NOTICE TO INTERNATIONAL READERS

That's right, I'm talking to you.

...especially those of you presently at Rome/Vatican City.

If you are interested in reliable and objective commentary/analysis as to what the Canadian bishop-delegates and their representatives (i.e. sycophants) are thinking and doing as regards the "Synod on the Family", please be advised that any written, audio and/or video product (online or hardcopy) issuing from the following so-called "official" Catholic media outlets here in Canada have been severely compromised for years/decades, and are therefore not to be trusted.

This advisory is presented in dense, bullet point form.

• Salt+Light Catholic Media Foundation. This multimedia operation is under dictatorial control of neo-Modernist thug Fr. Thomas Rosica, well known to those who follow the news in Rome, especially since he attempted to sue (and hence silence) a Traditional Canadian Catholic blogger earlier this year (see here). He likes to put on a happy face for the cameras, but as most of you probably already know by now, Rosica is a Wolf in Fuzzy Slippers. Of course, Father has been named by the Holy See as attaché for English-speaking Media during the Synod, and started causing a ruckus from the get-go (example). He has his finger in every pie throughout the Canadian Catholic landscape - knows all the bishops and schmoozes them up, newspaper columns, university positions, celebrity galas, politician hobnobbing, lecture circuit, mainstream news interviews, you name it. Goodness, he has even conducted the Mormon Tabernacle Choir! He's everywhere! He's awesome! He's relentless. The Salt+Light Foundation is largely financed by Toronto's wealthy Gagliano family, owner of St. Joseph Communications, of which its CEO, Tony Gagliano, is Chair on the S+L Board of Directors. SJC is also publisher of Quill & Quire, a book news/reviews magazine. Here is a recent article title from that magazine: "80 years of Q&Q: notable titles, from cookbooks to LGBT classics". Methinks St. Joseph would not approve, and it is blasphemy that the name of our Blessed Lord's chaste, foster father be associated with such sodomitical-inspired abominations. Also on the Board of Directors of S+L is John Foresi, CEO of the real estate firm Venterra Realty. "Venterra is proud to be a supporter of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation!" (see here), the latter itself a financial contributor to the abortion mill complex known as Planned Parenthood. Note well: S+L is a media tool wielded behind the scenes by the homo-apostatic Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) to maintain the Modernist party line, of which Rosica is its public mouthpiece, such as at annual plenaries. Routinely, he is dispatched to do damage control whenever some heretically-actuated controversy arises here in the Great White North (example). What you are now hearing him say at press conferences - the verbal manoeuvres, insinuations, circumlocutions, ambiguities, pro-homo undertones in terminology, his suspect faithfulness to timeless Catholic truths - he has effectively been doing here in Canada for years. Rosica has been a "yes man" for the Canadian bishops since the mid-1980s when still a seminarian (see here). Digital products and broadcasts by S+L can be classified as smiley-face-Catholic-lite, with a strong skew to the Left. It is also important to emphasize that Rosica maintains intimate ties (too intimate, one surmises) with liberal Vaticanista John Allen, Jr. at Crux magazine, part of the Boston Globe newspaper. Formerly, Allen was a scribbler for the unabashedly heretical National Catholic Reporter. So slick is Allen that even the poor Fr. Zuhlsdorf thinks he is "fair minded", failing to recognize that this snake in the grass presents Vatican affairs with a dangerous leftist undercurrent, unable to spot Allen's "strategy for legitimizing Catholic dissent" (source). The now famous phrase "Taliban Catholics", popularized by Fr. Rosica to cast tradition-minded Catholics as fanatical nut jobs to be ignored in so-called sensible Catholic conversation, originated with his favoured male companion, namely Mr. Allen. Fr. Rosica/Salt+Light  has been widely covered at this blog. A series of links directing to these posts can be found here.

• Catholic Register. Calling itself "Canada's Catholic newspaper", it is based out of the Toronto Archdiocese. In actuality, it is the homo-apostatic CCCB that really pulls the strings at the Catholic Register. Still, along with his grovelling chancery office entourage - CR is also under the purview of Cardinal/Archbishop Thomas Collins, one of four bishop-delegates to the Synod from Canada (Collins is a poseur of Catholic orthodoxy, to be addressed in another post). Since especially the editorship of Joseph Sinasac (see also below), for years CR has been at the forefront of encouraging heresy. Not in an explicit manner, but connivingly, yet still posing itself as an authentically Catholic newspaper devoted to the Magisterium. Flipping through pages of reports, op-eds, columns and advertisements in any issue of the Catholic Register, a confusion emerges because contradictions and mixed signals are noticed immediately. A single statement in St. Pope Pius X's encyclical on Modernism precisely characterizes the preternatural spirit that permeates the Catholic Register: "...in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist". Now the main person to caution international readers about is CR's most prominent journalist, namely Michael Swan, Associate Editor, also President of the Canadian Church Press. In his earlier days as a CR writer, before ascending the rungs, Swan regularly maligned tradition-minded Catholics, misinforming and disinforming about Catholicism in general. Given his greater status presently, these days his reports are more guarded in his evident disdain for the pre-Conciliar Church, although he slips up occasionally (example). However - in both phraseology and in selection of personalities to interview - there is undoubtedly a Modernist/Leftist bias. Not what he writes about so much, as what he does not write about. Not who he interviews or reports on per se, but who he does not interview or report upon. Sins by omission galore! Yet there is less confusion when it comes to Swan's position on sodomy. We have an echo of this from 2006, when he reviewed the highly controversial film Brokeback Mountain, a Hollywood glorification of two sodomizing cowboy perverts. Swan remarked: "It's no accident that the first half of Brokeback Mountain is filled with lush Christian imagery which recalls Jesus the good shepherd" (source). No, that was not a misquote. Given the obsession by Synod participants for altering the Catholic Church's teaching on sodomitical behaviour and that, correlatively, the Vatican is currently populated by a considerable number of faggots, any coverage of the Synod by the Catholic Register will in all likelihood exhibit a homophile tone. Nota bene: such reportage will attempt to mask itself as "neutral".

