14 November 2011

THE ONLY GOOD CATHOLIC... IS A DEAD CATHOLIC

...and that is the inevitable, final objective to which enemies of the Catholic Church would steer should they secure complete political control over a society. History is rife with such cases. A prime example would be the French Revolution. Think of Robespierre and his thugs during the Reign of Terror. Think of the thousands of Catholics slaughtered, including and especially priests and nuns. The monarchy was extinguished. Propagandists and pamphleteers hailed the dawning of a new age minus the impediments of the Catholic religion. These so-called "Rationalists" instituted a new calendar so as to efface from history the birth year of The Lord of History, the temporally climactic reference point for all that was, is, and shall come to be in human affairs. France was turned upside down. The doctrine of Marx and global Communist Revolution in the twentieth century were the evil consequents.

I. Now let's make a quantum leap from the late 1700s and set course for the 1960s. We had the Countercultural Revolution - hippies galore, frenzied paganism, the celebration of Eastern philosophies and lifestyles, fashionable anti-Western political posturing, proletarianization of the middle class, contempt against all forms of authority, riots on the streets of Europe and America, Soviet insurgency and aggression, British and North American academia infiltrated by ideologies of the Frankfurt School - all of it in one way or another inspired by Marxism. At its essence and in its effects, the whole movement was an Antinomian Revolution, a rejection and overthrow of traditional morality, ethics and law. The Western World was turned upside down. The changes really started to take shape in the 1970s and, by this second decade of the twentieth first century, moral relativism has become an absolute in the West, normative and nonchalantly accepted. Morality, that pertaining to right and wrong, to good and evil actions and ideas, to the treatment of one's neighbour, of what makes man man, of human life as such - these have been more or less vanquished in the political arena. They've been crushed in the courts and academia, mocked in the mainstream media and entertainment industry, subjugated by the culture as a whole. This is evidenced by consistent attacks on the family as the cornerstone of society, the dissolution of the standard of marriage between one man and one woman, the rise of belligerent and politically savvy homosexual groups, the unconcerned approval and use of whatever form of contraception, euthanasia disguised as compassion, the mechanistic dehumanization and destruction of life through embryonic stem cell research or in vitro fertilization, and the worst - millions of human beings "lawfully" murdered by abortion, for convenience sake, for lack of personal responsibility, for economic reasons or because some physical aspect of the child in utero does not satisfy some subjectively predetermined criterion.

II. History demonstrates that, when a crisis such as the abovementioned arises, it is the Catholic Church that loudly declares its "No!" to the spirit of the world and then goes about challenging whatever force it is that works, sometimes unknowingly, toward the ruination of society. Take, for instance, the Kulturkampf in late-nineteenth century Germany. Between 1871 and 1891 Prussian leader Otto von Bismarck, allied with anti-clerical Liberals and select Conservatives (Freemason involvement too), instituted policies to oppress Catholics, the aim being to quash their political and socio-cultural influences. Some of these policies included, or resulted in: suppressing the Catholic press, banning religious orders (Jesuits notably), making civil marriage compulsory, halting government subsidies, police coercion, empty parishes, seminary closures, no religious protections in the constitution, state-appointed clerics and school teachers, no Catholics in government positions. Resisting bishops, priests, nuns, monks and laymen were removed from positions, imprisoned and/or in exile.[1] Yet this persecution enlivened Catholics to fight back. Not with violence. They rallied en masse and got behind the Church and the Center Party which, by the late 1870s, had a significant presence in parliament, and hence political clout to offset Bismarck's discriminatory policies. From then on governments couldn't form without the Center Party. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn made some very interesting observations on this "culture war":
Old liberalism in Europe also had the tendency to enter into various alliances and combinations. On the one hand it preached an extreme liberalism in the economic field, but on the other it merged with nationalism which, in Europe, has an ethnic connotation. Bismarck derived his main support from the National Liberals... Ethnic nationalism was always anti-Catholic, anti-Papal - with the exception of Irish and Polish nationalism - and above all this animosity played into the hands of the old liberals. Since they hated anything they called "dogmatism", they were... opposed to religious orthodoxy and above all to Rome. Bismarck's Kulturkampf pleased nationalists, old liberals and national liberals almost equally... Given these alliances and connections it is not surprising that old liberalism became illiberal. If one is solemnly convinced that all strong stands, all orthodoxy, all absolutes in thought are evil, then indeed one becomes inclined to show hostility to all representatives of "absolutism" (religious, political, philosophical, or otherwise) and, if one had the chance, to persecute them methodically and mercilessly... Owing to their [liberals'] intellectual appeal they had a near monopoly in the universities and acquired an iron grip on the press, theater, and the entire intellectual life. Thus they could painfully discriminate against their conservative and Christian opponents.[2]
Keep that long quotation in mind as this article proceeds, especially what I italicized, since it applies to the present circumstance.

III. Back to the future: Today the proponents of secular humanism, those enemies from without, are stepping up attacks on the Church on all fronts. This isn't just occurring in a single country, but throughout Europe and the Americas. What is different from the recent past is the militancy and bravado by which they launch whatever assault. They're strident, "in your face" in extremis. Consider the modern day atheist, for instance. Look at the maliciousness of a P.Z. Myers who, with debonair and glee, desecrated the Eucharist and made it into a public spectacle.[3] You just know this guy has as many personal problems as he does Twitter followers. Think of how Christopher Hitchens assailed Mother Teresa in his fatuous and offensively titled book The Missionary Position, let alone other things. I am constantly astonished that many conservatives consider this pickled Trotskyite to be a serious voice on culture and world affairs. Then there's the likes of Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawking who, because they are scientists, think they're also competent to pronounce on matters theological. One need not be an expert on Dun Scotus' notion of haecceitas to realize that any metaphysical notion Dawkins or Hawking may expostulate upon are but the half-assed musings of paralogic dilettantes. Yes, these individuals are cruel or just plain nut jobs. Yet they're very serious. The danger posed is that, via an always acquiescent mainstream media, they do have significant sway in the public square. Such are examples of enemies from without. Let's now consider the enemies within, a more crucial matter.

IV. The Second Vatican Council closed at the end of 1965 and ever since the evidence is incontrovertible that the "smoke of Satan" has interpenetrated the Catholic Church: the Protestantized decimation of the liturgy à la Bugnini and company; Conciliarism and apostasy in the episcopal conferences; en masse defections from the priesthood, if many priests weren't already Marxized by Liberation Theology or riding the Proportionalist wave; scores of nuns dropping their habits, opting instead to become social workers or aficionados of New Age esoterica; feminization in the seminaries and the ascendency of the insidious Lavender Mafia; cataclysmic declines in Mass attendance; happy clappy catechesis which worked only to actuate a population explosion of "cafeteria Catholics"; manifest heresy taught at Catholic schools and universities, endorsed in Catholic newspapers and periodicals; and the proliferation of that class of mostly nameless, apostatic, lay bureaucrats: chancery office ladder climbers and layabouts, $ocial ju$tice groups robbing pew sitters blind, parish busybodies on power trips - right out of a bloody Kafka novel. And there is no question that the Gen-Xers got shafted big time after the Modernist criminals took control in the early seventies. Authentic, traditional Catholicism was stolen from them. Hijacked, they were. This writer is of that generation. Certainly not a good Catholic boy, he still remembers at Mass some hippy prancing down the aisle while jingling his tambourine. Even improperly catechized at that young, inexperienced age he thought: "This is $%@&!#& ridiculous". The Millenials who followed are effectively oblivious to the catastrophe that eventuated. Two generations lost - just like that (snap fingers).

