THE RIGHTNESS, VALIDITY AND BETTERMENT OF APOSTASIZING ACCORDING TO PETER STOCKLAND AND FRIENDS

To Indifferentism !

I have been reading the various oh! so woeful reactions to Michael Coren's apostasy by the Neo-Catholic commentariat (thank you, Lord, for this penance). Of course, like clockwork, they make sure to disassociate themselves from the (assumed) extraneous reactions by the Catholic riff raff on "social media". Thou doth protest too much and are too meanly, sayeth the Magic Circle dwellers.

Some samplings:

• Olson / Catholic World Report: "It's a sad but undeniable fact that some of the criticism aimed at him has undoubtedly been harsh, personal, and even outrageous".[1]

• Keating / Catholic Answers: "I have seen several calmly-written pieces (my own among them - good for you, Karl, so humble, you're awesome!) that took Coren to task for his lack of transparency. He doesn't allude to any of these. His column refers only to rude comments".[2]

• Fr. de Sousa / National Post: "Coren, despite his aggressively polemical style in print, radio and TV, constantly complains that people say mean things on the Internet. That too does happen. Most columnists deal with it without public whingeing, as Coren puts it, about "the Church of Nasty".[3]

Read abovementioned columns and notice the "lack of bile", sanctimoniously says another Catholic Register columnist.

So, you see, only our enlightened critiques of Mr. Coren are acceptable and worthy of consideration and rumination, because we are civil and fair and level-headed and charitable and qualified... You can smell the smugness of these self-appointed legates as they attempt to take the high moral ground.

Let it be known: it was the Catholic riff raff on "social media" - bloggers, Facebook, Twitter, e-mails - that spent the last two years or so exposing and criticizing Coren's heteordoxy, challenging him to clarify or justify his shape-shifting views on sodomy and sodomites in the Catholic Church. During this same period, our darlings in the "official" Catholic press were silent as the vacuum of outer space. So far as can be recalled, not one challenge was posed by any "official" Catholic MSM outlet/columnist when Coren started to go pro homo in his commentaries.

Why no objections from Coren's enlightened peers? Was it Martini Hour? Certainly, questions to be pondered.

But now that Coren has publicly apostasized - note that never is the word "apostasy" used, so uncivilized you know (sip vodka martini, one olive, dirty, lemon twist) - these self-appointed legates have suddenly emerged from their plush-carpeted lairs to tell us that, yes, it is unfortunate that Coren "converted"!? to Anglicanism. We are "disappointed" at his duplicity, "hoping" he will once again return to the fold. But now it is safe to speak. After Coren's public admission, no longer are there overseer threats to incoming cash flow nor to club memberships nor to conference invites nor to TV interviews nor to bromances with bishops nor to other myriad forms of self-congratulatory backslapping. What a relief! No risks, no problem, me influential, have pen, get cheque - and it is only us who are entitled the credit, and who possess the accreditation, for weeding out and speaking out against the apostatic likes of Mr. Coren.

Yet during the interim, how many Catholic fans of Mr. Coren were led astray? How many of these people, Catholic or not, trusted his writings on Catholic matters? Perhaps making crucial decisions in their personal lives as an result? Like, maybe, converting to Catholicism? Is it not the responsibility of the "official" Catholic press to keep checks and balances on any influential Catholic personalities who have gone wayward?  Were not these wonderful, charming self-appointed legates - so much "informed" on the internal workings of the Catholic Church - supposed to report Coren's soul-endangering positions to the Catholic riff raff? Why did they not? Where were they? Who knows?

For example, why did the aforesaid Carl Olson, editor of the Neo-Catholic World Report, allow Coren to publish an article with the following nonchalant statement therein:

Of course, lesbian couples can have an obliging friend assist them in having a baby, and gay men can adopt or have some other obliging friend have one for them.[5]

Is this not a red flag? That was written in February 2013, over two years ago. In May 2015, Olson now - as if experiencing an influx of divine revelation - calls Coren a "mediocre theologian".[4] Two things here: First, why hire the guy to regularly write for CWR if he is only "mediocre"? Second, Coren is not a "theologian". He is a journalist. The reader should know that there are not a few writers in the Catholic MSM who, despite the proper education, regard themselves as "theologians", or "lay theologians", a post-Conciliar novelty that has become laughable. Obviously, Olson is concocting excuses after subjecting his readers to Coren's blatant dissent against Catholic teaching.

In the meantime, Coren's articles remained accessible at the Catholic Register website for a full month after publicly apostasizing in late April. And presently Lifesite News is reporting that he just published a pro-abortion article for the notoriously heretical Prairie Messenger, the "official" weekly for three Canadian dioceses out west: Saint Boniface, Regina and Saskatoon.[6] Indeed, now that he is on a roll, Coren is starting get in on the homofascist action on Twitter:

Well, you got your wish, princess. Faggotry triumphant in Ireland. Although I doubt St. Patrick is pleased with the outcome, that "nasty" legalist who insisted on the legality of the Sixth Commandment. Clearly, this wheeler-dealer has swiftly morphed into the classic "useful idiot" of the antinomian Left. Proof positive: The Walrus, that mostly unread magazine with the stupidest of names tailored specifically Canada's limousine liberals (you know, it has that homely, boring CBC feel to it) - just published an article by Coren entitled "Coming Out".[7] Here is the image accompanying the article:

How quaint - burning a sodomite "martyr" at the stake and two others holding hands under the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. They must be squealing with glee over there. Glitter... glitter everywhere!

So wake up, Catholic riff raff. It's all one big joke. It is a manoeuvre by the Establishment Church to steal the limelight and the credit for disavowing one their own, one of their "friends", who went off the rails, was for a long time running off the rails, under their watch, ever boldly doing so in the public square. These self-appointed legates writing zero about it, not a peep, still letting Coren publish at their respective media outlets. However, it was you... you contemptible Catholic riff raff, with your loyalty to the Magisterium and your devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin and your steadfastness at facing raw, uncomfortable facts head-on, which was chiefly responsible for forcing Mr. Coren to finally show his cards - and do not let the linguistic acrobatics of these self-appointed legates of Nu-Church make you second guess yourselves. Never forget, Catholic riff raff, you have support and corroboration from the popes:

• Pope Felix III: "Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them".

• Pope St. Leo I the Great: "He that sees another in error, and endeavors not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error".

Amongst the menagerie of these responsions to Mr. Coren's apostasy, the one that really smacked of Neo-Catholic claptrap was the column by Peter Stockland, at Toronto's Catholic Register.[8] Behold the bileless pageantry of Indifferentism:

As a result, his decision to trade Rome for Canterbury has been denounced, especially on social media, as everything from hypocritical to traitorous and, perhaps most unkindly of all if entirely predictable, a betrayal by someone who was never a real Catholic anyway.