• Prairie Messenger. Once called St. Peter's Messenger, this purported "Catholic Journal" claims to be the "official Catholic newspaper for western Canada", having regular contributions from the Winnipeg Archdiocese chancery. The radicalism that you read in its pages today - hardly any vestige of Catholicism in it - is mainly attributable to the legacy of PM's editor during the period of 1983 to 2004. We mean, of course, the defiant, hyper-leftist, anti-authoritarian, bratty, adolescent-minded abbot Andrew Britz, OSB, around whom a bizarre personality cult seems to have developed, continuing after his death. When Britz is showered with accolades by the likes of Marxist ex-priest Greg Baum, ex-nun Mary Jo Leddy, even by Polyesterus Maximus herself, namely Sr. Joan Chittister, then you definitely know there is something very, very wrong here. Britz professed his vows as a Benedictine monk in 1960. He later obtained a doctorate at the University of Toronto, yet earlier - and interestingly - he was first trained in theology/philosophy at St. John's Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota. For decades St. John's been a haven for Modernists but, more disturbingly, this abbey is renowned for myriad reports of sexual abuse. We're talking homo-pederast central. Since the 1930s, 52 monks and 31 others associated with St. John's have been accused of sexual misconduct (source, see also here). Thus, it should be wondered if and/or how this poisonous and perverted atmosphere at St. John's coloured Britz's radicalism, like in the way he steadfastly challenged the Church's teaching against sodomy. His stance on how trustworthy a Catholic newspaper is stems "not from carrying only stories that are orthodox, but from... it's willingness to carry stories not supportive of its own editorial thrust... Readers of the Catholic press must come to accept this" (Truth to Power, p. 12). Do you see the brow beating? The rigid absolutism? The self-projection of his defiance? You "must" accept views "not supportive" (i.e. heresy) of the Catholic Church. And, indeed, this has ever been the case at Prairie Messenger. Britz was a fan boy of sodomite Cardinal Joseph Bernadin's "seamless garment" scheme, where subjects such as lacklustre immigration policies, anthropogenic pollution, the non-availability of bottled water, or a dearth of office supplies at the chancery, are categorized to be "evils" on par with abortion, and other subjects broaching sexual morality (never probed in detail by liberal Catholics, mostly ignored, silence). The "intense fixation on the 'illicitness' of contraception", he wrote, is one of the "unpleasant things happening in the Church" (ibid.). That is: (insert index fingers in ears) I don't want to hear about it, la la la la la la, when is the next protest rally to commence against those running-dog capitalist pigs?, or something like that. Resonating with Britz's decree on the acceptance positions "not supportive" of Catholicism, we see links at PM for Amnesty International (pro-abortion, here); the Steven Lewis Foundation (attacks on Pope Benedict, re: contraception); freak show New Ager Fr. Richard Rohr ("known for his 'Wild Man Retreats' where men sometimes take their clothes off and touch each other in certain parts of their bodies - to release the demons", source); the influential and now dead American heretic Fr. Richard McBrien including, of course, his compatriots at the National Catholic Reporter. These links clearly are endorsements, rather than mere acquiescence, to exclusion of orthodox Catholic links. Like an obedient dog, Peter Novecosky, PM's editor after Britz, maintained the same radicalist line. He used to do sneaky things like, for instance, publishing a piece by Jocelyn Rait, member of Canada's Catholic Network for Women's Equality. CNWE are a bunch of man-hating broads, disgruntled, neurotic,  who have campaigned for female ordination since the 1980s: "the issue of women's equality in the Roman Catholic Church will not be cooling down any time soon". Whatever, honey - but I now see that the link to your article has been scrubbed. PM's current editor, Maureen Weber, is a real piece of work. Recently, she published a pro-abortion opinion piece by journalist demagogue Michael Coren. Coren apostasized last year because he seems to think that it is a form of "love" warranting "marriage" when a guy desires to stick his erect wart-covered dick up another guys fecal-encrusted anus, or when a guy ejaculates semen into another guys mouth. The Catholic Church has been wrong for 2000 years, he effectively laments, and to hell with Natural Law. Anyway, Coren's pro-abortion article was entitled "Seamless Garment", of course. He was eventually dropped as writer for PM, but his article remains online. Along similar lines, PM recently rejected to run ads for federal pro-life politicians, as did the Catholic Register (refused specifically by publisher/editor Jim O'Leary, hand-picked by Cardinal Collins). Weber was asked why PM was not going to publish the advertisement. Her answer: "I just don't like the ad. I'm not going to run it". Does the international reader see the wickedness of these people? So nonchalant. That kind of reaction is not an anomaly here in Catholic Canada, it is the norm. The Prairie Messenger really is a foul, nasty place. Toxic. Stay away. If you must visit, put on a gas mask.

• Western Catholic Reporter. The editor at WCR is Glen Argan. By my accounting, he is a male feminist with a soft spot for sodomites and a contempt for the pre-Conciliar Church: "ossified Catholicism... had been rejected" at the Council. As such, this flavours most the stuff you read at WCR. Generally, left-socialist, pagan positive, regular installments of Ron Rolheiser's emo-girly-man crap, with a candy-coated "spirit of Vatican II" covering trying to give everything an authentic Catholic glow. Some examples: Argan very much admires Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, one of those typical habitless hussies outfitted in lime green pant suits with misapplied make-up that advance women's ordination, goddess worship, a one-world government, and so forth (see here). You know the drill. However, what makes Johnson's heretical constructs a little too disconcerting for some is that she unambiguously feminizes the Holy Trinity: "the time has come to stop addressing God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and to begin addressing Him as 'She Who Is.'". In an approving article entitled "A feminist perception of the Spirit", it is as if Argan is in a kind of noospheric ecstasy as he writes about Johnson's "1992 feminist treatise on the nature of God, She Who Is... The Protestant tradition has tended to privatize the Holy Spirit, the Catholic tradition to institutionalize her". What is not underscored is that even some normally heresy-blind bishops judged Johnson's 2007 book Quest for the Living God to overstep the mark, so much that they urged it not be used in Catholic schools and universities (source). Argan also has a hankering for those fossilizing, cigar-chomping lesbians that constitute the Leadership of Catholic Women Religious (LCWR) in the United States. Under Pope Benedict, if you recall, they came under investigation for pretty well every heresy advocated since Nestorius. Argan became rather upset by this, with those self-righteous do-gooders at the CDF. Her His response: "One may well ask why the CDF decided to investigate the LCWR at all. Was it a case of frightened men determined to oppress Spirit-inspired women who prophetically challenge male power? If that is the case, the Catholic Church is in dire trouble and those who want to follow Jesus might well consider going elsewhere". Ah, yes, the metrosexual sensitivity of today's all too common emasculated man displaying his undying solidarity with the sistas. He must be quite enthralled now that Francis has basically annulled due penalties from the Apostolic Visitation, again unleashing these beer-swilling dykes so they can ride buses around the American Heartland and corrupt even more poor souls. Argan was also supportive of prominent author Ann Rice after she apostasized because of the Church's stringent position on sodomy (well, at least until before the Synod). Rice's son is a sodomite. Sympathizing with Rice, Argan states: "for some who have a genuine allegiance to the Christian faith this public image of intolerance and ignorance has become increasingly hard to bear"... these politically correct melodramatics go on and on. Lastly, it should be noted that WCR is based out of Edmonton, Alberta, at the same address of the chancery for the Edmonton Archdiocese. Head honcho there is Archbishop Richard Smith, another bishop-delegate from Canada at the ongoing Synod. Given that both are based at the same locale, a convenient news filter set-up exists. Argan's office is but a hop, skip and jump away. Why, also, Smith permits Argan and company to publish the stuff they do without apparent censuring, as in the abovementioned, perhaps yields a hint as to what Smith's real positions are on the family and depraved sexual behaviour.

• BC Catholic. Seems to be stuck in the Wojtyla era. Crazy about NFP, very enthusiastic about the Protestant-originating Charismatic Movement. No problem with that creepy, awkward "Theology of the Body" stuff and its principal Manichean huckster, Christopher West: "That yearning, that burning, that hunger we feel is really and truly a desire for God". Videos by Fr. Robert "von Balthasar" Barron. Standard fare: direct video link to Salt+Light TV, CNS news feed. Think Sgt. Schultz on Hogan's Heroes: "Iz don't know nutting... nuuttinnngggg". Cotton candy, popcorn and soda pop. Head in the sand, harmless, shallow, smiles everyone, happy clappy. Has Sports Section.

• Island Catholic News. A British Columbia based hyper-progressive outlet feigning Catholicity and failing at it - growing increasingly obscure, admittedly, but still one of note in that it resides in the Diocese of Victoria, once "known as the most radical and avant garde in Canada" (source). Also, because of its evil neo-Modernist bishop Remi de Roo, Canada's longest serving prelate (1962-1999), and probably one of its most destructive, who stated that ICN "was founded and served as a vehicle to educate people about the Council". Remi was a player in the pro-contraception "Winnipeg Statement", is a lover of New Age esoterica (e.g. he is an Enneagram teacher), plus he advocates for married priests and the ordination of women. These days, de Roo has been lecturing at university conferences with his excommunicated buddy Gregory Baum, an ex-priest formerly "married" to an ex-nun - like at St. Paul's University in Ottawa (home for all kinds of academic heretics), a Pontifical university, no less. Or, de Roo is "presiding" over puppet "masses", with the customary faggot liturgical dancers twirling away amongst the gray-haired "assembly" (watch here and enjoy).