V. Things have effectively been turned upside down in the sense that much of the Church's leadership and its piggybacking careerists actually work against the Church, loyal priests/nuns and those lay Catholics endeavouring to be faithful. To borrow Kuehnelt–Leddihn's phrase, what we have here are "alliances and connections" between parties within the Church structure having agendas at variance with the Magisterium (witness the antagonism to Summorum Pontificum) and/or favoured priorities elevated too high above the essentials (e.g. the amorphous definition poverty over and above the precise reality of abortion). What is bizarre, let alone blood boiling, is that these Hijackers of the Faith keep telling us that the Church is "vibrant", that Catholicism must be made more "relevant", despite the obvious post-Vatican II calamity delineated just above. If not deliberately operating to misdirect souls, these bureaucrats, so fearful of offending anyone, appear totally unaware to both the implosion occurring within and escalating attacks from without. Not only is Islamic persecution of Christians ramping up in the Middle East, Africa and points beyond, Western secular democracies are faster than ever enacting laws, imposing numerous strictures - all pointing in a direction to the eventual criminalization of Catholic belief with its correlated thought, word and deed. Harsh punishment soon follows, as history attests. Every day in the news - a report here or an editorial there - tells of a gradual build-up, one item at a time, of eventual all-out anti-Christian onslaught. How long before some critical threshold is reached whereupon all of Hell's ferocity is allowed to run rampant into the arena of human affairs? As during the Kulturkampf, do we see today that same heroism and willingness to fight for the Faith in our bishops? Do we see these aspects in those careerists who earn their livelihoods from whatever structure within, or association with, the Catholic Church?

VI. Not in Canada. In fact, a reversal has taken place, a veritable alternation in the Overton Window. What was 45 years ago considered Catholic "policy" is today castigated as "radical", even "unthinkable", now that the dissidents hold the reigns. So fire up some Orville Redebacher, grab a smoke, turn down the lights and draw the curtains because now we come to the main event so as to demonstrate the ongoing Canadian Catholic catastrophe. It so happened last month that crack in the space-time continuum reopened as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops held its Annual Plenary Assembly at Cornwall, Ontario (October 17-22). The city's website says that "Cornwall is a great place to live and work... check us out !" Well, then, let's do...

VII. A few days before things got going some preparatory spin was necessitated to lull Catholics into thinking happy thoughts. Who better to do that than the Star Chamber's General Secretary, Msgr. Patrick Powers? He's known at this space as the Magic Man, and for good reason. Quite a bag of tricks did he offer to dazzle and, er, misdirect. What better way to give an impression to "average Catholics" of CCCB (cough) transparency than to announce on October 12 that parts of the then upcoming plenary were to be broadcast on (oh no) Salt+Light TV? Abracadabra:
When we come together as a plenary, we get a unique view of where the church is today and where it is that our shepherds would like to lead us. I think that average Catholics in Canada have never really had a chance to even understand what goes on at a plenary meeting of the bishops or how that happens or how that takes place.[4]
Now I read this statement and think, firstly, Monsignor is a genius. Why? Because the "average Catholic" couldn't give a rats ass about the combinatorial inertness and dreariness consociated with a Star Chamber get-together. Has anyone checked Mass attendance statistics lately? A good barometer of Catholicity, yes? Circa 1990, 38% of Canadian Catholics attended Mass once a week or more, dropping to 32% from 1995-2000, declining even lower to 29% from 2005-2008.[5] There's "vibrant" for ya. Accordingly, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that most "average Catholics" in Canada are "cafeteria Catholics" more so interested, not in Sunday Mass, but rather Sunday afternoon football or the latest gossip about Dancing With the Stars.

VIII. The second thing TH2 thunk is that the Magic Man's conjuration was articulated in a way such to make it as if a real window was to be opened into the nitty gritty aspects of the meetings and discussions. In actuality, that crack in the space-time continuum was just that... a crack. No panoramic view. Nothing about the really important issues was disseminated via the techno-luvvies at S+L. Reportedly, there were 12 hours in total broadcast time.[6] So let's now take a gander at the broadcast schedule[7] to assess content. Open Sesame:
MONDAY OCTOBER 17
9:00 am - Morning Prayer and Mass
10:15 am - Opening Prayer and President's Report by Bishop Pierre Morissette of Saint-Jerome, Quebec
2:00 pm - Reflection on Sacramentum Caritatis (on the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Church's life and mission) by Archbishop Robert Le Gall, OSB, of Toulouse, France
7:00 pm - Perspectives Daily
TUESDAY OCTOBER 18
7:30 am - Morning Prayer and Mass
9:30 am - Reflection on Verbum Domini (on the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church) by Archbishop Robert Le Gall, OSB, of Toulouse, France
7:00 pm - Perspectives Daily
WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 19
7:30 am - Morning Prayer and Mass
7:00 pm - Perspectives Daily
THURSDAY OCTOBER 20
7:30 am - Morning Prayer and Mass
7:00 pm - Perspectives Daily
FRIDAY OCTOBER 21
7:30 am - Morning Prayer and Mass
11:15 am - Closing remarks by the outgoing CCCB President and President-elect, followed by the closing prayer
Goodness gracious, Catholic peoples, what's going on here inside the magical cave that is the Star Chamber? Well, let's see... First: Morning prayer and Mass all week. But one can tune into EWTN for that. Rats! You can't do that if you're a Bell subscriber. Recall: earlier this year EWTN was abruptly scratched from the Bell channel line-up and evidence points to some complicit monkey business between Bell Canada and S+L's money honey St. Joseph Communications (owned by the Gagliano family) as being the reason for EWTN's sudden departure from the Canadian airwaves. Anyhow, give each Prayer/Mass slot, say, an hour. Thus the sum is 5 hours. Second: there is Perspectives for each broadcast day, which is specifically a S+L studio program. Give 30 minutes per program. Thus the sum is 2.5 hours. Cumulative tally so far: 5 hours + 2.5 hours = 7.5 hours out of a total of 12 hours. That leaves 4.5 hours for the remaining transmission time which included two talks by Abp. Le Gall, so increase that 7.5 hour duration more so to matters not directly related to Catholic Church in Canada. The miniscule remainder pertained to the "report"/closing remarks of outgoing CCCB President +Morissette and the President-Elect, to be touched upon below.

