soonafter the "biological solution" does it's indifferent handiwork, then say hello to Mr. G. Reaper. Thus, gradually, there will be reduced numbers in progeny, fewer and fewer attending Mass. Hence parish closings, diocesan mergers, diminished pewsitter donations. Consequently, no funding for heretical programs or initiatives. People, it's basic demographics, Economics 101. Also working against the post-Conciliar Catholic population is this bizarre mania with "Theology of the Body" à la the Manicheanism of Christopher West. Moreover, increasing reports of NFP misuse, where some parents appear to be a little too selective, engendering an almost "boutique kids" type situation, isn't helping either. "Be fruitful and multiply", says the Lord. Factoring in all these, it will probably be a long, slow death for these internal enemies of the Church. So, fire up a smoke, grab your favourite beverage, put your feet up, and enjoy the show. And don't forget to watch those Muffins! They're deeeeelicious. Mmm... mmm... mmmmmm.
 
XXII. HOUSTON BUENOS AIRES, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM: Yes, we've hit a roadblock with Pope Francis, obviously. Four months into his pontificate and it's still impossible to get a "fix" on him in terms of where His Holiness wishes to direct the Church. He's all over the place, a wildcard. His maundering, unprepared, disorganized, imprecise, off-the-cuff, often incoherent speeches and remarks are unsettling. Offensive, too, like his mockery of "restorationist groups" who offered him a "spiritual bouquet" of 3525 Rosaries. Quoted: "it is not to laugh at it", as if a silly, puerile act. He even classified them as "Pelagians"! What? It's just been a cornucopia of uncertainty and disappointment: washing of women's feet on Holy Thursday, overboard "humility", poverty overemphasized as a material concern, living outside the papal apartments (incongruously costing more money for the accommodation), shunning of papal protocol, 70's style liturgy (poor Monsignor Marini!). A typical South American Jesuit in the post-Conciliar era. There have been speckles of positive development, especially the forthrightness on life issues, as when the Holy Father surprisingly participated in the March for Life in Rome. Pope Francis has acknowledged a "gay lobby" inside the Church, yet there never appears to be any "follow through" signals or actions of a impending, necessitous reform. After the roller coaster ride upon Bergoglio's installment as Pope, and now that the honeymoon is over, I've noticed cheerleaders are becoming lesser in number. Not as vocal, a few lapsing into a condition of "radio silence". More people are coming to the realization that we've got a real doozy on our hands here, perhaps foreshadowing the Church is near to the cusp of some meta-historical event. Racking my brains out, I can't accurately determine what's going on except to summarize my overall deduction in one word: confusion. It could be, as a monk blogger stated, Francis is the "Pope of our Punishment". We must unceasingly pray for His Holiness.

XXIII. SIFTING AND RIFTING: Thankfully, the Holy Spirit bars the Pope from advocating heresy ex cathedra. As such, the trending return to orthodox Catholicism will continue, be it in fits and starts, though that's the general trend if the aforementioned "global paradigm" is considered. Likely, it will be a prolonged duration before some parity with Tradition is reached, pending a divine intervention ordaining an immediate restoration, which, most terribly, could arrive in the form an apocalyptic-type judgement. Still, bolstered by hope and holding fast to the Victorious Cross, it is possible to see that pieces of the puzzle are starting to come together, and authentic Catholicism waves to you from the distance. For the interim, this current state of heightened confusion and instability indicates to me that Our Blessed Lord is undertaking to sift the wheat away from the chaff in a manner more discriminating than in times past. As the Catholic conversation is now aptly reflected by presentations and exchanges on the internet, so the internet does represent this wheat/chaff separation process... Please bear with me for a little more as I'm trying to zero-in on something... Surf the Catholic internet and you will find all kinds of overlap, from person to person, group to group, commenter to commenter, website to website, blog to blog. You'll be informed and take pleasure in a site one day, then on the following day you'll be startled and off-put by what you read at this same site. Sometimes Neo-Catholic sites will concur with Modernist sites. This Traditionalist site over here will seem to border on sedevacantism at times. That Catholic MSM site over there will glory in heresy. Blogger battles, internecine warfare in the com boxes, and a whole host of uppity, battle-averse know-it-alls telling everyone to "calm down" and be "charitable". All this overlap and street fighting is a blatant sign of this confusion, of course. But it is also a good thing, I argue. Because, taking a birds-eye view of the battleground and looking down range to end results, you may notice that distinctions, then divisions, between enemies of the Church and those loyal to the Magisterium are becoming increasingly pronounced as time passes. A tendency away from multiplicity and a movement toward a straightforward Yes or No to the Church. It would have to be this way in that Christ is preparing us for ever-escalating impositions by the State upon the Catholic Church. What we are witnessing Caesar doing now is just the vanguard. Western democracies are rapidly morphing into totalitarian regimes. And it will be the "creative minority", "The Remnant", who will be left to do the work of restoration. It's going to be a long haul. Not to worry, however. We have Our Blessed Mother as a guiding light.

