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

GLAM AND GLITTERATI AT SPU OVER V2

 Fr. Ray Blake:

...there is an "anti-Church" within the Church arguing against Orthodoxy and undermining all that might be done. Before anything else there must be a purification, a clear proclamation of Catholic Truth. Heresy is an attack on Truth... Heresy and heretics are the enemies of Christ and we really must pray for the Grace to recognise them for what they are and to learn to hate them for the terrible damage they do to the Church's ability to make Christ knowable. They are our enemy and the enemies of the Church... heresy tends to make truth obscure to the point where good becomes evil and evil becomes good.

Fr. Simon Henry:

There is an "anti-Church" within the Church labouring in parishes, deaneries and curial offices in complete opposition to Pope Benedict's teaching that the Second Vatican Council should be interpreted in a hermeneutic of continuity... This anti-Church seems to have existed in hidden form underground for many decades but grasped the Second Vatican Council to come out into the open and now openly preaches in opposition to the public teaching of the Magisterium of the Church.

                                               PART 1
I. Those comments are apropos lead-ins for the subject matter treated herein, a kind of addendum to Ominous Signs. Another post late after the fact - which will come in three parts, yet the "Vatican II: For the Next Generation" conference held last year at St. Paul University is worthy of a post hoc assessment of involved participants and elaboration on critical points, for three reasons. Firstly, because of a cosmic teleconnection. The 2012 CCCB Plenary took place from September 24 to 28 and the SPU conference from September 27 to 29. There was date and location overlap, a convergence in the apostatic/heretical space-time continuum, so to speak. Where the personages and productions of the CCCB are embodiments of the Modernist hijacking of Vatican II Council, attendees at the SPU conference are its marketers and salesmen. SPU is in Ottawa, located just 131.1 kilometres west-southwest of Hotel Mont-Gabriel in Sainte-Adèle, Québec, according to Google Earth. So, for those conference participants at the CCCB plenary - like salesman/jetsetter Fr. Gilles "I love Armani suits" Routhier, it was just a matter of a short limousine drive up to the airport at fashionable Mont-Tremblant. Check-in, luggage drop-off, redeem those Air Miles, slug down a chocolate martini in the lounge, then board a Porter Airlines' Bombardier Q400, business class, wink to the sexy stewardess, honey roasted almonds snack-pack, fasten your seat belts, METARs read clear and sunny skies on the horizon, activate transponder, go for ignition, runway clear for take-off - and we're rockin' and rollin'. Short flight over the St. Lawrence to Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport. Touchdown on Runway 25. "On time". Yeah, baby, yeah!

II. Secondly, the conference provided a perfectly composed snapshot of the careerist/intelligentsia from assorted sectors inside the establishment church, of how they are working to undermine the Church in Canada from within, and recreating it in their own perverted image. Accordingly, an assessment of their views with a just few volley's will allow for a sizeable flock of Dodo birds to be exposed for the damage they do. These are the people that interact with, and are approved by, the Canadian bishops, consulting, advising, confidants. These are the people the bishops read and to whom they lend their ears. These are the ladder climbers, the celebrity seekers, the aggrandizers, the Professional Catholics, the people who always seem to almost magically obtain key positions in the religious bureaucracy, who get the write-ups in diocesan newspapers, who get the interviews on Salt+Light TV, who win the "awards" and get to hobnob with the right people. These are the enemies of the Church to whom Fr. Blake and Fr. Henry make reference. The SPU conference was a Canadian example of this "anti-Church" in action, actualized, asserting itself for everyone to behold so as to admire and to wonder a great wonder.

III. Thirdly, it was the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II, so glitz, glitter and glamour at a gala were necessitous, to formally justify the Modernist-actuated catastrophe we see all around us today, which cries out for criticism. The Canadian stars of the Nu-Church came out, gathered at a Pontifical University now undeniably gone heretical, its loyalty to the Pontificate spent long ago, to celebrate five decades since the Council, to proclaim and hail it as the ultimate triumph of the Church since when the Lord of History was impaled at the intersection of two wooden beams. Not as if these Magic Circle luvvies actually ever contemplate the utter brutality of the Crucifixion, as will be evidenced later. Really, if you mine into the psychological subsurface, if you go way down deep... deep, you will discover the SPU confab to be Swan Song disguised as a Victory Cheer. Conference subtitle: "Reflecting on the importance of the council's teaching for the Church of the 21st century". How majestic, how spectacular, how far-reaching and life-altering. Again, there's that false, anticipatory sense of being on the verge of a new era in global affairs, a "new order of human relations", as the CCCB president voiced a few days earlier at the plenary. The worldwide ennui is about to cease and humanity will imminently be reinvigorated. The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades...