IX. The point of that tedious breakdown? An example of the Salt+Light TV smiley face filtration process. It may be a "unique view", but it didn't cut the mustard in my baloney sandwich. Also, don't forget that the Magic Man and Salt+Light's CEO have been buddies since their days in Rome. So when we read that "the collaboration is made possible by a $250,000 investment in computers and technological infrastructure at the CCCB's Ottawa secretariat"[8] you have to wonder if the big money came from la famiglia Gagliano because, as some of you may know, S+L is the Star Chamber's spin machine. There is no real distinction between the two. It's all in the family and, considering recent controversies, this is evidential of Kuehnelt-Leddihn's "alliances and connections" that wage battle against Catholic orthodoxy. But was all that expenditure worthwhile? The CCCB website claims it received greater than 4000 hits for live-streaming and repeats at a minimum 17 minute visitation time.[9] When this blogger tuned in the video player was displaying real-time hits in the teens, so these site stats seems suspect. As of this writing, Site Analytics have yet to upload CCCB data for October 2011. I will check things out when they become available.

X. Sanitized snippets were not only served up by our pals at Salt+Light. Star Chamber headquarters also did some sterilization of its own with its issuances of briefs on subjects covered at the plenary. There was the obligatory topics of immigration[10] and, more interestingly, ecumenism. "Bishop Pierre Morissette, President of the CCCB, emphasized that ecumenism is not an option, but a mission intrinsic to Catholic identity. A number of bishops present shared the results of ecumenical dialogues in their own dioceses".[11] The oft implemented phrase I really like is "the fruits of ecumenical dialogue". You got that right. Now let's be clear on this: outside Rome, ecumenism is a multi-decadal industry that hasn't produced anything considerable in terms of bringing people in search of truth into the Catholic Church. For the shysters who thrive in this multi-national venture, it's all about "common ground" which, firstly, is a euphemism for grovelling accommodation (i.e. watered-down Catholicism) and, secondly, an excuse for some fruitless conference in Dubai with the haute cuisine, an open bar and a steady supply of Mesopotamian muffins for the guys. To repeat: a multi-decadal industry... since V2. You will recall in the New Testament that Jesus was very specific about conversion, not submission to the signs of the times. Real ecumenism (if that word must be evoked) involves, to use a prime example, the Anglican Ordinariate, initiated by Pope Benedict - and, man-o-man, do we badly need the Rome-inclined Anglo-Caths. It was an ingenious strategic move on B16's part in that he by-passed the entrenched ecumenaucracy and "went direct", so to speak. He had to. What other option was there? And the episcopal conferences, including the CCCB and friends, had nothing whatsoever to do with bringing the Anglicans back home. In fact, bishop's conferences are fighting against it. One reason is that reverent liturgy is indirectly being re-introduced to Catholics who for years have been subject to Protestantized, me-centred Masses, let alone the utter torture endured with the discordant abominations "composed" by Haugen, Haas, Shutte and the rest in that cornball outfit. If you been reading Damian Thompson's blog, The Magic Circle in the UK have been doing their darnedest in putting up roadblocks to those Anglican's desiring to cross the Tiber. As Thompson put it: "blame lies with the slow-acting Bishops of the Benzodiazepine Rite based in Eccleston Square".[12] When applied to ecumenism as such, blame can also go the inutile inexactitudes extolled by the bishops at the NavCanada Centre in Cornwall. Meetings. Discussions. Reviews. Reports. Incessant talk. Words are empty without action.

XI. One other matter before we descend into the maelstrom. It involves the "new" Roman Missal, which becomes obligatory this November 27, the First Sunday of Advent. Now I don't know about your parish, but those in my area have not provided much notification, if at all (recently, I've resorted to doing the church-search thing because liturgical abuses for parishes in my area are becoming more frequent and intolerable - but that's another story). You'd think that (at least), after Ms. Parish Tyrant got her desired applause after reading the "announcements", she'd speak about the upcoming changes. Nada. This is mentioned because one gets the impression from +Morisette's plenary address that the wheels are all greased and everything is set to go: "This is a wonderful moment in the life of our Conference - the launching of the English-language version of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal".[13] Launch it you may, yet preparation for the pew sitters was a dismay, at least in my part of town. Indeed, there appeared to be a kind of self-congratulatory revelry merely in getting the Missal completed: "All of us are proud of the new Missal that our Conference has published for the Church in Canada. Its excellence and quality..."[14] and so on. Well, if you've been reading analyses conducted by The Vox, matters aren't exactly par excellence. And lookeee here: "Among the principal suppliers [of the Missal] are the Gagliano family who own St. Joseph Communications".[15] Don't forget to add SJC's ownership of the Salt and Light Media Foundation. Hey, it's all in the family, "alliances and connections": CCCB, S+L TV... and one other acronym that rhymes. Guess who? Mark: 3, 2, 1, 0, Jump! And so we start our descent...

XII. Story time: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall... no, that won't do. Again: It was a dark and stormy night... nope. Ummm: In the beginning was the Deed... no way. Goethe's poetizing on the last 400 years of German philosophy is definitely a no no. Okay, one more time. Here we go:
Once upon a time there was a Canadian Catholic agency
Worked, it did, in the ambiguous area of "social justice".

For two score and a little more
It received unearned charitable donations
In amounts millions galore, kept in store
All the while Hippies and Marxists demanding more and more.

To help the poor and downtrodden in distant lands always was its claim
Tis came to light three years ago it had a bane
The evidence was plain to anyone sane
That Development and Peace deserved the blame.

It collaborates with groups that worship Moloch
Caring not that its actions controverted Rome
For it considers this world an immanentist home
All beneath the starry celestial dome.
Hope you will excuse that atrocious attempt at poetry. You must understand that, after three years of irrefutable evidence and CCCB inaction, poetry seems the only way to characterize the situation regarding Development and Peace's "partnerships" with pro-abortion groups. Facts don't work. Transparency exists not. D+P is still collaborating with 50+ pro-abort groups and God knows what others. It isn't saying.