Well, it seems I've made another tangent in this post. Still, it's all V2/Canada-related. More on the media subsequently, plus final commentary on Professor Clifford, then continuing onto the remainder. See you next time.

NOTES / REFERENCES

1. Apostolicam Actuositatem, ch. I, para. 2, In: (gen. ed. A. Flannery) Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Boston: St. Paul & Books Media, 1992 new revised edition), Vatican Collection, vol. 1, p. 766. Promulgated on November 18, 1965.

2. Quoted in S. Magister, "Collegiality yes, democracy no", Chiesa, April 16, 2013.

3. Quoted in C. Ferrara, "My authority ends at that door...", The Remnant, June 11, 2012.

4. C.E. Clifford, "Emerging Consensus on Collegiality and Catholic Ecumenical Responsibility", The Jurist, 2004, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 332-360.

5. C.E. Clifford, "Lorelei F. Fuchs, Koinonia and the Quest for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology: From Foundations through Dialogue to Symbolic Competence for Communionality", The Ecumenical Review, October 2009, vol. 61, no. 3 pp. 357-359. Book review.

6. Quoted in G. Janouch, Conversations with Kafka, trans. G. Rees (New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1971), p. 120.

7. C.E. Clifford, "Vatican II: Revisiting the Council", Scarborough Missions Magazine, January/February 2012.

8. Recall: Locke was competing with the political philosophy popularized by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan, published in 1651. Hobbes, of Protestant patrimony, advocated for absolutism for the monarch. Hobbes statecraft should considered in the context of a Protestant sovereign, distinct from a pre-Reformation Catholic king.

9. J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government (London: The New English Library Limited), p. 395 (bk. II, ch. IX, paras. 123-124). Original full title: Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, And His Followers, are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter is an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil-Government.

10. F.J. Sheen, Philosophy of Religion, The Impact of Modern Knowledge on Religion (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Incorporated, 1948), p. 18.

11. See Abbé Augustin Barruel's Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, trans. R. Clifford (Fraser, MI: Real-View-Books, 1995). Originally published in 1798, it provides abundant documentation showing the French Revolution to be a combinatorial anti-Christian, anti-monarchical and anti-social plot, a conspiracy, detailed and pre-planned, by the philosophes (Voltaire, D'Alembert), the French Masonic Lodges and the German Illuminists. Also, it is essential to read the introduction to the book by Fr. Stanley Jaki in the Real-View-Books edition. Anti-Catholic historians score off this work, a bestseller at the time of publication (in various languages). Freemasons themselves, recognizing the importance of the Memoirs, will go out of their way to denounce Abbé Barruel. For example, see W.K. Firminger, "The Romances of Robison and Barruel", In: Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076 (Margate: W.J. Parrett Limited Printers, 1940), vol. I, pp. 31-69.

12. Cf. M. Davies, The Reign of Christ the King, In Both Public and Private Life (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1992).

13. Cf. P. Kengor, "Buckley, Rehabilitated", National Catholic Register, October 1, 2010.

14. Quoted in P. McDonough, "Clenched Fist or Open Palm? Five Jesuit Perspectives on Pluralism", Studies in the Spirituality of Jesuits, Summer 2005, vol. 37, no. 2, p. 8.

15. See V. Foy, "Teilhard de Chardin: Arch-Heretic", Catholic Insight, June 2013, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 7-8.

16. P. Jones, "Canada: No Longer Morally Superior to the U.S.", New Oxford Review, July-August 1997, vol. LXIV, no. 6, p. 24.

CRAZY-EYED V2 VISIONS (Part 2b)