• Novalis Publishers. This publishing house, allegedly "Canada's premier publisher of religious books, resources and periodicals", is headed by Joseph Sinasac, a quiet, behind-the-scenes enabler and endorser of dissenters, also former editor of the Catholic Register. Novalis is notorious for publishing and promoting books by heretics and apostates, be they Canadian or not. Some of them include: the aforementioned Gregory Baum (principal player in drafting, convincing Canadian bishops to issue the "Winnipeg Statement", pro-liberation theology, endorses homo "marriage"), Hans Kung (no introduction needed), Joan Chittister (a "wicked nun", said Fr. Paul Marx, HLI founder), Ron Rolheiser (neverendingly sublimating his effeminate libido), Henri Nouwen (homo priest, associated with sodomite Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, poster boy for so-called homosexual victimhood/martyrdom, e.g. "a wounded prophet"), the aforementioned bishop Remi de Roo (also infamous for bankrupting his diocese by spending millions of dollars on a failed real estate deal involving Arabian horses), and former Canadian bishop Raymond Lahey (an unrepentant sodomite, convicted a few years ago by Canadian authorities for possession of child pornography). Lahey (once an advisor on liturgy) also published articles in Novalis' faggoty-named liturgical magazine Celebrate! during the editorship of Bernadette Gasslein. Gasslein, an aging babyboomer liberal "liturgist" (you know the type), has contributed significantly to the cornball irreverence and liturgical abuse commonly seen at Novus Ordo Masses at parishes throughout Canada. Novalis also publishes/distributes Marxist screeds, like James H. Cone's A Black Theology of Liberation (its "40th anniversary edition", no less). Let alone Novalis' cheezy, exceedingly vulgar, missals for Canadian parishes. More information about this iniquitous publishing house can be found here.

• Cardus/Convivium Magazine. Not so much a Catholic outlet, but specifically a small-c Neo-Catholic/inter-denominational collaboration of effete navel gazers. Meaning, the views it publishes are infested with the heresy of Americanism, definitely reeking with the residue of Fr. John Courtney Murray - the Jesuit who, with the consent of Cardinal Spellman, reintroduced Americanism at Vatican II (Americanism seeks to prove an essential congruence between American culture and Catholicism, cf. Pope Leo XIII's encyclical here). Cardus/CM is headed by two persons: Peter Stockland and Fr. Raymond de Sousa. The former is an influential newspaper man, has the right political connections, and could fairly be described as the "money man" behind the operation. Stockland discloses that he "cannot abide bishop bashing. The habit in some Catholic circles of remorselessly denouncing and denigrating our prelates... sets my teeth on edge" (i.e. shut up!, you idiotic and unworthy Catholics on social media). Thus he is protective of the Canadian bishops, a gatekeeper of sorts, maintainer of the status quo. The latter is a student of the Neuhaus School of Americanism. That is, of the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (a Canadian Lutheran convert), founder/editor of the influential First Things magazine, where you can find some of Fr. de Sousa's writings. He also gave the eulogy at Fr. Neuhaus' funeral, whereat he spoke: "Convivium is what Fr. Richard created over his whole life" - hence the direct influence. FT is based in Manhattan, New York, homebase for the Neo-Catholic bon vivant elite (FT, incidentally, just fired Maureen Mularkey for writing articles critical of Pope Francis). Both Stockland and Fr. de Sousa have regular columns in Canadian secular national newspapers (e.g. National Post). Accordingly, as "conservative" Catholics, they have achieved a nice, comfortable, but innocuous balance between what the Post-Conciliar Church advocates versus what is tolerable/acceptable to the antinomian secular world. The homo-apostatic Canadian bishops could not have better high-profile friends than Stockland and Fr. de Sousa (both also columnists at the Catholic Register), because they endeavour at intimating them to be - in the main -  loyal, orthodox, unerring shepherds, when in actuality the inverse is the case. These two are "company men" to a T. Prestige, respectability and influence are first on the docket, whereas the Faith is deprioritized and euphemized, particularly those exacting dogmatic and historical truths considered unsavoury by their secular/non-Catholic cohorts, of whom they secretly wish to please and to belong. At the Convivium website we read: "Led by two of Canada's top religious voices - Peter Stockland and Father Raymond J. de Souza - the Convivium Project stands alone in the print world, engaging Canadians who take faith seriously". Well, they certainly like themselves, so humble, just like Francis. This self-congratulatory smugness speaks for itself. But notice: "religious voices", not specifically Catholic voices; "take faith seriously", not specifically take the Faith seriously. Stockland and Fr. de Sousa can talk all they want about the "cooperation of church and state" (ducking from the "separation of church and state" label, which properly characterizes the Americanism undergirding their endeavour), but it makes no difference. After all, the Cardus/Convivium Project is merely a Canadianized copycat version of Fr. Neuhaus' Institute of Religion and Public Life. For unless the Social Reign of Christ the King is acknowledged and sought after (rejected since Vatican II), unless Catholicism is proclaimed as the One True Faith for all, for humanity, and that all others are false, for unless the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary is duly honoured, the Most Holy Mother of God, the Stockland-de Sousa "small-c catholic" project is doomed to failure. Really, it was doomed from the beginning, as was Fr. Neuhaus' experiment to incorporate into society the quasi-utopian Americanism of his hero Fr. John Courtney Murray. Look at Amerika today. The U.S. is not "slouching towards Gomorrah", as Judge Bork said - it's screaming towards it, nearly at ground zero. It's a dead end, boys.

Some of the aforelisted outlets form a media cooperative, namely the Canadian Catholic News (CCN). Accordingly, reports/opinion pieces of one journalist will often simultaneously appear in one or more of the remainder. Related to this, a revolving door mechanism exists to accommodate changes in employment positions of these Professional Catholics over the course of time. For a while someone will be an editor at a diocesan newspaper, afterward becoming the boss at a "Catholic" publishing house. An opinion columnist here, then a report writer for the CCCB there. A faith "facilitator" for the chancery here, then a speaking engagement there. Added bonuses include various major awards regularly conferred upon them, to affirm mediocrity, to condone heresy with a wink and a nudge, to give a false sense of purpose, or to bolster self-importance (example). The same names and the same messages keep popping up where ever you go. Moreover, their respective websites will link to one another, provide advertisements for the right organizations, and so forth. For instance, the Catholic Register provides videos direct from Salt+Light, posts advertisements for the CCCB's clandestinely pro-abort Development+Peace organization (currently, "Create a Climate of Change" program), including CNS news feeds from the bishop-controlled, leftist USCCB, etc. This insular, incestuous, bureaucratic, self-referential set-up is sometimes called the "Magic Circle". As such, this totalitarian-tending collaboration helps to sustain the Modernist/Leftist narrative from coast to coast, to the detriment of ordinary Catholics, obviously.

All is not lost, however, dear international reader. Do not despair. If you wish to get accurate and objective commentary/analysis of the Synod and its Canadian participants, then please hop on over to the Canadian-based LifeSite News. Use the search box, enter therein some names of Canadian bishops, clerics, nuns, laymen, and from the LSN archives you will uncover a cornucopia of apostatic delights in reams of reports. Moreover, it is highly recommended that you check out any articles by Steve Jalsevac, LSN's Co-Founder/Managing Director. He has his finger on the pulse of the inner workings of the Catholic Church in Canada, on how the Canadian bishops have for years worked to deliberately undermine the Faith, especially those aspects involving life issues and sexual morality. Two recent letters addressed to Vox Cantoris - the blogger threatened with a lawsuit by Fr. Rosica - highlights Mr. Jalsevac's shocking insider knowledge. Read here and here.

It is also essential to remind international readers that, while the homo-apostatic CCCB has quite friendly relations and interactions with the abovelisted "official" Canadian Catholic media outfits, CCCB personnel and the Canadian bishops in general vehemently loathe LifeSite News. Why? Over the years, LSN's diligent reporting has repeatedly exposed the anti-life, anti-Catholic activities of enemies operating within Catholic institutions throughout Canada. About five years ago, matters went nuclear when LSN uncovered incontrovertible evidence that Development+Peace, the "social justice" arm of the CCCB, was funding internationally-based groups that promoted abortion and contraception. Case in point to demonstrate the enmity: John-Henry Westen, LSN's Co-Founder/Editor-in-Chief, was barred from attending the 2011 CCCB Plenary as a member of the press. Westen was not notified of the ban until he had driven many hours to get to Cornwall, Ontario, the location of the plenary that year. At the time of this incident, the aforementioned Archbishop Richard Smith, currently in Rome as a Canadian bishop-delegate for the Synod, was part of the CCCB's Executive Membership, in the role of Vice President. At this same plenary (in 2011), Smith was elected to be CCCB President for a two-year term starting in 2012. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that Smith has no problem whatsoever with the bullying, press-banning, secrecy, censorship, closed-door sessions currently happening at the Synod.