IV. In reality, however, time is running out. Orthodoxy/traditionalism is re-emerging, accelerating since 2005 with Pope Benedict. The Age of Aquarius has run its course. That mesmerizing, magnetic, hope-inducing, soul-energizing, purple and orange psychedelic sky seen down range along the horizon - now that we've come in closer proximity to it after a 50-year ride on a party bus with the booze and broads flowing aplenty - has shockingly turned out to be but a mirage. And the aged adolescents who refused to grow up are now aghast in their realization that post-Vatican II playtime is over. Identities are being challenged. Whole careers invested in cornball liturgy, "social justice", ecumenical indifferentism, liberation theology, transcendental meditation, proportionalism,  ecofeminism, gender neutrality, homosexuality - these, and more, have proven naught. A reversal is occurring, that which was once theirs is being retaken by an outside force. The desperation, and they're still reluctant to jump from the ship which goes by the name S.S. Minnow. Destination: Gilligan's Island. Everything is imploding around them. You can smell it.

V. Yet if you read the official take on what happened at the conference, of its luminaries and their interpretations of Vatican II, you'd think everything is proceeding as planned. All is well, ye Catholic peoples. Expectedly, an egregious report came from the Associate Editor at the Catholic Register, purportedly "Canada's Catholic News Source". Mr. Swan quoted five persons in his piece, the number skewed to the Left/Modernist end, with the customary pot shots against orthodox Catholicism. Two conference participants, namely Catherine Clifford (SPU professor) and Council peritus Gregory Baum (conveniently omitting he's an excommunicated ex-priest, as Fr. Rosica did in a recent interview with him), including Janet Somerville (associate editor of the now defunct Marxist/radicalist New Catholic Times, Canadian Council of Churches bureaucrat[1]), plus suit and tie Jesuit historian Fr. John O'Malley. After hearing Barry Obama's infamous commencement speech at the University Notre Dame in 2009, O'Malley got so excited he wet his pants, afterward fawning that Obama "embodied and professed in his public persona the spirit of the council".[2] No, that wasn't a quote from Tiger Beat magazine. Of these four favourites, a total of 294 words were quoted, according to my count, and to the token "conservative" (how quaint), namely Fr. Alphonse de Valk (not a conference attendee), only 80 words. And that's the thing about CR's Associate Editor - he evidently thinks everyone is unaware of his unbalanced write-ups, believing his reporting to be fair-minded and neutral, by stating in his article, for example, that the purpose of Vatican II:

...was to weave the past and the future - resourcement and aggiornamento - into a seamless garment. As hard as the Church has worked to pull together those two impulses, other Catholics, conservative and liberal, have tried to pull them apart - or make one end of the spectrum more important than the other.[3]

You read this ostensible exercise in disassociation, a reporter supposedly rising above it all, being "objective", allegedly impartial. But then you come across mocking stunts like this, where Mr. Swan lets slip his derision for traditional-minded Catholics and, by implication, a hatred for resourcement. Let's not pretend anymore: the Associate Editor at the Catholic Register has demonstrated himself to be an adversary of anyone or any group with any shade of Orthodoxy, for years reflected in his reporting. The blatant bias, the selectivity of topics skewed Left, the parsing out, if not eschewing of, notable persons/positions which would otherwise bring wider contexts to a subject, the nonchalant citations of dissenters as reliable sources and escaping responsibility for doing so by a plausible deniability always afforded to an editor, the innuendos in his multiple articles plastered throughout each CR issue. It sure is fantastic to make a living from pewsitter donations while dishing out this baloney, and he has only been able to do so for such a long time because his diocesan overlords approve or deem nothing adverse involved, which says much.

VI. With the likes of CR's Associate Editor, then, a colossal effort is continuously, vigorously made to conceal the incontestable evidence that a wild, undisciplined, out-of-control aggiornamento has, since 1965, dominated, engulfed, eclipsed the so-called resourcement. Not the inverse and between the two "impulses" never has there been an equilibrium. This is the dirty little secret of the Modernists, of the SPU conference participants. Until recently with the internet emergence, the mainstream CanCatholic media successfully diverted eyes away from this actuality by bombarding us with editorials and accounts on the beauties and beneficences of the "spirit" of Vatican II, and anyone who disagreed was shooed away as some kind of antediluvian crackpot. For instance, here is Baum quoted in the aforementioned CR report:

There are people for whom religion means security. The world changes, everything changes, nothing is reliable. But the one thing that's reliable and is unchanging is the religion they have inherited - not God, but the religion we have inherited. It is a frightening thing.[4]

Conceit and contempt just bleed from that statement. Those who point to the past and Tradition live by the "old time religion", they're out of date, unhip, scared little children. Even akin to Protestant fundamentalists, rigid, irrational, plastic, phoney, cold, cruel, unfeeling, unimaginative, uncreative, as if there was no doctrinal development in the 19+ centuries prior to the watershed year 1962. That's what Greg is communicating to the reader, a particular message of which Mr. Swan made sure to incorporate into his lovely synopsis. Just stick it to 'em. Drill it home, boys.