XIII. So to celebrate the ending of Whitewash Year No. 3 CCCB then-president +Morrisette stated in a formal address that the plenary will - wait for it... "review and discuss... major reports", one by the "Standing Committee" for D+P. Oh my, a revelation for the ages! Then he really broke out into bureaucratic song. Segue:
I urge the members of both our Conference as well as Development and Peace to find the means to continue working together, to strengthen and improve collaboration, and to renew a common witness... I am confident that our Conference's Standing Committee will prove an effective way for us Bishops to move forward in accompanying and renewing Development and Peace in its work and mission.[16]
Just gorgeous. Artistically ambiguous. A masterpiece of circuitous enunciation. Absolutely nothing of substance communicated in 64 words. All hail circumlocution. Is the "unique view" of CCCB on-goings of which the Msgr. Powers spoke? Then we have this lovely little ditty from another CCCB brief:
The Most Reverend John A. Boissonneau, Auxiliary Bishop of Toronto and Chair of the Standing Committee on CCODP, outlined the work accomplished by the committee during its first year, including its collaboration with the Liason Committee that has been established by the CCODP National Council. Bishop Boissonneau echoed the same message of the media release... "both committees are pleased with the constructive and positive nature" of their joint efforts.[17]
Well, why no detail about these "efforts"? And speaking of "both committees", read what the Magic Man invoked just prior to last years' plenary. Hocus pocus:

Both committees have worked extremely well and they have excellent results to report... Members of the ad hoc committee were genuinely astonished at the level of complete cooperation that became evident early in their work on the part of CCODP... They will have a report for the plenary where absolutely all the issues have been looked at... something quite wonderful... [will result]... I would say the results of the reports of these two ad hoc committees will go a very long way to establishing a climate of confidence.[18]
Verbosity October 2010 equals verbosity October 2011. Nothing. Moreover, it is important not to forget the Magic Man's golden rule of escape hatches. It's something quite wonderful. Presto! ...

There will always be questions that arise, not only at CCODP but at any Catholic organization... They have to be looked at and they usually turn out to be not quite what they appear to be.[19]
To repeat: the man is a genius.


XIV. This year the Star Chamber gots a new prez. Thusly, by way of formal introduction, say hello to Mr. Big...
That would be Edmonton's Archbishop Richard Smith.[20] Image was nicked from the CCCB website. Not sure if it's an appropriate picture to put on its site. It looks as though he's operating some form of heavy equipment. If the machine is a bulldozer, it's unlikely he'll be wielding it to clear away the Nu-Church hipsters from the D+P offices in Montreal. My hunch is that +Smith will forming a circumambient earth berm at Star Chamber headquarters so as to inhibit entry of outsiders rightly suspicious of the machinations existent therein. Why is this asserted? Well, in the first place, he uses the word "vibrant": Development and Peace is "a vibrant institution that operates within our Catholic identity". Echoes of SV2-speak. Strike 1. He further claims the "vast majority of people in our country" are grateful for the "great gift" that is Development and Peace. Can this statement be substantiated? Please provide statistics to corroborate the "vast majority". Was a poll conducted? My experience is that few Catholics know of D+P, and that only by a donation envelope when ShareLife time comes around. Furthermore, don't forget the aforementioned low percentage of regular Mass attendance. If upwards of 70 percent of Catholics don't attend Mass (a vast majority), how are they to even know about D+P? Strike 2. Next, more flower talk about the never ending CCCB/D+P interactions regarding a supposed resolution to the controversy. Both are "working together very well", there is "mutual understanding", the "bishops of Canada as a whole appreciate what Development and Peace is. We want it to continue and that's the bottom line".[21] Strike 3, you're out.

XV. Yet maybe we should pause for a minute. Maybe us Taliban Catholics are overreacting. Perchance, as Mr. Big said, we shouldn't be "panicky and worried", that we should return "back to a fundamental trust in our process, trust in our structures and trust in our bishops". It would be worthwhile, he continued, "to step back and take a breath and look at gently and simply at what the bishops are asking for and simply trust the bishops and the leadership of Development and Peace to move forward on this".[22] After all, the bishops approved a national pastoral plan on life and the family at the plenary.[23] But, then, TH2 ponders: Will this plan have a real trickle-down effect into the neo-Marxist agenda of Development and Peace? Is the plan just a palliative attempt to quell outsiders that happen to be staunchly pro-life? What's wrong with being as such? We also have in the new CCCB president a refusal to approve of graphic abortion imagery at life marches.[24] Debate for and against there has been, though a shepherd going out of his way to blog his disapproval? Something not right there. Still, let's give more leeway. We should, moreover, even ruminate upon the remarks of Mr. Big's fellow posted Westerner, Calgary's Archbishop Fred Henry. Perhaps, he acuminates, D+P critics are overly subject to "hysteria", "anger" and "misinformation". Must overcome my inner Taliban Catholic and realize the "revisioning" of Development and Peace "is not going to be an easy process", that there will be "bumps in the road".[25] Fair enough. But, again, TH2 ponders: Why is +Henry saying D+P can fund its partners without the approval of the local bishop? One argument is that turmoil in the respective country/diocese disallows contact with the bishop. Seems likes an excuse more than a reason. Something not right here. What is even less right, or nefarious more specifically, is that Freddy is on record as saying it's just fine and dandy for D+P to fund pro-abort groups.[26] Really?

XVI. Okay, grinding my teeth now. But once again, overreaction perhaps. Just accept this is all an ordinary matter of internal Church affairs, the situation will eventually work its way out, "renewal" will come, the glacial pace toward full resolution is typical of Catholic politics, and that the bishops are caught in the middle. Indeed, members of Development and Peace have in the last months been complaining that, since the abortion controversy came to light, Canada's bishops have been encroaching on their "democratic" operations. Even ex-directors of D+P have accused the bishops of "draconian measures", a "total takeover".[27] My inner Taliban Catholic is subdued... almost. There is something still overriding, confirming my presentiments. Enter Star Chamber media relations director Monsieur René Laprise. Voila! Read the broadside he delivered to the Editor-in-Chief of LifeSite News:
We regret to inform you that your request has been denied and you will not be granted access to this year's meeting. The leadership of our Conference has expressed serious concerns over the manner in which positions have been taken by your organization. Our Executive Officers in turn have indicated that the CCCB Media Relations Officer should exercise caution in dealing with your organization.[28]
So there you have it. LifeSite News banned. The Devil has exposed its fangs. The Star Chamber is drawing a line in the sand and digging in. Mr. Big's bulldozer at the ready. In 2009 the CCCB was saying it wanted "frank and transparent dialogue" with LSN. Evidently, that was said to save public face, without intention of follow through if matters got to the guts. According to the Media Advisory, the Cornwall plenary "welcome[d]... accredited representatives from the media".[29] Interesting that. Think for a second, if some politician barred a particular member of the media from a press conference. Bloody murder would be screamed from the rooftops. In expected fashion, Mr. Westen took the rejection with humility. He had driven for five hours to Cornwall and, right after attending Mass with the bishops at the NavCan Centre, was notified of the rejection by M. Laprise. Reportedly, an e-mail notification was sent to him on October 14, but wasn't received, "lost in cyberspace" apparently. Nota bene: October 14 was a Friday, right before the weekend and just prior the first day of the plenary, Monday October 17. A dirty trick, downright nasty, wouldn't you say? Just imagine the smirks emanating from the lads after Mass. Just imagine the schadenfreude-inspired laughs had at NavCan's "Jet Set Pub" that night. Wonder if they toasted the event with a few bottles of Dos Equis - Stay thirsty, my friends. Corresponding perfectly to that beautifully vicious biblical phrase, what we have here is the situation of a dog returning to its vomit.