Indeed, Archbishop Smith and the Wolf in Fuzzy Slippers must be having a ball! Spin that ball, baby! It's a party! A #RosicaBlockParty !!!

This blogger further invites international readers to explore the list of articles at this site via the "The Canadian Files" link (see top right on menu bar). Four posts recommended are Ominous Signs, Muffins Galore!, The Magic Circle, and Homoheresy Inside CanChurch (Parts 1 and 2). They are rather lengthy, dense, blunt, episodically bombastic, but perhaps you will discover a revelatory tidbit or two to gain a better perspective on the degree to which wicked homo-apostatic bishops and their traitorous heretic underlings have utterly betrayed Canadian Catholics over the last five decades.

Thus ends our carpet bombing run.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Have a nice day.

NOTICE TO INTERNATIONAL READERS

REASONS 2546 AND 2547 WHY I NEVER BECAME A JESUIT

Two Irish Jesuits vocations posters. H/T Fr. Blake

A long time ago, a fair number of years after the Nu-Church Modernists assumed control, I seriously considered the priesthood. Discernment always, unequivocally, pointed in the direction of the Jesuits.

My mentality is thoroughly Jesuitical. Why do you wonder posts at this blog are so long, intricated and laborious? How else is to be explained the blunt meanness periodically interrupted by bursts of outlandish, edgy humour?

But, you see, I mean Jesuitical in the old time sense, positively - when the order was faithful, tough and intellectually rigorous. Now, after its transmogrification, it is mostly populated by proportionalists, liberation theology afficiandos and all manner of subtlizing fruitcakes. Thusly, I never applied to a seminary and never again considered the priesthood.

Fills me with a shuddering disgust when I'm reminded of what the Jesuits have become, as illustrated in those cheezy, vulgar, offensive posters. It is a personal, subjective feeling. Mine alone. But it is there nonetheless. Perhaps the intensity of my contempt (not hatred) is explainable by the fact that, in the naiveté of my younger days, I actually revered Jesuits and wanted to be like them.

What is Reason 2545, you ask?... America magazine.

Next post is coming. It will be long, intricated, laborious, sometimes bluntly mean, with bursts of outlandish humour.

REASONS 2546 AND 2547 WHY I NEVER BECAME A JESUIT

SEDE WHO? WHATEVER IS NOVALIS TO DO?

Sheesh, you do have to wonder if Hans has gone completely crackers. A report at Rorate Caeli provides the evidence. But let's first do some backtracking...

I. Hans Küng is an interesting fellow or, to be more precise, priest. You can't tell that by looking at him since he's always sporting Emporio Armani menswear. But neither does Ron Rolheiser outfit in clerics, and neither do both adjoin "Fr." to their names when formally presenting themselves in the public square, so I guess it's okay. Priests have to nondescriptly blend in these days. Well, at least those whose lifeblood flows solely from wellsprings of Vatican II. And it was from these nourishing waters that burst forth King Küng the megastar theologian and, soonafter, mega-heretic. Though the proper term is heresiarch, given his international apostatic following. You see, something strange happened to Hans whilst on the way to the forum. Being a peritus superstar must have really gotten to his head. Reportedly, during the Council he cruised around Rome in a red Mercedes convertible[1] to showcase his awesomeness. Sophia Loren was also a hot number at the time so, logically, it wouldn't be outside the realm of reasonableness to wonder if together they did the Via Veneto thing or, perhaps, dined somewhere on the Mediterranean coast, dancing the night away to catchy Bob Azzam diddies...

Oh dear, that video shows Azzam to be a dead ringer for the young Hans.

II. Granted, conjecture in that last sentence there is, though what's not conjectural is that, as the groovy 1970s came along, it was very apparent that Küng was going to be one big pain in the ass. This became altogether manifest upon the 1974 publication of his book On Being a Christian which, until very very recently, was distributed by Novalis, Canada's allegedly "Catholic" publisher - but more on that later. It's a monster book, over 700 pages, and I'm ashamed to say once upon a time yours truly purchased it in softcover form. Don't know why, maybe it was the mesmerizing pasty yellow cover. Mod 70s cheese does have that je ne sais quoi appeal, albeit a shallow appeal, although one need not have the intellectual profundity of a peritus to understand that, in On Being a Christian, including his Infallible: An Inquiry?, Küng was attacking not just papal infallibility, but also the Church as an institution, Christ's divinity and bodily resurrection, Gospel miracles, and the Mass as the representation of Christ's crucifixion. That's pretty wicked stuff for a Catholic priest to do, especially a famous one and, indeed, the controversy surrounding OBC made international press in the few years following its publication.[2]

III. By 1979 Rome was evidently fuming over all of the shenanigans, so the CDF clipped off Han's wings: his opinions "opposed in different degrees to the doctrine of the Church which must be held by all the faithful ...departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role".[3] Just afterward Küng called a certain Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, an academic colleague, the "regressive grand inquisitor of the post-Vatican Council period".[4] Obviously, the Tübingen Tornado was smarting from the Declaration. Now you'd think that such a severe penalty would prompt the Küngmeister into some mode of quiet reflection, a time of seclusion to re-evaluate, outside the spotlight, far away from the schmoozers and sycophants. You'd think... but nnnnnooooooooo. And you'd also think, given the Declaration, that Küng's worldwide adherents would reconsider his magnum opus haeresis... but nnnnnooooooooo. Signs of the times, baby! The smoke of Satan had, by 1979, thoroughly infiltrated the Vatican cracks and there was no way Hans and company was to submit to The Man. Excommunication, you say? Ha ha, we're talkin' about a bunch of scaredy cats, intimidated from going that far, plus those wolves within facilitating matters by wafting that satanic smoke throughout the loggia. Accordingly, the defiance remained unabated and they kept on truckin' as the years rolled along.

IV. By the 1990s delusions of grandeur had set in. It wasn't enough that Küng assailed foundational aspects of the Catholic Church; it wasn't enough that his acclaim within the intelligentsia assured widespread dissemination of dissent; it wasn't enough that, by the popularity of his heresies, scores of Catholics were hoodwinked, thus placing their souls in jeopardy. Küng wanted more. What, then, was to be done? Here's what: start your own religion. Hence in 1993 he conceived the "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic", presented in 1993 at the Parliament of the World's Religions. Today the Declaration (a retaliatory echo of the 1979 CDF Declaration against him?) forms the philosophical basis of the Global Ethic Foundation, to which Küng maintains the position of prez, or "Great Leader", which methinks is a more befitting title.

V. "No global order with a new global ethic!", proclaims DTGE. Humanity needs "a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes", not a "global ideology" nor a "single unified religion".[5] It's mindboggling how the concept of a "single unified religion" is negated while at the same time affirming a "global ethic... binding values, irrevocable standards". Same thing. Perhaps Küng the student missed that philosophy class on Aristotle's Principle of Contradiction. Catholicism is denatured, though the "Global Ethic", like all religions, is still a worldview, albeit democratized, which reflects a political ideology. Still, it's like that old time religion, only dressed up in quasi-secular humanist language. Which is why imprecise, impersonal abstractions like "Ultimate Reality" are substituted for God: "As religious and spiritual persons we base our lives on an Ultimate Reality and draw spiritual power and hope therefrom". Or, as Yoda would put it: "Mmmmmmmmm, may The Force be with you, Hans Solo... errrrr, Küng". DTGE presently has a few thousand of signatories from nearly 50 religions, including academic jet setters, UN/NGO conference mongers, CEOs, humanists, big media and human rights reps, including - check this out: "Billy R. Maynard, Theologian and Management Consultant". Now that's an interesting meal combo. Hold the cheese, please.