VII. Fortunately, in the last few years we've had fair, balanced and objective reporting from Deborah Gyapong, who is a godsend as far as I'm concerned. Especially after National Catholic Reporter dude Art Babych was at CCN. Three months before the SPU conference Gyapong provided it coverage, plus giving mention to an online petition started by John Pacheco at SoCon or Bust. It was directed to Abp. Pedro López Quintana, Canada's Apostolic Nuncio, summarizing dissenting views of the more prominent conference participants, requesting it to be sent to one keynote speaker, Peter Cardinal Turkson, asking him "to decline his invitation" thereat. The petition received a total of 582 signatures. Pretty impressive, but to no effect. +Quintana, ordained a priest and appointed bishop by John Paul II, entered the Holy See's diplomatic service in 1984. He served the nunciatures at Madagascar and Philippines, was advisor for the General Affairs of the Secretariat of State to the Apostolic Nuncio office, and is past nuncio for India and Nepal.[6] Accordingly, his reaction to the petition would have been just that: diplomatic, subdued, pleasantries, careful language, no waves. You get a sampling of these in +Quintana's innocuous interview in 2010 with the ever meddlesome and ubiquitous CEO of Salt+Light TV. The latter (drum roll) making sure to mention on-air his awe-inspiring role at World Youth Day 2002, thrice for greater impact. Anyway, when the petition got going in April 2012, +Quintana was probably already scheduled to deliver - and eventually did deliver - an address at the CCCB Plenary later in September,[7] coinciding and closely connected with the SPU conference challenged by the petition. Canon law does stipulate a legate "to send information to the Apostolic See... everything that touches the life of the Church and the good of souls" (no. 364/1). Plausibly, an e-mail was shot off to some intern working in a Dicastery basement. Though it's more likely +Quintana didn't even pass along the information, considering the silence. "Chiquita, file this under Miscellaneous for me. Gracias". Which goes to show that these days a better strategy is to bypass the nunciature altogether. Just cc your complaint letter to the MacNab Manor House as a formality then go direct to Rome. But, then, there is the Vatican bureaucracy with which to contend, let alone the numerous wolf packs stalking throughout the loggias, as Pope Benedict's abdication announcement made obvious.
 
VIII. KEYNOTE ADDRESS SPEAKERS: The SPU conference had three of them, none Canadian. First, ++Turkson, a Ghanaian prelate and  president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, gave an address entitled "Vatican II: A Council of Justice and Peace". Helped by his good looks, amicable character and origin from an exotic land, ++Turkson has that special ability to charm the pants off even heterodox Catholics, as evidenced in an interview with an adoring Bobby Mickens at The Tablet.[8] He likes the press and the press likes him, which is a bad sign. Papabile rumours have floated about ++Turkson since at least 2010.[9] And, soonafter Pope Benedict's stunning announcement, he was letting the international media know that if we "have an African pope, that would be a great recognition of a church that has come of age and a church that is able to contribute to the universal church".[10] A big time no no. Translation: ++Turkson will not be our next pope, if I may make a prediction. Too publicly self-assertive and it appears His Eminence's celebrity has gotten to his head. Unless the canvassing is premeditated to attract criticism, thereby making his authenticity questionable amongst cardinal-electors, hence minimizing election chances. In actuality, the secular media's excitement about him becoming pope is due not so much to ++Turkson's African cultural heritage, and the distinct mode/approach that it might bring to the papacy. Rather, it's his skin colour. A sort of inverse racial profiling by Whitey the Liberal who has that irrepressible desire to showcase his moral superiority and thus feel really, really good about himself. Like those people who put "COEXIST" bumper stickers on their Prius'.

IX. Not to suggest ++Turkson is part of this "anti-Church", nor that he is somehow out of step with the Magisterium. His view against the secular West's racist-inspired population control agenda via abortion in the Third World is on the mark. Additionally, it has been wonderful to see the press go into hysterics after he recently said (correctly) that the Church's priest sex abuse scandal is mainly resultant of homosexual pederasts,[11] which goes to the whole Lavender Mafia network, its sickening entrenchment within Church structures now emerging into public light, thankfully. However, his wishy washy perspective on condoms does gives pause.[12] Nonetheless, ++Turkson was the delegate from Rome, meaning that, as a conference participant, he was the outsider to be tolerated with smiles, sunshine and lollipops. SPU was even gracious enough to confer him an honorary doctorate, which you can see Ottawa's Abp. Prendergast doing here. That +Prendergast is disallowing John Pacheco at SoCon or Bust from organizing a conference in Ottawa - an initiative with a prominent keynote speaker to countervail the SPU/V2 conference, pretty well verifies that, when it comes down to the uncomfortable crunch, +Prendergast is a poser and that all his tough talk (e.g. pro-abort politicians must not receive Communion) is just that: talk. Another good, loyal Catholic layman given the shaft. Another dead end bishop. He's a Jesuit, published by Novalis, so I guess it should have been expected, and we certainly hope +Terry has fun at the next "Theology on Tap". We also observe in the photographs the heresy-pimping Publishing Director at Novalis, which sponsored the SPU/V2 extravaganza, courtesy of Canadian tax dollars. Getting back, had ++Turkson been a CDF rep, instead of a "justice and peace" darling, you can bet Bill Shatner's toupee that the welcome wagon would have performed a U-turn. There is also the question of whether or not anyone in-the-know on the other side of the Atlantic properly advised ++Turkson on all the incestuous Magic Circle intrigue going on betwixt and between St. Paul's, Novalis, OMI and the Canadian bishops. My guesstimate is that Rome is largely oblivious and/or has higher priorities, which explains why St. Paul's undeservingly still retains its status as a Pontifical University. It is also noteworthy that, unlike the other two keynote speakers - giving their addresses in the SPU auditorium (capacity 300), ++Turkson the outsider was relegated to the less capacious university chapel for his talk. A chapel with cafeteria chairs instead of pews, minus kneelers. Groovy.