XVII. What the ban did demonstrate is that LSN's reporting is having a considerable effect. Resultantly, those dwelling within the Star Chamber's inner sanctum are getting nervous and uppity. And this effect has to do with facts. So as a counteraction an attempt is made to disqualify the facts by disqualifying LSN as a legitimate media organization, be it through diversion or vilification, which are standard countermeasures taken by the Antinomian Left whenever cornered by unassailable facts. Thus Spinmeister Laprise stated that there are "serious concerns over the manner in which positions been taken by your organization". Did you see it? Look closely: concern over position. Not the facts, which are self-evident, whether extracted from websites of groups funded by D+P or other sources. Those facts, on record, are quite plain in showing that 50+ of these groups support abortion and/or condom use. Last I recall, these are inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Let alone the undergirding Marxist ideologies of these groups. It also appears that D+P heavies dispatched members to the Catholic Register website to perpetuate falsehoods about LSN's journalistic aptitude. CR articles commonly have just a few comments per article, if at all. However, the com boxes were flooded with many pro-D+P supporters after a October 20th report on the LSN ban. Read this accusation from a certain "Paul McGuire":
Lifesite was barred from the Bishop's Conference because they have consistently shown that they are unable to convey a fair and balanced message. They are not journalists and when they compare themselves to legitimate news sources they do the Canadian media a disservice.[30]
Hmmmm. Wonder if he's associated with Development and Peace? Do you see how these types ascribe the "not journalist" label without facts, sources, references, logical deduction, reasoned argumentation or whatever? It's simply a name calling routine to render LSN's reporting as null and void because they've been caught red-handed.

XVIII. Not to diminish the transgressions against life issues, it still must be underscored that Development and Peace is a big time money operation that has rode the Vatican II wave for 40+ years. It's been a fun ride as a "charitable organization", yet this three-year long scandal is a big time threat both to its cash flow and the reputations of those in the upper echelons, who for years were - via the CanCath MSM - portrayed as champions to the poor in underdeveloped countries. We're talking millions here. A look at the Canada Revenue Agency website demonstrates the point. Total Assets: $20,329,373; Total Revenue: $29,826,259; Total Expenditures: $31,224,030, with $477,375 devoted to "Professional and consulting fees" and a whopping $6,841,409 for unspecified "Other Expenditures". Moreover, a recent report by MoneySense magazine doesn't help D+P's public face. It ranked last in "overall charity efficiency" out of the top 15 Canadian charities involved with international aid and development.[31] Speaking of big money to be had, recall that D+P asked its supporters to send money to Fr. Raymond Gravel for assistance in his $500K lawsuit against LifeSite News. If this pro-sodomite heretic wins the case, he's "willing to donate a significant amount to Development and Peace".[32] Not only this, both the English and French Canadian Superiors of the Jesuits are on board in support of D+P.[33] Recall again: "alliances and connections".

XIX. Considering the last three years complacency, and now antagonism, then, all of the CCCBs happyspeak about "renewal" is obviously a non sequitur. However pleasant sounding and supposedly humbling its appeals to the Pope and the Magisterium may seem, the apostatic Star Chamber and its collusive lackeys at S+L and D+P are obfuscating adversaries within the Roman Catholic Church. There's been some speculation about the bishops being divided over the D+P abortion controversy. Given the LSN ban, this hypothesized 50-50 split seems highly unlikely. Maybe a few bishops are uncomfortable with this situation - and other issues too, but they're not speaking out, itself speaking volumes, and it is this silence as such that is disturbing. As I've previously written, they've been de-balled by Political Correctness, certainly not interested in throwing a wrench in the Conciliarist machine. The dream is for the dismantling and dissolution of the CCCB, but that will not happen anytime soon. Responses for now appear only to be the basics: stop supporting/disseminating any proposal, program or document produced by the CCCB, cancel your subscription to Salt+Light TV, donate zero dollars when the Development and Peace envelope appears, demand a retraction of the Winnipeg Statement with whatever form of communications media, contact the nuncio or the Vatican directly (don't even try the chancery office), and wait and see if the "biological solution" is going to have any real effect. A depressing assessment, true. But what other ways are there (save prayer) to confront this 180 degree inversion, not just with respect to recent scandals, but the Canada-wide circumstance for the last 4+ decades? I'm open to suggestions.

XX. This inverse situation is so surreal that maybe an analogy can better explain. Ever seen the 1968 film The Planet of the Apes? If you remember, the storyline had it that mute humans lived in a state of servitude to a race of talking monkeys.[34] The humans are portrayed as primal hunter gatherers whereas the apes apparently formed an advanced culture. The apes lived in cities, wielded rifles, domesticated horses, established a government, law courts and institutes of learning. Also, they had a religion started by a kind of messiah. At film's start, rocket ship commander Colonel George Taylor (played by Charlton Heston) and his fellow astronauts crash land on this strange planet. Eventually, they're caught and incarcerated by the apes. Upon capture, Taylor is shot in the neck, rendering his vocal chords and thus speech useless. Accordingly, he blended in with the mute indigenous humans and so the apes assumed Taylor was mute as well. Especially fascinating about the film is the three-tier caste system. The Orangutans are the politicians, clerics, lawyers and administrators (hold power). The Chimpanzees are the intellectuals and scientists (justify power). The Gorillas are the police and military (enforce power).

XXI. Analogizing, then, the simians run the show (for now anyway) and Canadian Catholics (faithful priests, religious, laymen) are the oppressed, effectively muted, humans. Metaphorically - and for arguments sake, who would be the power-wielding Orangutans? They would be: bishops who target and ban a pro-life journalist/editor; a media outfit that snuggles up to a province's unashamedly pro-abortion Catholic Premier, that is, hoping to reap greater influence by making connections with the right people; bishops who, though without the authority, bar Communion on the tongue because of some overhyped, unsubstantiated health scare. Metaphorically, who would be the power-justifying Chimpanzees? They would be: a prominent publisher that that sells books by manifest heretics such as Hans Küng, Joan Chittister and Gregory Baum; an Ontario cleric that justifies embryonic stem cell research; the foundation that invites an atheistic, anti-Catholic bigot to lecture on the Gospel; the feminist professor at an Catholic university (with seminarians) who preaches pantheism and associated crap; the newspaper editor that prints articles in favour of women's ordination and provides a website link to the pro-aborts at Amnesty International. Metaphorically, who would be the power-enforcing Gorillas? They would be: the browbeating trustee who disguisedly implements a homosexual agenda into schools, regardless of Catholic teaching and reasoned objections from parents; the heretical priest that sues a pro-life news agency for quoting his own anti-life words; the cleric who sends numerous unsolicited e-mails to harass a blogger desirous of reverent liturgy. This is just a small selection.