VI. Moving on to the new millennium, specifically the date April 19, 2005, when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI and, likely, the day Küng went crackers. Critical mass reached. That must have enraged Hans, given not only their association during the Tübingen days, but also their parting of ways after Vatican II. Ratzinger went one way, along Orthodox Road, whereas Hans, driving his red Mercedes convertible, turned Left onto Heresy Drive. Just imagine the look on Küng's face when - with the bells of St. Peters piercingly chiming and the roaring crowds in the piazza - he saw on TV his arch-nemesis perambulate onto the gondola as el número uno católica. There was Pope Benedict XVI, successor of St. Peter, Holder of the Keys of Christ, Vicar of the 2-millenia-old One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, with 1.2 billion members coming from every country, class, culture, ethnicity and race around the globe. And over there, perhaps at some posh pub in Zurich whilst nursing an Eichhof, was Hans Küng, President of the 2-decade-old Global Ethic Foundation, with maybe a few thousand elitist Eurotrash signatories. As Charlie Sheen so eloquently used to say: "winning".

VII. Anyway, Hans still wanted in on the action down Vatican way. So, evidently still having the clout, in September 2005 he requested a meeting with B16. The Pope kindly granted it. The meeting took place Castel Gandolfo whereat they reportedly discussed religion, ethics, science and secularization in Europe. Was the solicitation a sign of departure from past heretical conduct, a roundabout means of asking for forgiveness and a return to obedience? If you're an outlandish dreamer like me, then a smattering of hope for those there would have been. Alas, statements and actions in the months and years following the meeting were to demonstrate otherwise. For instance, in 2007 the scoundrel accepted an award from the German Freemasons.[6] The Lodge has repeatedly been condemned by popes, for centuries, first with the papal bull In Eminenti by Clement XII in 1738. Catholics, let alone priests, are forbidden to join. Not that hard evidence exists for Hans' membership, but his congeniality with the Masonic bastards isn't sympatico with anything Catholic. Maybe he accepted the "culture award" as a retroactive tribute to Annibale "I'll see you in Iran" Bugnini, architect of the Novus Ordo, also suspected of Freemasonic association...

VIII. And things kept getting worse. Ever more so did Küng rage against the Holy Father with lies blatant and allegations unsupported. In 2009 he analogized Benedict's papal modus operandi with Communist Russia: "He has not traveled much. He's always remained closed in the Vatican - which is quite similar to how the Kremlin was at one time - where he is safe from criticism".[7] In 2010: "there is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger".[8] In 2011 Deutsche Presse reported him as saying it's a "duty" to reject the Magisterium. Oh, but, it gets better. Early last month, May 2012, he characterized the Catholic Church, under B16, as a "dictatorship", a "totalitarian system".[9] And it was later in that same month when Küng ventured into the heart of Bizarroland. If the Catholic Church, via Pope Benedict, formally regularizes the SSPX then, said Küng, B16 surrenders his papacy, becomes a "schismatic", an anti-pope, the Chair of St. Peter is therefore empty.[10] In a word, sedevacantism. Seriously, that wasn't enunciated by those crazy Dimond brothers at the "Most Holy Family Monastery" in Fillmore, New York, USA. It was expostulated by the Modernist heretic Father Hans Küng, hailing from Sursee Municipality, Canton of Lucerne, Switzerland. Like this blogger suggested at the outset, the guy has gone crackers.

IX. Okay. Let's bring things back to the home front and evaluate matters within a Canadian context. Considering all of the abovementioned, especially the breathtaking crapology he's dished out since Benedict became pope, you'd think that our writers, publishers and distributors of Catholic news and info would be highly critical of Küng, indeed condemnatory, proscribing the dissemination of his books and other writings. You'd think... but nnnnnooooooooo. In fact, the inverse has occurred. Remember, we're talking about the leftist establishment who, for years, have fawned over Hans, a grovelling love affair reminiscent of a relationship between a human master and his obedient poodle, Mr. Schnookems. One instance: When Master Küng penned his "open letter" to the world's bishops in April 2010 - yet another assault on B16, Prairie Messenger editor Peter Novecosky, acting the poodle, was more than pleased to publish it in PM. The headliner: "Kung's open letter to bishops a significant contribution to discussion of difficult issues".[11] Do you want a cookie, Mr. Schnookems? There ya go... Yet for the prime example of this betrayal of Canadian Catholics we turn our world-weary eyes to Novalis, hailing itself as "Canada's premier publisher of religious books, resources and periodicals". It also claims to be a Catholic publisher. About two years I wrote a detailed exposé on this criminal outfit. You can read all about it here. Nothing has changed since, including Hans Küng book sales. The aforesaid On Being a Christian is no longer presented in its online catalogue (one wonders why), though Novalis' current offering still includes his double volume memoirs My Struggle for Freedom and Disputed Truth, in both English and French. To be sure, so much does Novalis have a woody for Küng that (as SoCon or Bust discovered) it advertises his books on the back cover of its atrocious Prions en Église missalettes...

...which are freely available in churches throughout Quebec - an insidious tactic working to screw credulous pewsitters. Just lovely. And love it is that Novalis has for Küng. Its website considers him "one of the most important theologians of our time", "the voice of a prophet concerned for the future". Around the time of leaving his position as Editor of the Catholic Register and taking on a new gig as Novalis' Publishing Director, Joseph Sinasac gushed that "the church needs people like Kung even when they are wrong and disagreeable. Sometimes they can also be right".[12] Well, it would be marvellous if a rationale was given as to why we "need" the likes of Küng and, moreover, a specific example of where he has been "right". Of course, neither was provided.

X. That's how apostasy works in Canada. It's soooooo... nonchalant, carefree, sometimes debonair. It's wrong, but who cares? Küng's heresy doesn't affect my life in a personal way. After all, we "need" him and, sometimes, he's "right". It matters not that we also publish heretics like Joan Chittister (notorious American heresiarchess), Mary Jo Leddy (ex-nun, founder of dissenting Catholic New Times), Gregory Baum (excommunicated Marxist priest) and Remi de Roo (Ennegram aficionado), the latter two being enablers of the Winnipeg Statement. Hell, we'll even publish A Black Theology of Liberation by James H. Cone. We at Novalis can only do so much. So, you see, these persons need their jobs as professional Catholics. They like the prestige and the TV interviews and to consort with all the trendy people at those Martini & Rossi galas. Speaking of galas, lookee what we have here...

Novalis Generously Co-sponsors Vatican II Conference with Saint Paul University

Novalis publisher Joe Sinasac presented to Dr. Catherine Clifford, Associate Professor of Theology, and Jean Pigeon, Director of Alumni and Development Office, a cheque for the upcoming fall conference at St. Paul University, "Vatican II: For the Next Generation," September 27-29, 2012. In addition to co-sponsoring the conference, Novalis will be featuring a number of its authors, including Meg Lavin (Vatican II: 50 Years of Evolution and Revolution in the Catholic Church) and Remi de Roo (Remi de Roo: Chronicles of a Vatican II Bishop).

Do you know who will be speaking at this conference? Here's who: the aforesaid Gregory Baum and Bishop Remi de Roo, including Richard Gaillardetz (formerly on Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council, ambiguous on the abortion issue), Sr. Joan Cronin (homophilic habitless nun and educrat), Fr. Gilles Routhier (Supreme Court of Canada used his testimony to deny right of parents as primary religious educators of their children) and many more dastardly darlings whose nefarious agendas make me scream to Heaven for vengeance. SoCon or Bust provides an excellent run down of the rogues gallery. Also included is the above pictured Catherine Clifford, who advocates (against perennial doctrine) the notion that theologians are not necessarily subject to the episcopacy: "the priority of the lived faith of the Church over its doctrinal formulations". Doctrine "is but a partial expression of the faith of the church... Sadly, too many theologians report that they are seldom consulted by their local bishops on theological questions".[13] Well, Ms. Rahner, that's all nice n'stuff but doctrine is the source of the Faith. As a theologian you are but a conduit and clarifier of it. No more. No less. In the secular world you would be called a consultant. So my advice to you would be to grab a bottle of Canadian Club, pour yourself a personality, and try not to take the role as a theologian that seriously, err, heretically.