X. Next up we have another suit and tie Jesuit, a German, by the name of Christophe Theóbald. He's Professor of Fundamental and Dogmatic Theology at the Centre Sèvres in Paris. His keynote address went by the title "Vatican II: A Vision for the Future, a Pedagogy of Faith, a Way to Resolve Particular Questions". Purpose: to "illustrate how the corpus of the Council's teaching present new avenues of transmission enabling present and future generations to envision the future of the Church". Excepting technical journals, Theóbald is cited infrequently in popular North American theological conversation (although, his Transmettre un évangile de liberté is distributed by Novalis via Bayard France, and former Timmins Bishop Paul Marchand had a liking in that Theóbald was referenced in a Pastoral Letter [14]). In the context of the SPU conference, however, Theóbald's take on Vatican II necessitates highlighting. This is because he is a disciple of the notorious "Bologna School", founded by the late historian/theologian Giuseppe Alberigo. In terms of influential accomplishments, between 1995 and 2001, Alberigo, along with colleague Fr. Giuseppe Dossetti, were responsible for History of Vatican II. A grand, multi-tome article compilation project (translated into seven languages) covering every aspect and detail of the Council wherein Theóbald,[13] including aforementioned Jetsetter Gilles, contributed articles. Theóbald and company deem the Second Vatican Council as a significant, tantamount irreconcilable, break from ecclesiastical tradition. A taste of Theóbald in action:

None of the twenty preceding councils showed so much daring and ambition: allowing a consensus to emerge among those more than two thousand prelates from all continents and obtain their agreement on the responses to be made to virtually all the questions facing the Church at the dawn of a new age for humanity - such is the absolutely unheard-of legacy of these great twentieth-century assizes.[15]

Here we see the customary, quasi-utopian "dawn of a new age" formula being invoked for V2, after downgrading the previous twenty councils (running a course from AD 325 to 1870, i.e. 1545 years) to a non sequitur. Sure, there is change, things form anew. Yet the sense here sides toward the revolutionary, not to a developmental sense, and there is a distinction between the two. Language like "absolutely unheard-of legacy" implies a radical breach from something, that which is torn asunder, void of antecedent association. Development, on the other hand, suggests profounder understandings in Church teaching, liturgy, canon law, and so forth, adjusted and made pertinent to the present circumstance, yet still corroborating, affirming and accessing the past, i.e. continuity. To our demise, the revolutionary sense has predominated for the last five decades, and unfortunately its proponents thereof have usurped Newman's theory of the Development of Doctrine, claiming it for themselves.
 
XI. Things were moving along swimmingly for the "Bologna School" for quite a time until 2005, when a certain Josef Cardinal Ratzinger was installed as pope. It was just a few days before Christmas in that same year when Pope Benedict chucked a wrench into the well-oiled, smooth-running post-Conciliar machine. In Clementine Hall, the Holy Father gave the traditional greeting to the Roman Curia, including statements on "discontinuity and rupture", the "problems" that eventuated after particular "interpretations" of Vatican II were popularized. And let me tell you, the Principesse Bolognesi no likey what e Bavarian speaky. The Pope's now famous remarks, disseminated worldwide, called for a response from his opponents, a counteraction from the now sometimes ascribed "rupturists". This eventually came in 2007, in the form of four essays published in Cristianesimo nella storia, a magazine by the Institute for Religious Studies in Bologna.[16] Herr Christophe was one of the dissenting authors. Still, even with his forthcoming departure, Pope Benedict, with a detectable bluntness, is telling the world that, what Theóbald and his ilk have wrought, has been nothing but decay and dissolution:

...this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, liturgy trivialized... and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council.[17]

My reasonable deduction is that the Bolognese Rupturists were overjoyed when first hearing the news of the Holy Father's abdication.

XII. The third keynote speaker was an American, Richard Gaillardetz, a theologian at Boston College. His SPU conference talk was called "Setting the Agenda for the Church of the Twenty-first Century". Indeed, quite an agenda. Beforehand, however, a little background for context, controversial to say the least. One red flag, among scores, is that, during the U.S. election campaign in 2008, Gaillardetz was a member of Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council.[18] Evidently, Gaillardetz - like those two other intellectual giants Barbra Streisand and Pauly Shore - is absolutely infatuated by a "community organizer" with a Marxist-based educational upbringing. He clearly has no disagreements with Obummer's pro-abortion platform, which can be philosophically categorized as nihilistic Prometheanism, in that the criminal who now occupies the White House believes that babies surviving abortions should be left to die. Hope. This Gaillardetz is so twisted he even had the gall at the time to write that "there is a pro-life candidate out there and it turns out he's a Democrat!"[19] Go team! After that op-ed, he received a rebuke from his bishop, although it was hardly a tough counterpunch. Toledo's Bishop Leonard Blair responded by stating Gaillardetz's heterodox views on abortion "do not reflect the clear and consistent moral position of the United States Catholic bishops".[20] The USCCB? Bishop's Conferences have zero infallibility in Catholic teaching and specific reference should have been made to the Magisterium's infallibility, universally valid, where abortion in all circumstances always has been censured as a grave evil. Well, at least the USCCB finally - after outside criticisms - pulled some of Gaillardetz's antinomian writings from it's For Your Marriage resources website. That said plenty, considering the USCCB/NCCB has been a hive for the "synthesis of heresies" for decades.
 