XXII. Do you see? Everything is upside down. Think about it. I mean REALLY think about what's going on here. It's a nightmare, like we have crash landed on The Planet of Apes. The superstructure is collapsing all around and, except for the occasional squeak of protestation here and there, nothing is being done to prevent the immanent implosion. It's a madhouse, I tell you... a madhouse. When is that sleeping giant going to wake up?


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. Cf. M. Spahn, "Kulturkampf", The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910), vol. 8.

2. E. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1974), pp. 193-194.

3. See "Minnesota professor encourages theft and desecration of Eucharist", Catholic News Agency, July 11, 2008.

4. Quoted in D. Gyapong, "Salt + Light to offer plenary coverage", Prairie Messenger, October 12, 2011.

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

6. "Live broadcasting by Salt+Light Television, CCCB, October 31, 2001.

7. "2011 CCCB Plenary Assembly: Broadcast live on Salt and Light Television", CCCB, October 13, 2011

8. D. Gyapong, op. cit. (note 4).

9. See note 6.

10. "Bishops of Canada reflect on immigration, receive reports on CCODP", CCCB, October 20, 2011

11. "Fruits of Ecumenical Dialogue and the New Evangelization", CCCB, October 21, 2011

12. D. Thompson, "Still no London church for the Ordinariate. Why?", The Telegraph, October 12, 2011.

13. "Launching of the English-language edition of the Roman Missal", CCCB, October 18, 2011.

14. Ibid. See also "President delivers report and New English-language edition of the Roman Missal launched", October 18, 2011.

15. See note 13.

16. "Report of the CCCB President", CCCB, October 17, 2011.

17. See note 10.

18. Quoted in D. Gyapong, "Life and family issues and CCODP on bishops' plenary agenda", BC Catholic, October 21, 2010.

19. Ibid.

20. See "Conference elects new president; Archbishop of Toulouse reflects on Church's mission in New Evangelization, CCCB, October 19, 2011 and "Message by new President, Archbishop Richard Smith", CCCB, October 21, 2011.

21. Quotes taken from D. Gyapong, "Bishops express confidence in CCODP renewal", Catholic Register, October 25, 2011.

22. Ibid.

23. Cf. D. Gyapong, "Bishops approve strategy to take lead on life and family issues", BC Catholic, October 27, 2011.

24. Cf. J.H. Westen, "Alberta bishops boycott March for Life over graphic images", LifeSite News, March 17, 2011.

25. See note 21.

26. P.B. Craine, "D&P could fund foreign partners without permission of local bishop: Calgary bishop", LifeSite News, October 20, 2011.

27. P.B. Craine, "D&P ex-directors slam bishops over pro-life reforms", LifeSite News, October 12, 2011.

28. Quoted in P.B. Craine, "LifeSiteNews banned from public sessions of Canadian bishops' meeting", LifeSite News, October 17, 2011.

29. "Media Advisory, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops Plenary Assembly", CCCB, September 26, 2011.

30. Find this comment at CR's website: D. Gyapong, "D&P controversy heats up at bishops' plenary", Catholic Register, October 20, 2011.

31. See report by P.B. Craine, "D&P ranks last for 'overall charity efficiency' ", LifeSite News, July 14, 2011.

32. Quoted in P.B. Craine, "D&P supporters rally funds for Fr. Gravel in $500,000 lawsuit against LifeSiteNews", LifeSite News, October 14, 2011.

33. M.C. Hoffman, "Jesuit leadership defends pro-abortion organization denounced by Mexican cardinal", LifeSite News, June 6, 2011.

34. The Planet of the Apes film was based on the 1963 science fiction novel La Planète des singes by Pierre Boulle (1912-1994).



Share/Bookmark

01 October 2011

OUI, MESDAMES ET MESSIEURS... YOU, TOO, CAN WRITE LIKE A POSTMODERNIST INTELLECTUAL

Yum yum yum. It's Saturday night so let's have some fun.

I. A good part of what I've learned over the years about Postmodernism came from reading the literary critic and essayist George Steiner (not that there is anything we can really learn from it, but just stay with me here). His books were introduced to me by a very good friend with whom I've lost touch, many years now. Those were my university days, meaning sleep during the day and work into the late night hours at our assigned office. That is, if we weren't procrastinating, which was a common occurrence. Oftentimes we'd just consume enormous quantities of junk food and smoke like fiends, discussing everything from theology to macroeconomics to science to the streamlined biology of women. An atheist with a elevated propensity for melancholic defeatism, he nonetheless had one up on me in that this guy was a massive storehouse of knowledge and culture (coming from a highly educated, upper class family abroad). In hindsight, I now have mixed feelings about delving into the works of a self-proclaimed elitist.

II. The thing that really grabbed my attention in Steiner's writings was his emphasis on the fundamental importance of language to culture. He is also a stylistic writer, extremely so at times. His essays are chuck full intricated and confounding words that even aristocrats use only once per decade. Steiner's prose is alluring as a river flowing with quicksilver. As a speaker, he effortlessly mesmerizes the audience. Here is a little video sampling of him when interviewed for a documentary on Martin Heidegger. I've read 16 of his books. Those pertaining to language are After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, one of his more famous works, Real Presences: Is There Anything in What We Say?, Language and Silence and Extraterritorial: Papers on Literature and the Language Revolution, the latter three being essay compilations. Other notables where hours were spent reading include The Death of Tragedy, Antigones, No Passion Spent and On Difficulty and Other Essays. One of his first books, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky: An Essay in Contrast is, in my opinion, essential reading for any student of literature. Rightly, he sides with the vehement, soul-exposing Dostoyevsky. Tolstoy is too pastoral and girly for my tastes. Three books are apocalyptic in tenor: In Bluebeard's Castle: Some Notes Towards the Redefinition of Culture, a biography on Heidegger, father of Postmodernism, and Nostalgia for the Absolute, from his 1974 Massey Lectures.[1]

III. Despite his ability to dazzle with astounding feats of linguistic gymnastics, many of Steiner's ideas and propositions repulsed me. First and foremost is that he's made claims to the effect that anti-Semitism is endemic to Christianity. Not a few academics make this argument. It's an industry in some places, but that's a discussion for another day. In the context of this post, what is immediately apparent with Steiner is that he avows to be a traditionalist/conservative when it comes to high culture and it's preservation (classical music, fine art, poetry, etc.); yet at same time he approvingly quotes and references those radical thinkers whose philosophies have facilitated the abolition of Western Civilization. For example, he will praise Martin Heidegger as being the greatest philosophical mind of the twentieth century. However, Steiner is well cognizant that Heidegger was a Nazi and that his ontological existentialism is intimately associated with the Nazi weltanschauung.[2] This amoral, contradictory, even inauthentic mode of presentation is persistent throughout most of his books.[3] It is also a mirror reflection of the elemental aspects of Postmodernist thought. Praise and promotion for a treatise there will be because of a supposedly enigmatic writing style (as over substance), of subjective epiphanies, of bizarre interconnections, of free association without limitation, etc. And all this without regard to its moral and social consequences in the objective world where real people live their lives, knowingly or not, in conformance with this debilitating worldview, if it so happens to hold sway with whatever group. Note, for instance, the structural abominations "designed" by architects spellbound by Deconstructionism.