Consider the words - "denounced", "hypocritical", "traitorous", "betrayal". True, such words were wielded. Why not? They are true characterizations. For goodness sake, Coren penned a book entitled Why Catholics are Right. He made mucho money from writing, broadcasting and speechifying as a "Catholic apologist", for years, for Catholics. Except in the last 1+ years Coren never let the public know he jumped ship while at the same time leeching money from Catholics parishes and organizations. How else were his fans and followers to react? With smiles beaming sunshine, with offerings of daffodils and lollipops? But, you see, according to Mr. Stockland such phraseologies are "unkind". Really? Coren's schtick always has been fierce polemics, starting all the way back from his book Aesthete: The Frank Diaries to Michael Coren (1993), right up to his self-aggrandizing "Corenocopia" spots on The Arena, his TV show which thankfully ended earlier this year. Never read Mr. Stockland writing against this aspect of Coren's mode of presentation. Well, of course, not. Otherwise not anymore would he be invited for interviews on any one of Coren's TV shows (view here). Neither would his colleague Fr. de Sousa be interviewed (view here). Remember: you have to be one of the right people.

Could such a set up as be characterized as hypocritical, incestuous, opportunistic?

You betchya.

Catholics absolutely should be indignant at Coren's apostasy, rightfully they are indignant, and indignation is an expression of zeal. Zeal, say St. Thomas, "arises from the intensity of love".[9] It seeks and wants the good of "the other", and the intensity of opposition to the soul that has gone errant is a direct function of the good desired for "the other". Yes, it is called "love", tough love. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose that our newspaper man deems Coren's "critics" on "social media" to be "unkind" because, contrarily, he considers Coren's apostasy not as a tragedy, not as a real loss, where an immortal soul is at stake. It is more of a pragmatic thing, considered principally in a secular context, not theological, definitely not moral. Instead, what we get is this smug "entirely predictable" ascription applied to Catholics on "social media". Yes, we know, just a bunch of  dim-witted vulgarians.

Although they would never admit it, what these self-appointed legates do - by insinuation - is to equate zeal (so-called unkindness, hate, etc.) into fanaticism, psychological instability, uneducated oafs, unqualified buffoons, "Church of Nasty", take your pick. Lounging around high atop their Ivory Towers whilst Rome burns below, this is a standard tactic used by an insulated, disconnected elite that endeavours to wholly dismiss the legitimate protests of normal, everyday Catholics, powerless, dejected by the abysmal state of the Post-Conciliar Church, yet many of whom have an acute sensus fidei. Basically, scoring everything off as a manifestation of the mob mentality. It is important for them to maintain this calumniating narrative because in one swipe it renders any opposing views as irrelevant. Problem is, with the contemporary arrival of those once suppressed Catholic voices on the internet, coupled with the free availability of the Deposit of the Faith online, these self-appointed legates of Nu-Church are less capable at sustaining this narrative. They are being challenged, and they do not like it. "How dare you?", they condescendingly think. "Shoo, shoo away" (sip vodka martini).

Now watch as apostasy begins to be warranted:

What his critics either fail to see, or refuse to accept, is the validity of his statement that the decision was a Christ-centred choice: that he had to move away from the political distractions in which he was enmeshed in the Catholic Church in order to stay in the presence of Christ personally.

Coren made a "Christ-centred choice"? To be specific, this means Christ minus the Catholic Church. That is, a Protestantized choice, which is heresy.

• Corollary 1: sola fide, sola scriptura.

• Corollary 2: private judgement, individualism, no objective authority, no Real Presence, self-determination without the external referent of Tradition/Magisterium.

• Corollary 3: "A personal relationship with Jesus", "Here I stand", and so forth.

It was not a "choice" for Christ so much as a rejection of the Catholic Church (which is Christ's bride) and its two thousand year teaching against the abomination of sodomy, one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Coren explicitly stated so himself: "The change [i.e. apostasy] was to a large extent triggered by the gay issue. I couldn't accept that homosexual relationships were, as the Roman Catholic Church insists on proclaiming, disordered and sinful. Once a single brick in the wall was removed the entire structure began to fall... I felt a hypocrite being part of a church that described homosexual relations as being disordered and sinful. I just couldn't be part of it anymore. I could not do that".[10] Our newspaper man, apparently a Roman Catholic, considers Coren's newly advocated Protestant attitude as having "validity", that (really) his pro-sodomitic views are of no real consequence. That is what is actually being relayed to the reader, and it is atrocious.

Coren apostasized from the Catholic Church because he refuted the Church's teaching on sodomy, a subject bearing on morality. What our newspaper man seems to be doing here is to transform the issue into a "political distraction". Is this to infer that Catholic morality and secular politics are separate? That issues regarding homo "marriage" and its perverted correlates should be left to be decided upon in the public square, in a "democracy", without any input, protest or prevention whatsoever from Catholics? Sure seems like it. No surprise here. This relegation of Church teaching to a partitioned, distant construct relates directly to those precious neo-Catholic (yet non-Catholic) concepts of "religious freedom" and the separation of Church and State. Begone Social Reign of Christ the King. All hail Fr. John Courtney Murray!

Continuing down the rabbit hole:

Seen in the light of rooted faith in Christ, Coren was right to leave the Catholic Church if staying meant attending at Mass with his heart and mind full of the buzz of worldly argument rather than the peace of Our Lord. It is devoutly to be hoped that the peripatetic pilgrim will find his way home to Rome again. In the interim, it's better that his focus is fixed where it should be.

How can it be "right" (inferring true) that someone apostasizes from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? How can a Catholic claim it is "valid" to have a "rooted faith in Christ" alone, i.e. Protestantism? Does not our newspaper man believe that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church? Evidently not. His justification, utterly bizarre, is that Coren was so much overcome by the secular world's talk and promotion of sodomy, euphemized by "worldly argument". As such, it became an unmanageable hindrance to belief - personal belief, that is, which otherwise licenses "me" to rationalize whatever "I" want to do and whatever "I" want to think as "true".

How many Catholics out there have been daily, monthly, yearly bombarded by the "worldly argument" of Sodomite Propaganda from the culture without, or even from within the Church via, say, the slick and unyielding Jesuit faggotry of Fr. James Martin, but nonetheless remain in the Church and believe what it teaches on this abomination? This, despite family members estranged as a result, ostracization by friends, mockery at the office, opportunities lost, or whatever suffering. Yes, there are Catholics out there with those very experiences, you adorable self-appointed legates of Nu-Church. How many Catholics, who for whatever reason may feel certain moral teachings are difficult (usually out of ignorance), but still believe all that the Church teaches, by trust, by faith, and because they actually assent to the following: "Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

It is not as if Coren joined that "old time religion" of whatever Protestant sect existent prior to the Lambeth Conference of 1920. Before then, Anglicanism proscribed contraception, abortion and sodomy. Rather, he has enthusiastically shacked up with the newfangled hyper-liberalized version of an ever changing, currently imploding, Anglicanism, with its recent acquiescence to whatever sexual perversion. Let alone its stellar cast of lesbians pretending to be "priests" and, now, "bishops". To say it is "right" to apostasize from Catholicism, whatever the cause, still assumes Indifferentism, which is heresy. To say it is "valid" to dispose of Catholicism for a "Christ-centred" Protestantism, assumes Indifferentism, which is heresy.