XIII. Gaillardetz, a theologian-turned-popularizer, a kind of Catholic version of the "public intellectual", does the standard fare: multiple articles written for America, U.S. Catholic, Commonweal, National Catholic Reporter - all well-known dissenting magazines with weighty measures of defiance against the Holy See. But not the entire gamut of American Catholic periodicals. No entries in his CV for publications at Crisis, certainly not New Oxford Review. The useful idiots at Vox Nova think he's an alright guy, but no need to worry because only effete, make-believe intellectuals write at that blog. Gaillardetz admits standard progressivist influences: Congar, Curran, Küng, Schillebeeckx, Rahner and, if I'm not mistaken, Rodney Dangerfield. He also has the standard dissenter disdain for Orthodoxy, in that he disparagingly speaks of "the youngest generation of priests, too many of whom seem more interested in birettas, cassocks and clerical prerogatives" (i.e. feels threatened by the resurgence of traditionalism), the "Vatican's hounding of American women religious" (as if the politicized/paganized LCWR didn't deserve reprimand/correction by the CDF), "leaders' lack of interest in the laity's insights" (as if a Dictatorship of the Laity hasn't been the case for the last 50 years), "ideologically driven, poor translation of the Roman Missal" (as if current, widespread liturgical abuse is not a problem).[21] Gaillardetz also co-authored a book on Vatican II with SPU professor and conference participant Catherine Clifford, available from Novalis, which is also a standard, insofar as "Catholic" book publishing goes in Canada.

XIV. To compress things into a summary, then, there are three areas where Gaillardetz demonstrates himself to be a heretic and an enemy of the Faith. The first relates to his opinions on moral/life issues (e.g. contraception, homosexuality). Here is Gaillardetz discussing Fr. Francis Sullivan's (colleague at Boston College, another Jesuit, winner of the "John Courtney Murray Award" along with two Canadians, Aquina-kantian Fr. Bernard Lonergan, SJ and excommunicated ex-priest Greg Baum) views on "polygenism and artificial contraception":

For a time it was possible to recognize a theological consensus on the Church's condemnation of polygenism, particularly in the years between Vatican I and Humani generis, but that consensus did not "persevere" among theologians after Vatican II. In like manner, a long-standing consensus regarding the Church's teaching on artificial contraception was shattered in the years after Humanae vitae. In each case, an apparent unanimity dissolved in the face of significant new developments or new interpretive frameworks. I would extend this judgment to include both the teaching on the ordination of women and the moral character of homosexual acts; both have been the subject of considerable theological reflection drawing on new interpretive contexts. Consequently, it would seem difficult to judge any purported consensus regarding these two teachings as one which "perseveres and remains firm".[22]

Notice specifically: "the Church's teaching on artificial contraception was shattered" in the years following Vatican II. Yet again, the Council is designated as a drastic rift in Christian history, something dazzling happened, the galaxial expansion reverses and the universe implodes into a singularity. Church affairs are "shattered", thus justifying the dissenting viewpoint. No "consensus", he claims, now exists on contraception because of "new developments or new interpretive frameworks" (never precisely defined, of course), and these also apply to Church teachings on homosexualism and women's ordination. Really?

XV. Proscription against contraception has constantly been taught by the Church. The Catechism precisely states it to be "intrinsically evil" (no. 2370). Paul VI's Humanae vitae never has been abrogated, save in the minds of theologians (who aren't part of the Magisterium) and bishops teaching out of communion with the pope (cf. "Winnipeg Statement" of the Canadian bishops). Moreover, the condemnation of contraception has been promulgated by Apostolic Constitution, the highest decree of the infallible Ordinary/Universal Magisterium, as in, for example, Familiaris consortio:

...the Church condemns as a grave offense against human dignity and justice all those activities of governments or other public authorities which attempt to limit in any way the freedom of couples in deciding about children. Consequently, any violence applied by such authorities in favor of contraception or, still worse, of sterilization and procured abortion, must be altogether condemned and forcefully rejected... couples, by means of recourse to contraception... act as judges of the divine plan, and they manipulate and degrade human sexuality (and with it themselves and their married partner) by altering its value of total self-giving.[23]

Rather uncomplicated. The same applies to homosexuality and women's ordination.[24]