IV. In 1996 a brilliant experiment was conducted by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. He submitted a paper entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" to the Postmodernist journal Social Text. The main argument of the paper was that the scientific notion of quantum gravity was in actuality a "social and linguistic construct". As Sokal detailed in this paper:
...deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined... Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics... revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility... most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream-Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the facade of "objectivity"... It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical "reality", no less than social "reality", is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.[4]
Beautiful textual content, is it not? Mellifluent, yes? Deliciously appealing to Gunther, the thick-rimmed glasses-wearing sipper of latte's, connoisseur of Lacan-inspired interior design schemes? The paper was accepted and published. But... it was a hoax, as Sokal afterward wrote in an article for Lingua Franca magazine.

V. Inspired by the "Sokal Affair", some time ago this blogger conducted his own experiment, a kind of "stream of consciousness" test. In the blurring smoke of sophistry, I will now like to effect a self-indulgent exercise in grammatical solipsism; checking, in a way, for "presence" and meaning in language. As Steiner said in the video linked above, "Deconstruction speaks of language as an autonomous, inward turning game, as a dance around an infinity of possible meanings". In what follows I will as much as possible neglect rules, evade logic, engage in the solipsistic and the ridiculous. I will pick words, so to speak, out of nothing, ejecting the notion of continuity, direction and purpose. Essentially, I will just play like the Dadaists and "let everything go". I will be a Postmodernist intellectual.

Here is the outcome:
Notwithstanding the innate inclination of neurologically-minded denizens, who, without ruminating on the quagmire that has interpenetrated their circumflexive normalities, things have metaphorically culminated into a maelstrom of incontestibilities. Alternatively, the hyper-biological, those individuals whose externalities are devoid of stratae - and I wholeheartedly affirm the erudition of these buffoons - perpetually combat the ontological necessity of a necessary unit, thus extenuating into an apocalyptic chaos. Now, one might interject that, even though these amalgamations, these conglomerates of particularities, are withdrawn from the hiddenness of the global scheme of interconnections, they are still, without rubric, the epiphany and apex of potentialities. Predestination and the atypical meanderings that delve and suffuse within the innermost cavities of the metaphysical abyss are, indeed, the dissociates of the embedded, nominated anti-logocentrisms. However, if the roundaboutness has camouflaged the internalities of the megalopolis, it would be presupposed that the juxtapositions and circumlocutions would suffice for the post-conditioned detachments and antecedents. Moreover, the multi-dimensioned, the trinity of universals, would, perchance, scream onwards beneath, between and behind the geometrical subdivisions that are coincidentally adjacent, and therefore intermingled with, the extraordinary capacities of humanity, the befriending of consequences. Collaterally, these indiscreet problematics are tautological in the sense that they commingle with the eventualities inborn in the cranium that we label as society. The randomness of the syllogisms and hence their totalities are rendered nil. If the reader were to subsequently refute these verifications - and, indeed, the probability confounds us - it would be explicated that the implosive force of the corresponding returns would eventually rebound and enter our range of spatial cognition. This hypothesis may seem fruitless, but if we sample the denatured aspect of thrownness of the gratifying essent we sublimate into that singularity which swirls into a region contiguous to Gondwanaland. The cataclysm, the catastrophe, astound and attract us as though we defended the crushing thrust of the pluralisms of the contemporary dissidents. From this, in this, near this, and of this, we wane, we compress and decompress until the finality of the circumstance is floundered. Although, if the duality of the substance is a reflection of its existentiality, we push backwards and succumb to a plentiful notion that dwells, to the residency within the coextensiveness of being human.

Now, one asks, is this true?

Nay, I say.

Sixteen score and three years have passed, have engendered indecisiveness that detaches, that staggers the credible emblems. Lastly, and by no means eloquently, it is too late. Bypassing these actualities, and fretting alongside these buttresses, we query the naturalness of the dreaded classification and, supposedly, the subjugations that infuse into our minds. If this were subdued teleologically, we would - and I concur with this grandiosity - be baffled and compounded retrogressively. Venus and vapour, that etherealness, would make ephemerality reign in the highest sovereign mode. Saliently and, one would assume precipitously, we are disgusted to the point of an abdominal implosion. And the dissonant music of the spheres would give an unstable foundation, a structure that wavers synchronously as time diminishes. Perchance without the condition of boundedness. It follows that pornographic subliminalness and the noise humanity makes one excitable. Returning to the lowest immaterial possibility, the folly of the complicated, including that bilateral diffusiveness which is incessantly propounded, enmesh us in quietness.

Or so it would seem.
See, it's easy. Try it and then submit your work to Social Text for possible publication, or perhaps to Vox Nova, or even to the poetry section at the Prairie Messenger. And, no, yours truly was not consuming an alcoholic beverage when composing that tract. Nor was the Postmodernism Generator utilized.

Just think of all the people Joyce has hoodwinked.

Will have something more substantial up next time around. In the meantime, the reader might want to peruse my essay on Deconstructionism here.

Now it's time for a cookie. Goodnight.


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. Steiner also has some fiction: Anno Domini: Three Stories, Proofs and Three Parables and The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H., the acronym meaning "Adolf Hitler". His autobiography, Errata: An Examined Life, is one of the strangest books I've ever read.

2. See V. Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, trans. P. Burell and G.R. Ricci (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), passim; W.E. Hughes, "The People Versus Martin Heidegger", First Things, December 1993, no. 38, pp. 34-38; H. Ott, Martin Heidegger, A Political Life, trans. A. Blunden (London: Fontana Press, 1994), pp. 133-260; R. Safranaski, Martin Heidegger, Between Good and Evil, trans. E. Osers (London: Cambridge University Press, 1998), passim.

3. For a critical review of Steiner's works see B. Cheyette, "Between Repulsion and Attraction: George Steiner's Post-Holocaust Fiction", Jewish Social Studies, vol. 5, no. 3, Spring/Summer 1999, pp. 67-81.

4. A Sokal, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", Social Text, Spring-Summer 1996, no. 46/47 (Science Wars issue), pp. 217-252.

Share/Bookmark

22 September 2011

CELEBRITY RELIGIONISTS, EFFETE INTELLECTUALS AND AN ASSORTMENT OF THE DISILLUSIONED GATHER IN MONTREAL TO PROMOTE SYNCRETIST UTOPIA

I. If that title was a mouthful then let's begin with a comparably luscious sequence: "A sophisticated rhetorician intoxicated with the exuberance of your own verbosity". That quote was from the opening line in the video two posts back, a song from the popular Hindi film Amar Akbar Anthony (1977). It originates from Benjamin Disraeli's characterization of William Gladstone, but also applies - I submit - to the attendees at the Second Global Conference on World's Religions after September 11, held on September 7 in the formerly Catholic province called Quebec.
 