Why, then, is such an apathetic viewpoint advocated? Because there is a hushed, unspoken and underlying conviction, deep, deep, way down deep - again, a Neo-Catholic thing - that the immortal soul of a baptized Catholic, latterly apostasized, is not reeeaaallllly in danger of going to Hell (wink wink, nudge nudge). That is an old fashioned notion belonging to the "Dark Ages", long before the shackles of oppression were broken at Vatican II, to which only the contemptible Catholic riff raff on "social media" subscribe. Don't worry about it. Nearly everyone makes it to Heaven, squawk the von Balthasar fanboys. It's the Nouvelle Théologie, bebe. Coren will be fine in some other denomination. He is just a "peripatetic pilgrim" (give me a break) galavanting his whimsical way through the travails of life, just selecting another course of choice fare on the menu of religion. Oh well, let's have another martini and wish him well.

It is so un-Catholic, pathetic, lukewarm, flat, blasé. There's nothing there.

Stockland goes beyond a disguised Indifferentism, however, when he writes that "it's better that his focus is fixed where it should be". Really? It is "better" that Coren "should be" a Protestant promoting sodomy (and now abortion) rather than be a Catholic and witness against it? This is no longer a subtle nod, not an enigmatic wink of approval. No, this is public affirmation, even an encouragement to apostasy. And that this garbage passes off as Catholic journalism is an injustice to those poor pewsitters who think the Catholic Register (funded by them) is an authentic source of Catholic news and views.

Now the reader should understand that this stealth Indifferentism (with the heresy of Universal Salvation looming in the background) is not particular to our newspaper man. It spans throughout the unhallowed halls of CanChurch. They're everywhere. Again, we have Coren for confirmation: "I obviously don't blame the Catholic Church as such for all this, especially as there are myriad good and kind people within its ranks, many of whom sent me delightful letters and were extremely upset and ashamed about what went on".[11] So, it is not just writers for diocesan newspapers. You can include whatever form of Professional Catholic that now plague the Post-Conciliar Church - chanceries office personnel, teacher union members, professors, publishers, so-called liturgists and catechists, including that very high percentage of homo priests and bishops.

Why did they send Coren "delightful letters"? Obviously, they condone his apostasy and, correlatively, support his pro-homo promulgations. What else could it be? Why do you think there are so many faggots and dykes working inside the gamut of Catholic institutions? Why are these Nu-Church darlings "extremely upset and ashamed"? Well, it demonstrates a disdain for orthodox Catholics, particularly those on "social media" and, correlatively, the doctrines of the Church, especially those appertaining to morality. What else could it be? Yes, Catholic riff raff, these people do not like you, to put it mildly. However, they do indeed like their power and influence over the laity. But don't you dare test or provoke them, else the dogs will be sent after you personally - out of the public eye, that is.

It cannot be emphasized enough: within the bubble world of Nu-Church, it's all about personal relationships, emotional attachments, opportunities, administration, maintaining face in the public square - all of these overriding principles of the Faith, despite the unmistakeable fact that the Catholic Church is currently undergoing an unprecedented crisis. For them, it is not a battle for souls, not an endeavor to uphold the truths of dogma, but of maintaining respectability, even loyalty to those who are publicly known heretics, despite the damage these heretics have done, for decades. It is abhorrent to them to even think of "betraying" one of their own. Yet this attitude is so damaging to an already exhausted laity and, yes, to their immortal souls as well. Why? These sins of omission, by remaining silent about their heretic colleagues, these enemies within, they are doing even worse damage to the faithful in that they are effectively licensing the perpetuation of error and, therefore, further loss of faith, more apostasy. Judging by what is now published everyday by whatever "official" Catholic agency, there is absolutely no sign of abatement to the pattern outlined just above.

It is the lesson of Catholic history: when it comes down to the crunch, as in the recent ramping up of Christian persecution (as a prime example), these Nu-Church darlings, these innovators and rebels, will be nowhere to be seen. Gone. Vanished. Unless someone blogs about it. But this invariably occurs after the fact, after the exposition, after someone is caught red handed, just like Coren.

Do not trust these people. Keep your distance. Remain vigilant and pray that God will soon end this scourge.


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. C. Olson, "Michael Coren goes Anglican, denounces Catholic moral teaching", Catholic World Report, May 2, 2015.
 
2. K. Keating, "Michael Coren sidesteps the real issue in his change of religion", Catholic Answers, May 18, 2015.
 
3. Fr. R.J. de Sousa, "Michael Coren converts, Michael Coren complains", National Post, May 20, 2015.
 
4. C. Olson, op. cit.
 
5. M. Coren, "Great Britain and Gay Marriage", Catholic World Report, February 26, 2013.
 
6. P. Baklinkski, "'Official' Catholic newspaper defends running pro-abortion piece by Michael Coren", Lifesite News, May 26, 2015. See article M. Coren, "Seamless Garment", Prairie Messenger, May 20, 2015.
 
7. M. Coren, "Coming Out", The Walrus, May 21, 2015.
 
8. P. Stockland, "Cold days in hell", The Catholic Register, May 14, 2016.
 
9. Sum. theol. i-ii, q. 28, art. 5.
 
10. M. Coren, "How a change of heart led to a backlash from the 'Church of Nasty'", Toronto Star, May 16, 2015; J. Brean, " 'I felt a hypocrite': Author Michael Coren on why he left the Catholic Church for Anglicanism", National Post, May 1, 2015.
 
11. Ibid.

THE RIGHTNESS, VALIDITY AND BETTERMENT OF APOSTASIZING ACCORDING TO PETER STOCKLAND AND FRIENDS

CRAZY-EYED V2 VISIONS (Part 2c, Sidebar)

I. NIHILO: Has the reader even been overwhelmed with the current state of the Church and world affairs such that you eventually reach a point of total inertia, physically and mentally? "Last of all, gentlemen, it is best to do nothing", said Dostoyevsky's Underground Man. The eminent Russian novelist wasn't referring to the Catholic Church specifically. But hopefully you get my point. Your host has undergone a greater-than-normal world weariness over the last few months, which explains the nothingness of longer-than-normal breaks between article postings. Work and personal responsibilities, very involved, have also encroached. Peace these days only comes from the Holy Mass and when I pray to the Blessed Virgin. Most everything else, self-directed activities, seem a waste.  As indicated in the top-right corner of this blog, Essaying, Assailing and Assessing heresy/apostasy in CanChurch to the extent done in this space saps ones fortitude, like having my brain sucked out with a vacuum cleaner. Yes, I'm complaining and, yes, I shouldn't and, yes, I deserve reprimand for doing so. Especially when becoming aware of the very fine gentleman in this video, ten thousand times a better man than I will ever be. Still, we must trudge along, run the race to the finish, the Cross is Victorious, despite the spirit numbing prose by the unnamed narrator of A Story of Falling Sleet. It's raining today as your host writes.