XI. Now let's focus in on that embedded photograph. Do you see that cheque Mr. Sinasac is handing over to Professor Clifford? The amount is unknown to this writer, but it's safe to assume it to be hefty. It would have to be - big venue, big names, free booze, good times. Now the donation wouldn't be of concern to a plebeian like yours truly, but for a couple of qualifiers: if, firstly, Novalis was a publisher loyal to the Magisterium - which it categorically isn't, as indicated above, detailedly so in my analysis two years ago; and if, secondly, Novalis was a private company, wholly subsidized by its own products and sales, which it definitely ain't. A perusal of Novalis' homepage displays, down at the bottom right, the Canadian federal government identifier with this appended text: "We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund for business development activities". Time, therefore, for an internet search...

XII. Jumping on over to the Canadian Heritage webpage for CBF recipients we learn that, for the fiscal year 2010-2011, Les Éditions Novalis Inc. received $195,752 and Bayard Canada Livres Inc. got $80,873, coming to a grand total of $276,625. Given that Bayard acquired Novalis from St. Paul University in October 2008,[14] and that it has marketed/distributed for Novalis since 2000, isn't it suspicion rousing that money is accrued by way of separate applications? You betchya. One entity, two applications. Why? Anyhow, it's not the government funding as such which is the problem (though it certainly has the potential to be). Even Catholic Insight magazine - thoroughly orthodox yet a smaller operation, gets some money from the feds via the Canada Periodical Fund. It received $23,635 for the fiscal year 2011-2012. Rather, the issue relates to how Canadian taxpayer-supplied funds are being spent within the Catholic milieu. As a Catholic, the fact that my tax dollars - however circuitously and miniscule - are being expended by Novalis to financially sponsor a Vatican II conference whereat heretical hippies will have the run of the show leaves me, to put it mildly, pissed.

XIII. But the crux of the treachery does not specifically involve money. Instead, it relates directly to the incestuous quid pro quo Bubbleworld of the Canadian Catholic establishment, populated by all manner of heretics, apostates, careerists, ladder climbers and other seekers of celebrity. St. Paul University used to own Novalis. Then Bayard acquired Novalis. Novalis/Bayard, portraying themselves as two distinct entities, apply to the feds for money. It gets the money, a quarter of a million dollars (and that's just one year). Then Novalis writes a cheque to St. Paul University for an upcoming conference, handing it over to its Vice Dean and Associate Professor of Theology at St. Paul University who, coincidentally, has a book published by Novalis.[15] The money is then distributed in whatever way to aid conference participants, like Baum and De Roo, who, coincidentally, have books published by Novalis. Round and round we go. And don't you dare think occupiers of the echo chamber are exclusively from Catholic academia and publishing outlets. No way, José. The Catholic MSM, too, are residents of Bubbleworld. Cronyism is the order of the day. Moreover, failsafe mechanisms are emplaced so as to help any inhabitant of Bubbleworld should he go astray by doing something incredibly stupid in the public square.

XIV. A classic Canadian example was when in September 2009 the CEO of Salt+Light Media went ballistic during the Ted Kennedy funeral fiaso. Now I'm not going to rehash the affair save to make reference to aforesaid CEO's infamous blog post and his calumnious statements made against LifeSite News in the following weeks.[16] Still, CEO's public image was marred, people's eyes were opened, angered at CEO, very much reflected in the com boxes of a Catholic World Report article on CEO written by Kathy Shaidle in April 2011.[17] Interestingly, the comments - a disapproving plethora of them, have been deleted from the article as of the date of this post. "Showing 0 comments", says DISQUS. Failsafe, baby! Seemingly, CWR Editor Carl Olson is also resident of Bubbleworld. Geez, who woulda thunk?

XV. So, then, what to do about CEO's tarnished image? Simple: ring up John Allen, Jr. at the National Catholic Reporter. Like clockwork, Allen had a blog post out defending his "friend"[18] within days of CEO's infamous blog post. But what's the payback? Scratch my back, will ya? Aforesaid CEO, a man on the rise, was happy to oblige. Indeed, so much love was in the air that Allen, just a few months after the controversy, garnered the opportunity to write an "exclusive" in Salt+Light's Lampstand magazine.[19] To boot, a few months after that, he was invited to give the 2010 Kelly Lecture at the University of St. Michael's College in Toronto, with a most obsequious, Tiger Beat-sounding introduction by aforesaid CEO, including blog coverage and two television appearances. Round and round we go with a dash of quid pro quo... It's endemic, built into the system, been around for decades, and not just in Canada. Fr. Ray Blake in the U.K. characterizes these set-ups as the Magic Circle Syndrome:

The problem is the Magic Circle syndrome, like selecting like, faithful servants of national Churches appointing their faithful servants. It is indeed a circle, symbolised by the post-Concilliar stance at the liturgy, bishops, priests and people looking at one another celebrating, as if it is worth celebrating, their own community. It is self celebrating, self serving. It lacks the faculty of self criticism and self evaluation. Ultimately it lacks direction and vision and is incapable of redirecting itself. It is by its very nature conservative and illiberal and therefore intolerant of criticism. Like any self perpetuating group it easily becomes totalitarian and ultimately unjust.

And lest we forget: what Father describes operates most efficiently, disastrously within the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the Star Chamber, the term preferred in this space.

XVI. Ultimately, matters come down to two questions: Can the Magic Circle be broken so as to allow an influx of fresh air and let Canadian Catholics breathe freely? And, if so, how in tarnation is that to be done? These are difficult questions to address given the present circumstance. When you climb the mountain and cast your gaze upon the Arian landscape a sense of futility arises - and quite a panorama it is: an episcopal conference overtaking local ordinaries, pusillanimous bishops nonetheless there are, the Lavender Mafia, chancery bureaucracy run amuck, measured non-confrontational language on life issues, pre-occupation with non-essential socio-political causes, petty fiefdoms and grantocracies, a collapsing school system, heretical publishing houses and academia, a predominantly cafeteria Catholic population with deficient catechesis, a lapdog media, and so forth. It's overwhelming, with the potential to trigger the unwary into an existential tailspin.

Will speak a little more on this situation in the sequel. In the meantime...

Sede who? The Küngmeister, that's who. Whatever is Novalis to do? Absolutely nothing. Heck, there's a conference going on. Novalis is picking up the tab, thusly there'll be free drinks too... Toodeloo, says TH2.

NOTES / REFERENCES

1. As reported in G. Wiegel, "An Open Letter to Hans Küng", First Things, April 21, 2010.

2. See, for example, B. Hodiak, "German priest challenges divinity of Christ", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 11, 1978, vol. 51, no. 193, p. 24.

3. Declaration, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 15, 1979.

4. V. Foy, "Novalis, Küng and Truth", Catholic Insight, January 2009, vol. 17, no. 1.

5. See Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, USA, September 4, 1993, pp. 5,6.

6. "Freemason award for Küng", The Tablet, May 26, 2007, p. 39.

7. J. Thavis, "Theologian's criticism of pope draws Vatican response", Catholic News Service, February 26, 2009.

8. H. Küng, "Church in worst credibility crisis since Reformation, theologian tells bishops", The Irish Times, April 16, 2010.

9. "Küng vergleicht Katholische Kirche mit totalitären Systemen", Frankfurter Neue Presse, May 10, 2012.

10. "Fremde Feder - Hans Küng: Papst provoziert Ungehorsam", Südwest Presse, May 23, 2012. Cf. also H. Küng, "Pope is provoking disobedience", The Tablet, May 24, 2012.

11. "Kung's open letter to bishops a significant contribution to discussion of difficult issues", Prairie Messenger, vol. 88, no. 7, July 14, 2010.

12. J. Sinasac, "Küng vs. the Vatican: Who Really Won?", Catholic Register, October 31, 2008.

13. Quoted in J. Hitchcock, "The Failure of Liberal Catholicism", Catholic World Report, May 31, 2011; and T.C. Fox, "Catholic theology must be grounded in lives of the faithful", National Catholic Reporter, June 12, 2010. H/T SoCon or Bust.