XVI. The second area where Gaillardetz falls astray, which helps to justify the heresy in the first area outlined above, involves his take on role theologians play in relation to the Church's teaching authority. Unless you're a Protestant, or if you were one of those Gen-X Catholics crappily catechized by a crew cut lesbian nun named Boris, remaining Catholic readers will know without a doubt that the Magisterium alone is the official interpreter and adjudicator of Scripture and Tradition, and that it is the source from which Church doctrine springs. Theologians, like Gaillardetz, do not comprise any part of the Magisterium. Period. Our Yankee friend, of course, balks from this longstanding reality of the Catholic Church. Two examples - the first:

...where there is no universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians the infallibility of a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium might itself be called into question.[25]

The second:

It is my contention that appeals to the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium are ill-suited for resolving controversial matters related to the Christian faith precisely because of the inevitable ambiguities involved in verifying the fulfillment of the conditions for the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium as outlined in Lumen gentium.[26]

What he is doing here, obviously, is making the infallibility of the Ordinary/Universal Magisterium to be a direct function of the acumen and consent of theologians. Specifically, theologians effectively supersede the Magisterium. But never has there been a "consensus" amongst theologians in the Church's two-thousand year history. Perhaps that was one reason why, err, Christ actualized Peter into a Rock, made him Pope, the Supreme Pontiff, Number 1, the buck stops here. Anyhow, with the handiness and versatility of Gaillardetz 's "inevitable ambiguities", which can be adhered to any subject or anyone at odds with his agenda, never can there be certitude with respect to Church teaching on, say, moral/life issues, like abortion, contraception, buggery and so on. This, of course, is the very intention and trick of Gaillardetz - keep everything suspect, unresolved, in a state of suspended animation, always. He says: "When a truth of divine revelation is taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, what results is, in effect, a 'non-defined dogma'".[27] This is the reason why he writes that "there are no solemnly defined dogmas that pertain to morals",[28] which seems like a solemnly self-defined dogma to me, if not your run-of-the-mill moral relativism. It is also the reason why he writes, as against the Catechism's definition of heresy (no. 2089), that "the obstinate denial of a definitive doctrine would not necessarily place one outside the Roman Catholic communion",[29] a denial which automatically excuses himself from heresy. Anything goes. The reader will note that infractions against the principle of non-contradiction is commonplace with such people.
 
XVII. The third area where Gaillardetz comports himself into the realm of the heretical involves ecclesiology, directly correlated with the second area outlined above. He was quoted in an interview around the time of the SPU/V2 conference. The traditional, vertically-inclined, transcendent-orientated structure of...

The older Church model took an "illuminist theory of divine revelation," in which revelation came "from on high", illuminating Church leaders, with divine revelation "trickling down to the rest of us", Gaillardetz said.[30]

This is antiquated, according to Gaillardetz - and I really like that allusion to the Illuminati, with its secret society/Masonic/ Rosicrucian/Enlightenment connotations. Oooooooo scary stuff, kids. Instead, a horizontalist configuration is preferred, based on Vatican II, when all was "shattered". There must be "less reliance on Formal Authority", he argues elsewhere. "Conceptions of authority" must "flow from the life of ecclesial communion. A renewed teaching authority, one that is properly situated and exercised within the Church as a communion".[31] This is the New Ecclesiology, prevailing throughout the post-Conciliar era. There is nothing novel here that hasn't been put forward a trillion times since when Flower Power and rebellion against The Man became orders of the day. That is, authority of the Pope/Magisterium is slanted, smudged, collectivized, egalitarianized toward "collegiality", bishops' conferences, coalitions of theologian oligarchs, careerist laymen networks. The pope is merely "the first among equals", as Fr. Rosica recently averred in an orchestrated interview with our State broadcaster.

XVIII. Where Gaillardetz begins to push matters even further to the extreme is when he transmogrifies religious authority into something wholly dependent on a popular vote: "The election of the bishop by the local community is an alternative means of episcopal selection that may reflect the democracies of our modern age".[32] Jean-Jacques Rousseau couldn't have said it better. And so we come to an old error with a new label, to use Bishop Sheen's phraseology. That is, the Conciliarist heresy occurrent around the time of the Great Western Schism. Specifically, that of Marsilius of Padua (ca. 1275-1342), as advocated in his work Defensor pacis (1324). Although God is the source of all power, religious authority is restricted from directly wielding it. Rather, the bishops are sidetracked, overridden, because God's power is conferred directly to, and stems from, the people, the so-called "human legislator":

The universal body of the citizens or its prevailing part is the human legislator... the election of any principate or other office to be established through election... depends solely on the express will of the legislator... no bishop or priest, as such, has any principate or coercive jurisdiction over any clergy man or layperson, even if that person is a heretic... all bishops are of equal authority.[33]

That's just a fancy, medieval way of saying Mob Rule, and those extracted sentences surely have a totalitarian undertone. Note that Marsilius' concept of the "human legislator" was a precursor to Rousseau's "General Will". It's not for nothing some historians refer to Marsilius as The Rousseau of the Conciliar Movement.[34] Plus, we all know what followed in Rousseau's wake. Reminder: French Revolution, Communist Revolution.