II. DECONTAMINATION: More analysis, criticism and bombast are to come, including the necessities of humour and outrageousness, so as to lighten the load - their intensities of expression directly proportional to what I regularly read and witness. Also, I've become re-energized presently upon monitoring the latest controversies in the Cathosphere. It was enlivening to see Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara forthrightly challenge the dilettante-informed accusations levelled against Traditional Catholics by the lavishly remunerated hacks at Neo-Catholic Answers. See videos here and here. It was also a kind of relief to finally see Michael Voris go after the Professional Catholics in the American Establishment Church and expose what they have said and done to thwart CMTV's apostolate. See video here. Predictable as the setting sun, when such debates become heated and language forceful, fusspot do-gooders emerge from their safe and smug dwelling places, then make sure to notify all persons within internet range how sad, disappointed and disgusted they are at the division and factionalism within the Catholic blogosphere. Prominent this time around, in that it got coverage at Patheo$, was this eye-rolling post. Analogous to the situation of the Managing Editor and her obedient chickadees at the Patheo$ Celebrity "Catholic" Portal, we have yet another interfering, overprotective Mother Hen pontificating on charity and virtue to her little ones, telling Catholics to "move past" their "anger and pain". That's just so condescending. It's pure arrogation, a self-projection of one's own delicate sensitivities onto everyone else, with the undeclared wish that bloggers and commenters who don't conform to her opinions (not dogma) should just "shut up". Again, I make reference to a post by Steve Kellmeyer at The Fifth Column, entitled "Honoring The Ides of Christ":

People who spew this "You are being DIVISIVE... NOT Christ-like!" phrase are not particularly Christian. They can't let their YES mean YES or their NO mean NO because they don't like being like Christ. They don't like getting in people's faces [see the full post to understand this sentence's meaning in its proper context]. Instead, they call names - "YOU aren't like CHRIST!" - while pretending that they aren't calling names. They judge while retaining the false veneer of being non-judgemental and loving.

There are also these incisive remarks from Mundabor:

We live in times of such unmanliness that by every exchange of opinion that reaches the level of more than mild disapprobation someone - the Comment Sissy; they are everywhere - feels the need to intervene and say how "disparaging" and insensitive other people are. In former times, such people would have been invited to go play with their dolls; nowadays, the Comment Sissy is socially accepted, and thinks he has firmly taken the moral high ground; it is like a pervert game of political correctness, in which the first one crying "disparaging" has won... This degeneration is everywhere: in the blog comments, in the Internet forum, in the office, at the pub, with the neighbours. An entire civilisation is being made effeminate by this flipping obsession with being "sensitive". In turn, the word police uses this to avoid the ugly truths being said.

Such people, I would add, should be ordered to read the searing vernacular of St. Athanasius and, moreover, need to be told that, to a very high probability, St. Nicholas did pummel Arius at the Council of Nicaea.

III. FRUITS OF FEMINIZATION: After 50 years of feminization in the Catholic Church, in its liturgy, in theology, in all manner of its activities, manifested in the writings of Catholic editors, journalists, columnists and its intelligentsia, let alone the omnipresent entrenchment of a network of Machiavellian sodomites/pederasts into the priesthood, the absolute last thing needed at this time of crisis is a disgruntled "woman's touch", imposing some affective détente in the compulsory war currently waging inside the Catholic Church, now nearly eclipsed by apostasy. The battlefield is for men, not women, unless your mentality comports to that of Ste. Joan d'Arc - and there are lady fighters like that out there, some of them even commenting at this blog. No sissified men, neither thin-skinned and soft-spoken metrosexuals wanted here. War is rough and rugged, it is painful, there is anger, and there is suffering. This is harsh reality. To be in the trenches is to be trenchant. Catholicism is also a combative religion, not exclusively meek, not just in action, but also in language application. These must be acknowledged, otherwise you're dead, in both body and soul. In his engaging book The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity, Leon Podles gives an important reminder to the easily affronted littérateurs in the Catholic blogosphere: "in Christian societies war is often identified with Christ's sacrifice".[1]. This blogger has an original copy of Ven. Fulton Sheen's book Philosophies at War, written during World War II. The text still retains its dust jacket, torn and worn out, whereupon it reads: "On the anvil of this war amidst the fire of sacrifice, there is being hammered out a new order and a new civilization". Some extractions from the first few pages are also instructive:

War... may very well be a purposeful purging of the world's evil that the world may have rebirth of freedom under His Holy Law... Dynamite can be used as a means to build the foundations of a hospital, or it can be used as a means to destroy the entire hospital. The purpose or the intention for which it is used will determine how the means are used.[2]

So it is the purpose or intention for doing battle which is the correct context for debate and argumentation in the overall Catholic conversation, not so much the means, as in hard language. Could it not be that criticisms launched against an incapacitating hierarchy, at other church leaders, lay and religious, now even against the pope, are precisely founded upon a grave concern for the eternal destiny of their souls and the well-being of the Catholic Church? Due to an unfailing love for Our Lord and Our Lady? That, beforehand, reasoned thought plus prayer occur before criticisms are written? Light before the heat, as sunlight goes through the magnifying glass to scorch the surface, as apprehension precedes emotion, says St. Thomas. You might have noticed a certain club of Catholic commentators/bloggers will approvingly quote stern, rigorous, sometimes snarky, statements of saints from hundreds of years ago, including mention of that righteous event when Christ overturned the money changer's tables. Yet they traduce any person who speaks or writes comparably in the modern day. It pays to be a member. Inside the Magic Circle, comprised of the right people don't forget, hypocrisy equals integrity. Badges? We don't need no stinkin badges.

IV. THE GATHERING STORM: The intensifying battle of words between the emergent, coalescing Traditional Catholic camp contra the Modernists and their Neo-Catholic cousins is, to this bloggers mind, a sign of the wheat being separated from the chaff in a manner more exacting than in the recent past, which must run its course. Consequently, this means division, this means war, thus meaning a manifestation of God's anger. St. Paul, a troublemaker in extremis, writes "God's anger is being revealed from heaven; his anger against the impiety and wrong-doing of the men whose wrong-doing denies his truth its full scope" (Romans 1:18). Denial of Catholic teaching in its "full scope", in my considered opinion, is exactly what the influential, sweetly-domineering Neo-Catholics are doing, principally in three ways: (1) their silence on widespread apostasy/heresy inside the Church, (2) providing cover for bad or weak bishops regardless of the obvious damage they do and the good they don't do but could do, and (3) their relentless assaults on, vilifications of, Traditional Catholics and those of orthodox mindedness. The latter are a minority, merely endeavouring to convey the "full scope" of the Faith (i.e. pre-Conciliar era). Modernists deny the Faith only more explicitly. Neo-Catholics, unwilling to unload their liberalizing, Protestant accoutrements, do it implicitly, in many cases not even being cognizant of the fact, especially recent converts on learning curves, attributable to either gullibility, deficient knowledge pre-1962 or, in notable cases, the yearning for celebrity, speaking engagements, gala invites and reams of cash (hello Jimmy, Karl and Bill). Heresy, apostasy, cronyism, careerism and the vulgar stench of Professional Catholicism inside the Church are most pernicious when they lay hidden. So let us enter ambulate through the loggias, let us unlock the doors of the chancery offices, let us scale the walls of the episcopal conference fortresses, and sneak a peek at the pay-offs, find out who's railroading who, at the sins of commission and omission. Let us dispel the "diabolical disorientation". Let us sniff out, hunt down, and confront the Smoke of Satan. Didn't our "Rebel Pope" tell us Catholics to "make a mess"?[3] Eh? Yes? No? Ah? Accordingly, I concur with, and exclaim, that famous statement from I, Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out".