14. Bayard Canada, "Novalis moves from Saint Paul University to Bayard Canada", October 1, 2008. Bayard Canada is owned by the Augustinians of the Assumption (congregation based in Québec City). It is also a sister company of the multi-national Bayard France.

15. C.E. Clifford, F. Morrisey, P. Hurtubise, 25 Questions sur le pape (Montréal, QC: Novalis, 2009).

16. Blog post: T. Rosica, "Senator Edward Kennedy’s funeral: On mercy and misery", Salt + Light, September 3, 2009. Attacking LSN: J.H. Westen, "Salt and Light's Fr. Rosica says LifeSiteNews is doing the 'work of Satan'", LifeSite News, September 14, 2009.

17. K. Shaidle, "Like A Time-Release Capsule", Catholic World Report, April 28, 2011.

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

19. J.L. Allen, Jr., "Benedict XVI as a Pope of Addition", Lampstand, April 2010, pp. 4-5.

SEDE WHO? WHATEVER IS NOVALIS TO DO?

HE SAID WHAAAAAAAT ?

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

II. Sounds triumphalist the aforementioned does, it is true. News like this makes me want to fire up a cigarillo and enjoy a nice, cold Heineken. But let's not get too complacent here. Before "the biological solution" comes into full effect there is still much SV2 Romper Room riff raff that requires attention. Let us not forget that the kiddie kareerists are still manipulating the levers even though they've been told time and again that playtime is over. Try as they might to delay and counterposition, the trending return to orthodox Catholicity is an unstoppable force. All that the kids can do now is scream, whine and complain. Accordingly, Rollie the unorthodox liberal provides us with a kind of emblematic reaction as he and his ilk deem the return to orthodoxy as an existential threat. Thus he must clear the canvas, start from the basics, and tell us what orthodoxy is "from the other side". Does that phrase seem ambiguous and logically inconsistent to you? Exactly. Anyway, he's definitely agitated:

There are more ways than one in which our belief system can be unbalanced so as to do harm to God and to the Church. What makes for a healthy, balanced, orthodox faith? The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines orthodoxy as "right belief as contrasted to heresy". That's accurate enough, but we tend to think of this in a very one-sided way.[1]

Why a Catholic priest would reference a Protestant book to define Catholic orthodoxy is beyond my capabilities of apprehension. That one reviewer remarked on its "Anglican bias" and "impress of critical Anglo-Catholic scholarship"[2], it would seem, is of minimal concern. Maybe I am being too "one-sided". After all, we should just accept the fact that Rollie has this compulsion to approvingly quote from any non-Catholic commentator with the exception of perhaps Larry Flynt.

For most people, heresy is conceived of as going too far, as crossing a dogmatic boundary, as stretching Christian truth further than it may be stretched. Orthodoxy, then, means staying within safe perimeters. This is true in so far as it goes, but it is a one-sided and reductionist understanding of orthodoxy.

So he presumes that "most people" think of heresy as a going beyond limits. Well, what "most people" think is irrelevant in this context. Here he's just putting words into other people's mouths. Sorry Rollie, the strawman routine only works with those poor people that attend your inner light seminars on the "Wisdom of the Elders". Etymologically, the word heresy is of Greek origin, meaning to choose, take or select. But let's get legalistic here and make the old boy squirm. Canon law defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Can. 751). So if one subalterns Christ in the Holy Trinity, he is a Subordinationist heretic; if he obstinately rejects the Old Testament, he is a Marcionite; if he doubts the Real Presence and more so favours a symbolic definition, then say hello to Berengar of Tours; if he says God dwells in the natural world, then he is a dime-a-dozen pantheist. Allllrighteee, then. Clear enough. Sounds good to me.

III. Note also how Rolheiser keeps running on about one-sidedness. This is a bad thing. So, for instance, when Chesterton wrote that "a convinced Catholic is easily the most hard-headed and logical person walking about the world today"[3], he was expressing a rigid, closed mindedness during olden times when the referent to orthodoxy was truth. The prefix is from the Greek orthos, meaning straight, right, true. Correct me if I'm wrong, truth is one-sided by nature and cannot be manifold. But, you see, this view is unhealthy and imbalanced. Instead orthodoxy, sayeth Rolheiser, must be "healthy, balanced" and its definition should be expanded to include two meanings:

Orthodoxy has a double function: It tells you how far you may go, but it also tells you how far you must go. And it’s the latter part that is often neglected. Heresies are dangerous, but the danger is two-sided: Faith beliefs that do not respect proper dogmatic boundaries invariably lead to bad religion and to bad moral practice. Real harm occurs.

Now we come to the fallacy. In addition to being mindful of "safe perimeters" (falsely/condescendingly implying a lack of inquisitiveness and imagination, easy comfort, no doctrinal development, etc.), orthodoxy "tells you how far you must go". Really? Obviously, this is code for "push the limit", to breach traditional boundaries into zones of danger, however slyly it is worded. Notice further: we "must" do this, as if by command. Where can one find justification for this in Catholic teaching? A reference? This is not orthodoxy at all. Rather, it's a subtle means of condoning/advocating heterodoxy with mercurial language, which we all know is Rollie's forte.

Dogmatic boundaries are important. But, equally important, we don't do God, faith, religion and the Church a favour when our beliefs are narrow, bigoted, legalistic or intolerant. Atheism is invariably a parasite that feeds off bad theism. Anti-religion is often simply a reaction to bad religion and thus narrowness and intolerance are perhaps more of an enemy to religion than is any transgressed dogmatic boundary.

Now he's really angry. Why else summon the normative retaliations of "narrow, bigoted, legalistic or intolerant"? As a Catholic, is it narrow minded to believe there is no salvation outside the Church? Okay. If by bigoted does he mean anyone who recognizes Mohammedism as a theocratic, anti-human, violent worldview? Fine. If quoting from the Code of Canon Law, does that make one legalistic? Uh huh. Indeed, Gratian was wasting his time when he compiled the Decretum and the boys on the Supreme Council of the Apostolic Signatura are a bunch of ambulance chasers in it for the bucks and prestige. Is the Catholic Church "intolerant"? A certain John Henry Newman thought so:

There is a religious communion claiming a divine commission, and holding all other religious bodies around it heretical or infidel; it is a well-organized, well-disciplined body; it is a sort of secret society, binding together its members by influences and by engagements which it is difficult for strangers to ascertain. It is spread over the known world; it may be weak or insignificant locally, but is strong on the whole from its continuity; it may be smaller than other religious bodies together, but it is larger than each separately. It is a natural enemy to governments external to itself; it is intolerant and engrossing, and tends to a new modelling of society; it breaks laws, it divides families. It is a gross superstition; it is charged with the foulest crimes; it is despised by the intellect of the day; it is frightful to the imagination of many. And there is but one communion such. Place this description before Pliny or Julian; place it before Frederick the Second or Guiznot. "Apparent diræ facies". Each knows at once, without asking a question, who is meant by it. One object, and only one, absorbs each item of the detail of the delineation.[4]

Newman wrote the abovementioned while still a Protestant. Unlike Rolheiser, he evidently saw these so-called "narrow, bigoted, legalistic or intolerant" characteristics of Catholic orthodoxy in a positive light. For just a short time later in October 1845 he was received by Fr. Barberi into the Catholic Church.

IV. Get the popcorn out and prepare some refreshments because the saga continues...

God, religion and the churches are, I suspect, more hurt by being associated with the narrowness and intolerance of some believers than they are by any theoretical dogmatic heresy. Right truth, proper faith and true fidelity to Jesus Christ demand too that our hearts are open and wide enough to radiate the universal love and compassion that Jesus incarnated. Purity of dogma alone doesn't make us disciples of Jesus.