XIX. Taken in an ideational context, there really is nothing outstanding in Gaillardetz positions. Visit any dollar store in whatever Modernist neighbourhood and you discover an entire gallery of heretics expounding the same: moral teachings put in doubt via nebulous language so as to justify personal sinful behaviour with an unwillingness to change (which is always the root cause here); magisterial authority placed under suspicion based on some yet to be resolved anomaly upraised into an ultimate determining factor; theologians overstepping their limits as only conduits and clarifiers of doctrine because of a pet theory or a longing for prestige; democratized ecclesiology; Vatican II as the zenith in Church history with its concomitant negation of the past. It's all been done before, a thousand times, and the pattern remains unchanged: no resolution, ever, subtlize everything or push the margins to even greater extremes, all is left open-ended and possibly permissible, which only perpetuates dissent and further destabilizes the Church in the process. Let alone its detrimental trickle-down effect to Catholics on ground level, most of whom are already apathetic, if not ignorantly antagonistic to the two-millennia-old basics of Catholicism.

XX. Hence it's arguable that space has been wasted here covering Gaillardetz's views in these last paragraphs, redundant, useless, sort of like any insight Matthew McConaughey may have on the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Still, it's done for the record and, again, I repeat the important but mostly neglected, unseen, unreported trickle-down effect such criminals have on those Catholics situated at the pyramid's base. This is because Gaillardetz has an exceptional knack for popularization. He's a proficient self-promoter and marketer, which distinguishes him from most heretics. Go to his slick-looking website. "Shop" for books and DVDs, the lecture circuit, listing of "upcoming events", password-only access for special website features. Being an American, Gaillardetz is a Modernist strain of those more populous Neo-Cat salesmen apologists scoping out for big bucks in the blogosphere, a characteristically American phenomenon. And lest we forget, the perfumed beta-males constituting the CCCB were tickled pink to have Gaillardetz give a keynote address at its 2009 plenary. Thus, his influence runs from the bottom right up to the peak of the pyramid.

XXI. So there you have it. Three foreign keynote speakers: a Cardinal figurehead to be stomached for the sake of decorum, a suit and tie Jesuit from the rupturist Bologna School, and an antinomian Conciliarist with an aptitude for salesmanship. In Part 2 of this series we shall analyze the Canadian roster of the SPU/V2 conference participants.

Catch you on the flipside. TH2 signing off.

NOTES / REFERENCES

1. Cf. "Roman Catholic (Janet Somerville) new CCC (Canadian Council of Churches) general secretary", Presbyterian Record, September 1, 1997.

2. J.W. O'Malley, "Barack Obama and Vatican II", America, May 25, 2009.

3. M. Swan, "The Church's past weaved into the future", Catholic Register, October 7, 2012.

4. Quoted in ibid.

5. D. Gyapong, "Meeting condemned as conference of 'dissenters'", BC Catholic, June 25, 2012. See also P.B. Craine, "Catholics urge Vatican Cardinal to skip dissenting conference on Vatican II", LifeSite News, July 23, 2012.

6. See CCN, "Spaniard named nuncio for Canada", Western Catholic Reporter, December 21, 2009.

7. D. Gyapong, "Apostolic Nuncio warns of religious freedom threats in Canada", BC Catholic, September 26, 2012.

8. R. Mickens, "The rising star of justice and peace", The Tablet, October 31, 2009.

9. Cf. "The young tearaway who's in the running to be next Pope", The Independent, August 29, 2010.

10. Quoted in J. Bone, "Ghana's Cardinal Peter Turkson eyes papacy", The Australian, February 14, 2012.

11. See D. Gyapong, "Abortion pushed on Third World may have racist agenda, says Cardinal Turkson", Catholic Register, October 1, 2012; and S. Caldwell, "Cardinal tipped to become first black pope in modern times blames gay priests for abuse scandals facing Catholic church", Daily Mail, February 19, 2013.

12. "Cardinal Turkson on Condoms and HIV/AIDS", ZENIT, October 5, 2009.

13. C. Theóbald, "The Church Under the Word of God" In: eds./trans. G. Alberigo, J.A. Komonchak, M.J. O'Connell, History of Vatican II (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006), vol. 5, The Council and the Transition, The Fourth Period and the End of the Council, September 1965 - December 1965, pp. 275-320. It's worth subnoting that Orbis Books is notorious for publishing works of dissenters, for years. Orbis is also affiliated with Canada's Novalis, the former listed as a "Distributed Publisher" at the latter's website.

14. P. Marchand, "Being Catholic, a Call, a Challenge", Pastoral Letter, A/3, October 1, 2010.

15. C. Theóbald, "The Theological Options of Vatican II: Seeking an 'Internal' Principle of Interpretation," In: eds. A. Melloni, C. Theóbald, Vatican II: A Forgotten Future? (London: SCM, 2005), Continuum 1005/4, p. 87. See also F. Mastrofini, "The first fifty years of Vatican II", Vatican Insider/La Stampa, February 7, 2012.

16. S. Magister, "Confirmed: The Council was a 'Historic Transition', The School of Bologna Annexes the Pope", Chiesa, December 11, 2007.

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

18. See membership list at end of article "Donohue and Obama advisors scuffle over Catholic identity, abortion", Catholic News Agency, May 12, 2008.