Enough ranting. Alright, then, back to the grind of being harmonious, kind, sensitive and charitable...
 
V. BIKINIS, BEACH BALLS AND THE BISHOP OF ROME: Before redressing heretic participants at the 2012 SPU/V2 conference, let's first make a brief detour to Brazil and visit Carnaval. Pardon, I mean World Youth Day 2013 at Rio de Janeiro. What a spectacular! Off-Broadway liturgies, Battlestar Galactica church design, a feast of Walt Disney-like light shows and other colourations and ornamentations to dazzle and delight the kidz. A Copacobana beach mass with the hottie Chaquitas being all coy n'stuff whilst frolicking around in bikinis. Holy Communion dispensed like party crackers out of plastic cups. Stage-prancing bishops whose mellifluent movements were conducted by a sodomite porn star - and the throngs of youth! How uplifting, how invigorating, how... Hollywood. As if a mere oceanic gathering of emotionally-charged people for a few days will yield the fruit of an enduring, genuine and reverent faith. World Youth Day Inc. has proceeded for three decades now and these days I certainly don't observe many lads and lasses of the 14-to-30 year age bracket in the pews. Nor do statistics bear this out. Exhibiting, rather, a precipitous decline in Mass attendance over the last three decades. To top off this Circus of Sentimentality, upon his return to Rome the Holy Father placed a beach ball on the altar at Santa Maria Maggiore as an offering. What? No flowers to erase the tears of Our Sorrowful Lady? It's more surreal than Sylvester Stallone reciting Shakespeare. Almost every day the "Bishop of Rome", as Francis prefers, speaks and gestures in manners increasingly confounding and worrying.

VI. MARE INEXPLICITUS: Without being flippant, and with due reverence to the Holy Father, let's be upfront and list the flurry of head-turning remarks and overseen actions of Pope Francis during the last four months: People who pray numerous Rosaries for him and count them are "Pelagians"; Catholics who espouse "triumphalism" suffer from an "inferiority complex" because "in their hearts do not believe in the Risen Lord"; banning the Order of Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from celebrating the Latin Mass which, however much sugar coating you sprinkle, still works to militate against Summorum Pontificum; opening up of the priestly celibacy matter, upon which the secular media immediately pounced; in a open letter to Eugenio Scalfari, the atheist founder of La Repubblica, Francis states that "absolute truth" is a "relationship", giving no concise finality to what he really means; an atheist, however, even with a malformed conscious, can gain entrance to Heaven because "God forgives those who obey their conscience"; scant mention of abortion by Francis since his installment six months ago, with one American bishop voicing "disappointment" at the void - don't forget that Brazil legalized abortion right after the pope returned from World Youth Day; then just last week matters reached DEFCON 2 in a Jesuit manoeuvred interview: "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods... The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with..."; an invitation to Gustavo Gutierrez, father of Liberation Theology, for a closed-door meeting, despite the CDF's condemnation over a quarter century ago. From Pope Benedict's Address to the Brazilian bishops on December 5, 2009:

Dear Brothers, it is worthy to recall that last August marked 25 years of the Instruction Libertatis nuntius of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on certain aspects of liberation theology, which underlined the danger that was included in the non-critical import, made by some theologians, of theses and methodologies originating from Marxism. [via Gutierrez et allia] Their more or less visible consequences, of rebellion, division, dissent, offense, anarchy are still being felt, creating amidst your diocesan communities great pain and a grave loss of living strength. I beg all those who feel in any way attracted, involved, or touched in their very selves by certain deceitful principles of liberation theology to once again read the aforementioned Instruction.

Bergoglio did an about face. Why can't people face this? Regardless of his purported aversion to Liberation Theology, the very act of receiving LT's prince regent operates as an enabling agent. True, Pope Benedict spoke with Hans Küng soonafter becoming pontiff. Yet that meeting was arranged after Küng's request. And be guaranteed that, upon returning to the Peruvian Rain Forests, Gutierrez, unlike the betraying Küng, won't be spewing anti-papal bile in the forthcoming years. Fr. Gutierrez has been affirmed. Thus he and his agitprop entourage will grow more emboldened. Then we have this: "Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest". Nearly immediately upon reading that the Beatle's song "Let It Be" came to mind. And recently this: "People who judge and criticize others are hypocrites and cowards who are unable to face their own defects".[4] Can we not, then, criticize a pro-abort politician? Unrepentant promoters of pedophilia? A Catholic school teacher distributing pro-homosexual literature to his students? No spiritual intervention, then? Then there was this:

September 19: We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards.

...[a dizzying 180 degree turn from just three days previous]...

September 16: I dare say that the Church has never been so well as it is today. The Church does not collapse: I am sure of it, I am sure of it![5]

Here comes another 180, from Benedict this time, enunciating the following only less than one year ago:

Recent decades have seen the advance of a spiritual "desertification". In the Council's time it was already possible from a few tragic pages of history to know what a life or a world without God looked like, but now we see it every day around us. This void has spread.[6]

Is this the "diabolical disorientation" of which Sister Lucia so often voiced? What's going on? Evidently, Bergoglio - not obliviously, though his endgame is an unknown - is grinding down the already tenuous chain of continuity with the past/Tradition that Benedict attempted to reforge. Venturing some volatile speculation: Purposefully quickening the implosion of the Post-Conciliar Church so the inevitable Restoration comes sooner rather than later? Or an endeavour at retrofitting and reinforcing the Post-Conciliar machine, so as to ascend to more glorious heights, beyond that of Icarus, to the heart of the Sun, ushering the Church as such to some rubicon? The latter seems the more probable scenario, as hinted in this next quote, with my bolds:

Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today - which was typical of Vatican II - is absolutely irreversible.[7]

Talk about existential tailspin! Looking downrange along the horizon, all I'm seeing are the approaching storm clouds of schism.