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

V. Continuing... Keep a close eye on the last statement in the paragraph as this is where the situation gets dicey:

Suffice it to say that Jesus is clear about this. Anyone who reads the Gospels and misses Jesus' repeated warnings about legalism, narrowness and intolerance is reading selectively. Granted, Jesus does warn too about staying within the bounds of proper belief (monotheism and all that this implies) and proper morals (the commandments, love of our enemies, forgiveness), but He stresses too that we can miss the real demands of discipleship by not going far enough in letting ourselves be stretched by His teachings.

It would be really nice if Rollie would elaborate on what it means to let ourselves be "stretched" by Christ's teachings. That word has twice been mentioned so far. What does it mean in a specific sense? Is there a particular verse in the Gospels where it's described? Does it involve yoga? Lots of stretching in that activity... Scratch that. Obviously, our concern here isn't with Jane Fonda's Workout. Again, what he's getting at is this notion of "how far you must go". But notice: how far we "must" go is left undefined, the field is wide open without a moral compass, entering into a nebulous territory where (apparently) most anything and everything can happen. Is it, then, self-defined? Who knows? This is a hazard which Rolheiser either ignores or overlooks.

VI. Put those ribbons on and reduce your carbon footprint because now it's time to enter the realm of Political Correctness:

True orthodoxy asks us to hold a great tension, between real boundaries beyond which you may not go and real borders and frontiers to which you must go. You may not go too far, but you must also go far enough. And this can be a lonely road. If you carry this tension faithfully, without giving in to either side, you will no doubt find yourself with few allies on either side, that is, too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals.

The minor point to note in that paragraph is its look-at-me-I'm-a-martyr complex. It is a "lonely road" with "few allies". Woe is me, it's a tragedy (cue Eric Carmen). Anyhow - irrespective of worldview, conservative or liberal, theist or atheist or whatever, most persons feel or are isolated and friendless for whatever time in their lives. It's a kind of spiritual suffering, whether one is aware of it or not. You might also note that the saints do not broadcast the fact. Chesterton: "All sanctity is secrecy".[5] This is not to say that there shouldn't be love, comfort and support from others. Only the principle of the matter is being addressed. To make this kind of suffering exclusive to indecisive borderline dwellers is plain wrong and, to borrow a word, "narrow".

VII. Major point: This maintaining of a so-called balanced "tension" between conservatives and liberals is, to quote Heine on Kant's Second Critique, "the farce after the tragedy". In reality, it shows an obstinate unwillingness to make both a reasoned and faith-inspired attempt at a firm choice of either "yes" or "no", right or wrong, good or evil. Lukewarm indecisiveness it is, and we recall what Christ said of such individuals: "Since you are neither hot nor cold, but only lukewarm, I will vomit you out of my mouth".[6] It comes across as "balanced", but really isn't. Instead, it is a quasi-gnosticized, self-determined endeavour at false transcendence, to rise above everyone "without giving in to either side", i.e. a defiant/disguised relativism. Only the "I" is correct, there is no extraneous reference, no Really Other. In less abstract form, read the President's Message and see its social incarnation at Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas - it's a real beauty:

...wide and inclusive Catholicity. We seek to be a place that heals rather than divides, a place where conservatives and liberals are equally at home, a place that respects everyone regardless of race, language, clerical status, or gender, a place that models how people can get along.

How lovely. I feel like a jiggly bowl of jell-o right now... Do not identify. Do not distinguish. No labels. These are untrue, man-made "structures" (as the mantra goes) that work to "divide" and "hurt" one another. We're all the same. Clearly, all this so-called "respect"/"equally at home"/"get along" nonsense, this false charity Rolheiser is advocating in his article, is not only a subterfuging denial of real, objective differences between persons and ideas; it is furthermore, ladies aside, an instrument that facilitates the emasculation of men. Scenario: a group of guys are out for a beer and debating the affairs of the day. Say, for example, the topic of religion comes up, commonly involving intense discussion. Now imagine, as they trudge through a particular subject where there is disagreement, John says that he "respects" Jim's position, and Tom says he hopes he didn't "hurt" Mark's feelings, and Paul says he wants a "healthy, balanced" discussion, and Luke suggests that they should "stretch" beyond their "safe perimeters" because they are all "equally at home", and Dave, seeing how the debate is starting to "divide" them into factions, wishes that they all would just "get along". Sheesh. This is pantywaist city. I'm outta here. TH2 has left the building.

VIII. In a rare occurrence, reference is made to an orthodox thinker further into the article:

... tension is an innate, healthy disquiet, something we are meant to live daily in our lives rather than something we can resolve once and for all. Indeed the deep root of this tension lies right within the human soul itself: The human soul, as Thomas Aquinas classically put it, has two principles and two functions: The soul is the principle of life, energy and fire inside of us, even as it is equally the principle of integration, unity and glue. The soul keeps us energized and on fire, even as it keeps us from dissipating and falling apart. A healthy soul therefore keeps us within healthy boundaries, to prevent us from disintegrating, even as it keeps us on fire, lest we petrify and become too hardened to fully enter life.

Perhaps it depends on preference of writing style, yet what we see above is, in my view, Rolheiser's classically verbose and mushy method of presentation. It has the shades of Teilhard's long-winded emotionalism. He takes a systematic, precise, even legalistic theologian like St. Thomas - a Doctor of the Church and one of its greatest minds - and goes about characterizing Tommy's Treatise on Man [7] with hazy descriptors like "fire inside of us", "energized and on fire", "keeps us on fire". Does "fire" represent the will? The appetites? The intellect? Emotions? Reason? It's hard to tell - and that is the tactic at work here. Orthodoxy as such, then, becomes lost in this confluence of linguistic imprecision. However, orthodoxy isn't poetry. It shuns inexact characterizations. Rather, orthodoxy points to specificity in thought, word and deed. It is specificity, so to speak. Recall: orthos = straight, right, true.

IX. Now we get to the danger of Rolheiser's shtick:

...the soul itself is a healthy principle of orthodoxy inside us. It keeps us within real limits even as it pushes us towards new frontiers. We live always in the face of two opposing dangers: disintegration and petrification. To stay healthy we need to know our limits and we also need to know how far we have to stretch ourselves. The conservative instinct warns us about the former. The liberal instinct warns us about the latter. Both instincts are healthy because both dangers are real.

As above, orthodoxy has a "double function": he speaks of keeping "within real limits" while telling us to concomitantly "stretch ourselves" (third time the word "stretch" is conjured). He also warns of dangers. He sees "most people" as clinging to "safe perimeters" which, from his perspective, is not orthodoxy in its fullness. In addition, we "must" be cognizant of orthodoxy "from the other side". Well, then, let's consider this "other side" as it can be assumed that Rolheiser believes what he preaches.

X. Last January Fr. Rolheiser and his friend Fr. Richard Rohr held a conference at the New Agey Center for Contemplation and Action (see my analysis here). Previous conferences at the CCA have covered the following bizarro topics: "Holding the Tension: Prague" and "Emerging Church / Naked Now". It appears that Rohr and Rolheiser have much in common with regard to "tension". Rohr: "I have found that a great deal of wisdom comes in the world through people who creatively hold the tension of opposites on difficult and complex issues".[8] Rohr is a notorious Pelagian heretic. Amongst other things, he advocates the Ennegram and homosexual activity. Not a heretic, you say? Then peruse what he blurted in 2001:

Everything the Catholic Church offers in the way of its sacramental rituals and moral and doctrinal teachings is an obstacle to having a relationship with God.[9]

Don't know about the reader, but that seems rather Protestant to me. You know, "I'm spiritual, not religious". Here's another disturbing tidbit from a report in 2006:

Father Rohr is well known for his "Wild Man Retreats" where men sometimes take their clothes off and touch each other in certain parts of their bodies - to release the demons.[10]

Not kosher methinks. Indeed, dangerous. So is this what is meant by "new frontiers"? Is this what is meant by "stretching Christian truth further than it may be stretched"? And why is someone that collaborates with a creepshow like Rohr lecturing us on Catholic orthodoxy? I don't know. I'm asking.


NOTES / REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

6. Revelation 3:16.

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

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

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

10. Ibid.

HE SAID WHAAAAAAAT ?