19. R.R. Gaillardetz, "Who really is the pro-life candidate?", Toledo Blade, September 27, 2008.

20. L.P. Blair, "Reject the Freedom of Choice Act", Toledo Blade, October 4, 2008.

21. R.R. Gaillardetz, "We have the pillars, but the building is still unfinished", National Catholic Reporter, October 11, 2012.

22. R.R Gaillardetz, "The Ordinary Universal Magisterium: Unresolved Questions", Theological Studies, September 2002, no. 3, pp. 147-171.

23. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II to the Episcopate, to the Clergy, and to the Faithful of the Whole Catholic Church on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World, pt. 3, II, 30, 32. Given on November 22, 1981.

24. For homosexuality: cf. Catechism (no. 2357); CDF, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons (June 3, 2003). For women's ordination: cf. Catechism (no. 1577); Code of Canon Law (no. 1024); John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994); CDF, General Decree regarding the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman (December 19, 2007).

25. R.R. Gaillardetz, Witnesses to the Faith: Community, Infallibility, and the Ordinary Magisterium of Bishops (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992), p. 28.

26. R.R. Gaillardetz, "Infallibility and the Ordination of Women", Louvain Studies, vol. 21, no. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 3-24.

27. R.R. Gaillardetz, "The Ordinary Universal Magisterium: Unresolved Questions", Theological Studies, September 2002, no. 3, pp. 147-171.

28. R.R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium of the Church (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), Theology and Life Series, vol. 41, p. 110.

29. Ibid., p. 263.

30. From D. Gyapong, "Vatican II sets agenda for ongoing renewal, scholars say", BC Catholic, October 4, 2012.

31. R.R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority, pp. 290, 293.

32. Ibid., p. 281.

33. Marsilius of Padua: The Defender of the Peace, ed./trans. A. Brett (Cambridge University Press, 2005), Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, pp. 548-550 (Disc. III, ch. 2). Cf. also commentary by L. Salembier, "Marsilius of Padua", In: The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910). Available online.

34. E.g. F. Hendricks, Vital Democracy: A Theory of Democracy in Action, trans. R. Stuve (Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 116: "In Marsilius of Padua's normative theory of the city republic... notions of self-governance and developmental republicanism clearly dominate, which makes him one of the most important predecessors of Rousseau".

GLAM AND GLITTERATI AT SPU OVER V2

FACEBOOK FUN WITH THE CATHOLIC REGISTER'S ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Yes, Mr. Swan uploaded it. No, he did not write it. He extracted the text from a Traditionalist mocking article in the National Catholic Reporter, the notorious American heretical newspaper, or the Kansas City Crap Sheet, as yours truly calls it. What is interesting about this Facebook entry, posted yesterday, it that his next FB entry, posted soonafter, was for an article/link written by a university student entitled "Old-fashioned worship attracts youth", published in the Catholic Register, of which Mr. Swan is Associate Editor. The CR article included a photograph of two young ladies wearing veils.

It's the juxtaposition of the two posts that's the giveaway.

What is the purpose of doing that - especially that particular quotation - except to send a message of his dislike for the return to reverent liturgy and its concomitants? Why share a link to an article, minus a qualifier, where we find phrases like "veiled patriarchy", "get in on the dress-up fun", "enthusiastic would-be veil wearers", "an in-your-face expression of submission", unless he agrees. That's fine, and he's certainly free to post whatever preference on FB. Contrarily, I see mantillas at Mass as a most excellent thing. It confers that distinctive Catholic dignity and mystery to a woman. Also, it is symbolic of that extra and special amount of privacy which is the natural right of a woman. TH2 recalls at one Mass sitting behind a lady with a 2-foot tall beehive hairdo. Her neck was ever more so tilting as time passed and, poor creature, I thought her head was going to snap off. You see, men get distracted.

There is no shock here, even in this little Facebook example. Mr. Swan, in his columns and reports, has been doing this schtick for years at CR. In the past his articles were more blatant in their antagonism to orthodoxy. In recent years, his write-ups are more subtle, still skewed to Leftist causes and associated esoterica, made to appear as a "normal" Catholic thing. So next time you read one of his reports on some crew cut lesbo-feminist nuns getting in a tizzy over "global warming", or of some social justice activist being enthralled with a dictator in some South American banana republic, my advice would be to read just to know what ephemeral fashion is currently preoccupying the establishment church, not for what the Magisterium actually teaches.

But, really, this short post is just a reminder to you Catholic Canucks, roughing it out in the Arian wasteland, of the headstrong Modernist/heterodox mentality of those entrenched within the CanCath MSM particularly, and the Magic Circle generally. The system needs to be flushed out.

CCCB Plenary just ended. Have a post thereabout in the works.

FACEBOOK FUN WITH THE CATHOLIC REGISTER'S ASSOCIATE EDITOR

EXOTICA RANDOMLY SELECTED AND PERUSED, WITH OPINIONS PROFFERED THEREAFTER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lucy in the sky with diamonds....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NOTES / REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Quoted in ibid.

13. Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXOTICA RANDOMLY SELECTED AND PERUSED, WITH OPINIONS PROFFERED THEREAFTER