VII. PANDORA'S BOX PLUS A PARADOX: The abovelisted, plus a host of others not compiled here, are not one-offs, not spun by the secular media, despite attempts at damage control asserting otherwise, which has turned into a blogging vocation for some people. That these people have repeatedly been drafting up "NO!, the pope really said this" articles for six months straight would, perchance, be an indication that something is amiss. It's been one big State of Denial and as if, harkening back to Argentina's recent past, most everyone seems enchanted by the enigmatic sexiness of its First Lady, Eva Perón. Evita! Don't you dare cry for me Argentina. There is a definite pattern of ambiguity, persistent, resolute, apparently pre-programmed, an echo of the Liberation Theology-imbued "street Catholicism" in Buenos Aires, which have only engendered confusion, compounding an pre-existent doctrinal vertigo, as instigated by the Vatican II decrees, if we are to track down origins. Nebulous, inscrutable, contradictory and unclear statements, answers to questions left open-ended, a state of suspended animation, opening up whatever can of worms, teasing the genie out of the bottle, playing with Pandora's Box as if it were a Rubik's Cube - with the outcome being to effectively authenticate, then facilitate, atheists, non-Catholics, ignorant or lukewarm Catholics, heretics and other enemies of the Church in their distorted worldviews. See the grateful Facebook posting by NARAL. Add to these demagogic Perónism, the romanticization of pauperism, the exhibitionist humility seemingly tailored to entertain whatever excitement-seeking mob uninterested in anything other than stimulation and surface appearance. Why, then, is it so shocking to establishment church types that significant numbers of commentators with traditionalist/orthodox leanings are (understandably) becoming increasingly uneasy, distressed, even exasperated, at the circumstance since 20 March 2013? Reflected in comments such as this:

Every time this Pope speaks, I get the impression he is addressing a Kindergarten class at snack time. The discourse is shallow, up-beat, silly, essentially meaningless. Next, we're going to be handed a box of crayons and instructed to draw our feelings about "world peace".

Yours truly confesses that he agrees with this characterization to a large degree. Just being honest, no malice involved, prayers from this nobody for the Holy Father remain. To dissuade any readers from presuming this space is functioning to incite ill will against the pope, know that this writer is heedful of the involved paradox so poignantly presented by Chesterton:

When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystical John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward - in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.[8]

So, the exposition above is written not necessarily to place blame on the Holy Father in particular. Rather, more so to acknowledge uncomfortable facts unreported by the Catholic MSM and high-profile bloggers (not twists by the secular media), censored or reworked by them to lessen the sting, to run away and not watch as His Body is being scourged, Blood beginning to flow, Flesh ripped away, to avoid gazing at those Hands and Feet as the nails are injected. Basically, to highlight the crisis the Catholic Church is currently undergoing - Gethsemane, the Passion, on the Way to Calvary, to be Crucified.

VIII. SUPERPOPE!: But "who am I to judge?" - that one is going to reverberate for years. Already, this blogger has had it vehemently fired against him, unprovoked, as a counterpoint to orthodox Catholic teaching. Have any of my readers experienced this yet? Once again, that quiet, unmentioned, unseen, pervasive trickle-down effect affecting one's personal life. This time right from the top, gushing forth from the fountainhead. "The pope said it", and it's well-nigh impossible to contend that in this era of tantamount papalotry. That is, a preoccupation, more at obsession, with the personality and "style" of the pope, overshadowing the papacy as such. Every single pronouncement and signal issuing from the Vatican is inspired by the Holy Ghost, infallible, goes the misunderstanding. In many quarters the pope is now construed as a kind of active, originating source or "Actuator" of the Holy Spirit, so to speak, to please and pacify the masses. Instead of (properly) as the prime and passive "Acceptant" of it, the "Servant of Servants", Christ's Ambassador, the Chief Guardian of the Faith.

IX. BELOVING BUGGERY: To demonstrate how the dissent-enabling ambiguities of Francis work so quickly, so inimically, citation need only be made to the just released pro-homosexualism film "Who are we to judge", sponsored by (ding-a-ling-a-ling) the Jesuits, an order utterly infested with sodomites.[9] Of course, it includes an interview with American celebrity priest and homosexualist Fr. James Martin, SJ, a wolf in sheep's clothing in my determination. For some time Martin has assiduously worked for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Catholic Church, doing a dandy job at sanctifying homosexuals and - oh so melodically and subtlety with his silver tongue and quiescent mannerisms - casting opponents as outmoded barbarians. Common knowledge kept in hushed tones, and he's won the prestigious award of Third Rail Treatment by fawning establishment luvvies. New York's Cardinal Tim Dolan is charmed by Martin and both are good buddies with Steven Colbert, dontchya know. See here. That's adorable. And don't forget the American Jesuits feature prominently in Father Oko's widely-disseminated and discussed essay With the Pope Against Homoheresy. An extraction: "The most open revolt against the Pope and the Church is headed by some Jesuits in the United States, who openly oppose them and announce that... they will keep admitting homosexually-oriented seminarians, who are, indeed, especially welcome".[10] With Francis' simple words, merely six words, i.e. "who am I to judge him", with absolutely no media spin, the Jesuits have utilized this miniscule linguistic sequence, a so-called "soundbyte", for rationalizing their cherished depravities which cry out to Heaven for vengeance. The "him" was Francis' reference to Monsignor Battista Ricca, the priest His Holiness appointed as representative for the scandal-plagued Vatican Bank, formally the Institute for Works of Religion. Turns out, Ricca - unknown to the pope until presently - is a card-carrying member of the Lavender Mafia, shenanigans whilst serving at the Uruguayan nunciature especially, with a plethora of incontrovertible evidence to boot and to demonstrate, backed up by five bishop witnesses at last count. What happens, then, when this case of disgrace enters the public square?:

...on the return flight from the voyage to Brazil [after WYD Inc.], replying to a journalist, pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio avoided taking a clear position on the case of Monsignor Ricca. The words of the pope that the media all over the world picked up with the greatest emphasis - in an outpouring of favorable comments on his "openness" to homosexuals - were interpreted as a suspension of judgment: "If a person is gay and is seeking the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him?" A few days after his return to Rome, Pope Francis was more clear. He had the secretariat of state informed that Monsignor Ricca "will remain in his position".[11]

If Ricca will "remain", how is this a sign of a greatly needed, heretofore "impending", reform of the Curia? How can any reasonable person now proclaim, expect or hope that the new pope will labour to purge the Church of its ensconced sodomite sub-culture? Enter the Neo-Cat Borg Commentariat to save the day: "Resistance to homos is futile", goes the subconscious drone. Don't worry, put on a happy face because things are proceeding as normal in the Church, even improving. For example, there is National Catholic Register columnist Jimmy Akin itemizing "7 things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays",[12] giving it a crack at damage control for the "who am I to judge" statement - with a "big hat tip to Salt + Light", no less, linking to a post by Fr. Tom Rosica, which right there should set off alarm bells. How does Akin's article end? "If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club". Well, here's 1 thing you need to know about Mr. Akin. Don't join his "Secret Information Club". Why? An enquiry has shown membership does not include a secret decoder ring. The infamy! Blast those Gnostics! Please, give me a priest, craving not the spotlight, to properly instruct and correct my errors. Not some six-figure-income fame-desiring "lay apologist" dilettante with his "personal conversion story" spouting infantalizing enumerations of things I "need to know". Please, to set the record straight, I want direction from one of those old school manualists, solid seminary training, qualified, precise, steely nerves, devout, holy. These men are extinct, apparently, save a few here and there.

X. MICHAEL COREN SUPPORTS SODOMITES IN SEMINARIES: Unfortunately, acquiescence to imperatives of the "homolobby" is not just occurring south of the border. Probably Canada's most popular Neo-Catholic, broadcaster and writer Michael Coren, goes further than mere damage control for the "who am I to judge" statement. It's been "A Papal Revolution" since Francis' election, suggests his article title, which isn't Coren's opinion upon reading. With usage of the word "Revolution", we see, yet again, that totalitarian-inspiriting "dawn of a new age" mindset creeping into the narrative, the Vatican II as "Zero Hour" concept identified in the 1980s by then Cardinal Ratzinger.[13] Or as Theodore Dalrymple puts it generally: "to start from Year Zero: before me, nothing; after me, everything".[14] Correctly, Coren identifies this problem. Yet, he doesn't downplay it enough because, when it comes to "the fine Catholic priests who, while homosexual, are orthodox", he appears to want to foment his own version of the Revolution Franciscus:

The only difference in emphasis [between Benedict and Francis] was regarding men with a homosexual attraction who seek to enter the seminary. It may well become easier for them to do so, and I certainly support this. It is orthodoxy and sincerity that are required, and there must be a substantial vetting of all men before they are ordained, whatever their sexual past and feelings. One of the finest and most Catholic priests I know rejected a homosexual lifestyle, and I suggest that if you have never met a committed, exemplary priest who once experienced same-sex tendencies you have you eyes firmly closed.[15]

Now let's analyze. When, undisputedly, there already exists an embedded homosexual sub-culture in the priesthood and within Catholic institutions across the board, when we know there exists a direct correlation between homosexuality and pederasty, when we know a significant number of sodomite pederast priests have destroyed the lives of young boys (now adults), with millions in payouts to victims from crumbling, bankrupting dioceses, why would anyone with at least a smidgen of rationality and forethought want to pour gasoline on a fire? That a potential seminarian or "fine" priest has "rejected a homosexual lifestyle", justifying acceptability or even admiration, is a canard, an appeal to emotions via political correctness. It's preconceiving such a person as, propagandizing him to be, a kind of spiritual hero. Someone to emulate, distinct and elevated above normal seminarians and priests who also have suffered tremendously, for decades, at the hands of the machinating Lavender Mafia, always on the lookout for prey, especially for teenage boys and young men with "same-sex attraction".

XI. PINKIFYING HOMOTENSION: Not only does it appear he is unfamiliar with Randy Engel's groundbreaking book The Rite of Sodomy, let alone other copious documentation showing the ruinous effects of this perversion inside the Church, evidently Coren also is unmindful of the Catholic notion "near occasion of sin". Catholicism 101. For a normal man, say, either married or single, that is, a man attracted to women - if you spend the majority of your time interacting with, or even exclusively, in close proximity to beautiful, delicious, voluptuous women, your mind will race. Temptation will nag you incessantly, wear you down over time. Sooner or later, unless a supersaint, chances are high you will succumb and go for it. This is a fact, it's raw anthropology, and it is also the wisdom of the Church to recognize this aspect of the human condition. Example: making the penitent speak the phrase "to avoid the near occasion of sin" in the Act of Contrition at Confession. It's pretty simple. So, then, Coren's certain "support" of homosexual seminarians and priests - living, studying, recreating, pastoring in a mostly male-environment - creates an institutional situation conducive to a debilitating, pinkifying homotension which would interminably colour and pervade the atmosphere. Coren's view is a personal preference, subjective, feminized, the normalization of an anomaly, negligent of long-term ramifications, factoring in no legal, statistical, historical or objectively moral proof of opinion.
 
XII. SHHHHHHHH, KEEP IT IN THE CIRCLE: Here's another question: Why doesn't Mr. Coren and his fellow "conservative" Catholic chatterers inside the Magic Circle ever write articles about those seminarians pursued, propositioned, prodded, man-handled and raped by homosexual priests? Cases exist. Why not write a series of articles on scores of good, loyal priests who endured the seminary while being pestered and persecuted by that flaming queen "spiritual director" and his retinue of submissive seminarian princesses? Why not investigate and identify those bishops who knew about these abominations, doing and saying nothing? Sylvia seems to be the sole person undertaking this stomach-turning task, critical work, and she's an unpaid blogger. Where is that "Aesthete" persona Coren used to wield long ago, with relish, when writing for Frank magazine, exposing and excoriating the shallowness, pretence, naming names, of Canada's elitist secular establishment?[16] Where are those intrepid Catholic columnists/journalists who will present the cold facts/views "no matter what the consequences"? Of course not, it's a joke. The subject cannot be broached to the required measure of gravitas. If not just keeping silent, their duty is protect and provide cover for any malfeasance operative inside the Magic Circle, from being open to scrutiny by Catholics out in the hinterlands. And when they do address the subject of homoheresy within the Church, when permitted to pen a piece to assuage the peasantry, after filtered through official channels, treatment is invariably with kid gloves, qualifiers in abundance, bending over backwards only to give the facade of "compassion", linguistic acrobatics that would even astonish Noam Chomsky. Watered-down terminologies to lessen the impact, like "gay" and "same-sex", as there is an aversion to more precise and therefore truer phraseologies, like "sodomite" and "pederast". This lexicon is odious to the urbane sensibilities of the cultured despisers of Traditional Catholicism. Don't want to spill the Pellegrino and make a scene. Why the soft and sensitive touch, then? The answer is elementary, my dear Watson.

XIII. FRIENDS: First, as above, the priesthood/seminaries and Catholic institutions (and partner groups) everywhere are populated by active sodomites/lesbians in particular, aberrosexualists generally. They therefore comprise a considerable part of the establishment church, albeit underground. Second, there are those writers, reporters, columnists and authors employed by, or in whatever way formally affiliated with, publication organs or departments under the purview of the establishment church (e.g. chanceries, CCCB, ACBO, diocesan newspapers, Novalis, teacher unions, recognized Catholic organizations, etc.). Given the eventual, unavoidable interactions between the first and second groups, the latter - those disseminators and broadcasters of news and opinion, will become privy to all kinds of information on the former - appalling, repulsive, heart-sinking, soul-destroying, criminal. Moreover, people from both these groups are going to get to know one another over time, make connections, socialize, become friends. In the meantime, outside the bucolic pleasantries of the Magic Circle, the storm of the priest pederast scandal still rages, the secular media continues its feeding frenzy, and your local parish priest, having no part in this affair whatsoever, is verbally assaulted as a "pedophile" by some jackass passerby when Father merely goes to get some lunch at the restaurant down the street. Again, the unreported trickle-down effect... What do you do with this information? What do you do with all this internal documentation? I need my job. I want to be invited to that party. I want people to like me. Let someone else do it, otherwise the bishop won't see me anymore. It's a dilemma. Time passes, nothing happens, then establishment identitarianism gradually overrides. In the meantime, the Catholic Church is still in its "auto-destruct" mode and exhibiting no signs of abatement. That this cycle perpetuates only confirms that, when it comes down to the crunch, sentiment and sympathy invariably ends up being for the "gay friend" directly, the "homolobby" indirectly, over and above presenting unpleasant facts and brutal consequences, which necessitate discussion in an open forum. Hence there develops a sort of "wink wink nudge nudge" partnership, even alliance, between the first and second groups. Thus the syrupy articles, thus the justification by sanctification. Note well: last year Neo-Catholic blogger Mark Shea at Patheo$ wrote a post entitled "A gay man I consider a saint", about his now deceased friend, involved in parish life, who lived together with his boyfriend, "chastely" allegedly. Then there is Neo-Catholic Joseph Bottum, former editor of First Things, who just last month argued for "same-sex marriage", producing quite a dust cloud from his article in Commonweal, a magazine which is no friend of the Holy See. Bottum's article begins thusly:

There's this guy I know in Manhattan. Call him Jim. Jim Watson. We're friends, I guess. We used to be friends, anyway - grabbing a hamburger together near Gramercy Park, from time to time, or meeting out on the Stuyvesant Town Oval on a summer afternoon to play some folk and bluegrass with the guitar strummers, mandolin pickers, autoharpers, and amateur banjo players who'd drift by... Jim is gay.[17]

"Jim" is not the churchy type. Nonetheless, see the regular personal involvement with "Jim", how it leads off the story, setting the mood for the apostasy that follows. Justification at the outset, searching for sympathy, an emotional plea. Then there's Coren: "I suggest that if you have never met a committed, exemplary priest who once experienced same-sex tendencies you have had your eyes firmly closed".[18] We're closed minded, we would be impressed, humbled, even enlightened by the saintly presence of this manufactured victim. As if numerous other priests don't suffer as much or more. Don't read much about them. Do you see how these people work? Pay attention. If there is any consolation here, it is the very fact that prominent Neo-Catholic voices like Shea, Bottum, Coren and others are caving in to "homoideology", a welcome sign that the "Professional Catholic Cruiser is Sinking".

XIV. THE SHOW IS OVER: Now you would assume Coren's piece was printed for his column at the diocesan-controlled Catholic Register of Toronto, a main hub for Magic Circle dwellers. Nope. The disconcerting thing is that his quotes above derive from a regular column published in Catholic Insight, one of the last bastions for orthodox Catholicism in Canada. Let's hope it's an outlier or, an option, perhaps it is time for CI's new editor to instruct Mr. Coren to hit the road. Where Fr. Rosica is chief sycophant of the bishops and the dictating media presence for Neo-Modernism in Canada, Coren's talk-show-host-buy-my-new-book-see-how-smart-and-witty-I-am Neo-Catholicism has similarly reached saturation level. The Showman Catholicism industry, here and abroad, has transformed into a wild beast and needs to be tamed, then kept in its place. Mostly absent in Canada, greatly needed now, are Catholic intellectuals proper - writers, artists, musicians, liturgists, philosophers, theologians, international in outlook, willing to explore remote eras of the past, untainted by the Americanism heresy, careless of fanbase and, especially, not entranced by Vatican II novelties. Something along the lines of an educational breeding ground should be formed soon, to counteract enemies within the Catholic Church, otherwise places like the new "Vatican II and 21st Century Catholicism"[19] research centre at St. Paul University will continue to dominate by pumping out swarms of Modernists to menace and plague the next generation of Canadian Catholics.

Overextended myself once again. Series gets back on track next time. Have a nice day.

NOTES / REFERENCES
 
1. L.J. Podles, The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1999), p. 185.

2. F.J. Sheen, Philosophies at War (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1943), pp. 1,3.

3. "'Rebel' Pope urges youth to 'make a mess' in dioceses", Associated Press, July 27, 2013.

4. Respectively see: "Papa Francisco Dialoga como un Hermano más con la CLAR", Reflexion y Liberacion, June 10, 2013; "Pope: No to triumphalism in the Church, proclaim Jesus without fear and embarrassment", Radio Vaticana, September 10, 2013; F.B. Bruton, "Pope Francis' No. 2: Clerical celibacy is open to discussion", NBC World News, September 11, 2013; "Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: 'An open dialogue with non-believers'", La Repubblica, September 11, 2013; N. Squires, "Pope Francis reaches out to atheists and agnostics", The Telegraph, September 11, 2013; "Pope Francis: The first six months", Rhode Island Catholic, September 13, 2013; S. Jalsevac, "Pope Francis certainly has a way of stirring things up", LifeSite News, September 19, 2013; "Brazilian president signs law permitting abortion after papal visit", Catholic News Agency, August 2, 2013; A. Speciale, "Liberation theology finds new welcome in Pope Francis' Vatican", Religion News Service, September 9, 2013; R. Mickens, "Liberation theology 'is still a danger'", The Tablet, December 12, 2009; C Wooden, "Pope joins pilgrims - via video - at Shrine of St. Cajetan", Catholic News Service, August 7, 2013; C. Glatz, "Pope: Judging others kills, reflects cowardice in facing own defects", Catholic News Service, September 13, 2013.

5. A. Spadaro, "La Chiesa, l'uomo, le sue ferite: l'intervista a papa Francesco", La Civiltà Cattolica, September 19, 2013; "Papa Francesco al clero romano: alla Chiesa serve conversione pastorale e coraggiosa creatività", Radio Vaticana, September 16, 2013.

6. "The Holy Father Inaugurates the Year of Faith", Vatican Information Service, October 11, 2012.

7. Quoted from the English translation on Pope Francis' interview with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, "A Big Heart Open to God", America, September 19, 2013.

8. G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (New York: John Lane Company, 1905), p. 67.

9. H. White, "Video series sponsored by Jesuits promotes homosexuality", LifeSite News, September 3, 2013.

10. D. Oko, "Z Papiezem przeciw homoherezji", Fronda, 63, June 2012, pp. 128-160.

11. S. Magister, "Ricca and Chaouqui, Two Enemies in the House", Chiesa, August 26, 2013. See also "Dances With Wolves, Vatican Edition", New Oxford Review, September 2013, vol. LXXX, no. 7.

12. J. Aiken, "7 things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays", National Catholic Register, July 29, 2013.

13. J. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 371.

14. T. Dalrymple, "The Architect as Totalitarian", City Journal, Autumn 2009, vol. 19, no. 4.

15. M. Coren, "A Papal Revolution", Catholic Insight, September 2013, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 10.

16. Compiled in M. Coren, Aesthete: The Frank Diaries of Michael Coren (Toronto: Random House, 1993).

17. J. Bottum, "The Things We Share, A Catholic's Case for Same-Sex Marriage", Commonweal, August 23, 2013.

18. M. Coren, op. cit.

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

CRAZY-EYED V2 VISIONS (Part 2c, Sidebar)

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)