II. Oh ye people of the world, oh ye denizens of the universe and beings from parallel dimensions... Hip hip hooray! For they have come and they have seen and they have spoken. The jet setting glitterati, from far and wide they did travel, representing the summa of worldviews from time immemorial. Hurrah!, I cheer. And what, pray tell, were they resolved to effectuate? What magnificent scheme did they propose to break those shackles that bind humanity to a state of utter misery? Our redemption is at hand, oh little ones. Be joyful and do not weep, for this gallery of gas bags has...
Resolved that the religions of the world should come together to formulate a Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the World's Religions, which would embody their vision of human flourishing, and which would supplement the UN Declaration.[1]
Here we go again... I know this post comes late after the fact. As most of you know, I'm not a reactive, daily, quick fix blogger - though wish I could be sometimes. More so, my preference is to ruminate for some time afterward, monitor other reactions, then do the nitty gritty of analyzing, summarizing and opining. I also have the habit of writing long and condensed posts. Insufferable to many, I know. Extraneous matters also play a role in the delays. 

III. So, then, let's check out the stars of the show. Keynote speaker at the extravaganza was one Tenzin Gyatso, otherwise known as the fourteenth reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. That's right, reincarnation, as in the pagan concept of the eternal recurrence, infinite time, matter and motion. The D-Man heads up a long-running atheist philosophical movement called Buddhism. It's really Hindu heresy gone nihilistic, but don't tell anyone I said that. You might have heard Richard Gere speak about it on occasion. He's a celebrity, so he knows what he's talking about. Though what's not often talked about is that Tenzin is a self-declared Marxist. That's right, Marxist, as in dialectical materialism and atheism. I can see the atheism thing. After all, he is a Buddhist. The materialism, however, seems inconsistent with the anti-material aspects implicit to all Eastern philosophy. Last June when speechifying to a group of university students he said: "I consider myself a Marxist... But not a Leninist".[2] It created a hullaballoo in the media, though one wonders why. Short memory that it has, the MSM seems to have forgotten what Tenzin wrote in TIME magazine over a decade ago:
I went to China in 1954-55 that I actually studied Marxist ideology and learned the history of the Chinese revolution... I was so attracted to Marxism, I even expressed my wish to become a Communist Party member... Marxism talked about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much in favor of this... Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a creator or a God. That was very attractive... I still think that if a genuine communist movement had come to Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people. Instead, the Chinese communists... were not implementing true Marxist policy... the Chinese communists carried out aggression and suppression in Tibet.[3]
So there you have it. The standard mantra of the academe: Marxism didn't fail as an ideology. Rather, Communism ruined everything. Theory overrides, and any theoretically-inspired action in the economic, social and cultural spheres bear no relation to their antecedent. Words have no relation to deeds, the mind has no relation to objective reality. Thank you, Herr Faust. Thank you, Herr Kant. And did you know that Tenzin thanked the Chinese government for introducing economic freedom in Tibet? He did. Fantastical is it that anyone would be thankful to a country that forced him into exile for five decades, especially considering that the still oppressive government representatives of that same country are responsible for genocide in his homeland. Hey, whatever turns your crank or - in Tenzin's case - whatever spins his Dharmachakra. 

IV. In tow with Tenzin was a former student, Robert Thurman, father of actress Uma Thurman and, incidentally, friend of Richard Gere. Thurman, now a professor at Columbia University, was listed by TIME magazine as one of the 25 most influential Americans of 1997. Becoming disillusioned with life in the Sixties, he divorced his wife and fled to the East for some time, notably to India. He eventually converted to Buddhism, becoming a monk. The vow of celibacy was conveniently dropped when the next wife came along. There is a marked anti-American sentiment in some of his commentary as countered with a romanticization of Tibet. Funny that he is able to articulate this position from the safety and comfort of his homebase in the free, democratic United States (except until 2008, when the Americans put a narcissist into the White House). In his 1974 Massey Lectures, the literary critic George Steiner summarized the transformation that occurred for Thurman and his ilk:
The flower children wend their way to Katmandu. The scalped, saffron-robed votaries of Hare Krishna bounce down Piccadilly jingling their tambourines. The matron and the entrepreneur contemplate their delique-scent physique in the mournful stretch of the Yoga class. The joss stick softly burns under the mandala poster, the Tibetan peace sign, the prayer rug in the bed-sitter in Santa Monica or Hammersmith... a thousand students crowd to the Maharishi’s sandalled feet. We meditate; we meditate transcendentally; we seek Nirvana in suburban trances. Teenage butterballs descend upon us via Air India, proclaim themselves to be the Way and the Light, offer ineffable clichés on the healing powers of Love, and scatter petals... [This] implicit idealization of values eccentric [is]... contrary to the Western tradition. Passivity against will; a theosophy of stasis or eternal return against a theodicy of historical progress; the focused monotony, even emptiness, of meditation and of meditative trance as opposed to logical, analytic reflection; asceticism against prodigality of person and expression; contemplation versus action; a polymorphic eroticism, at once sensual… as against acquisitive, yet also sacrificial, sexuality... these are the terms of the dialectic.[4]
Thurman's works generally appeal to the non-religious from the upper middle class, celebrities, environmentalists, West Coast liberals, aging baby boomers who use Viagra and people who watch HBO. 

V. Next up is Deepak Chopra. When translated into English, his name means "charlatan who bamboozles Anglo-Saxon soccer moms". The Deepster has been around for quite some time peddling his denatured Hinduism, and making big bucks to boot. Books, videos, audio CDs, the lecture circuit, you name it. No need to purchase though. It's pedestrian to get a notion of his worldview just by scanning book titles: Creating Affluence: Wealth Consciousness in the Field of All Possibilities (i.e. Hindu version of "health and wealth" Christianity), The Conscious Universe (i.e. panpsychism), The Book of Secrets: Unlocking the Hidden Dimensions of Your Life (i.e. gnosticism), Escaping the Prison of the Intellect (i.e. irrationalism), The Soul of Leadership: Unlocking Your Potential for Greatness (i.e. Tony Robbins New Delhi style), Synchrodestiny: Harnessing the Infinite Power of Coincidence to Create Miracles (i.e. self-divination). Dapper, suave, well-spoken, he comes off as a legitimate, even profound thinker. There's a lot of stuff on the internet exposing Chopra's innumerable logical fallacies. Typing "Deepak Chopra charlatan" in any search engine is a good way to start your own investigation. For Hinduism in the raw, Swami Dayananda Saraswati was also to speak at the gathering. Though his biography seems to have been removed from the conference website. He is seen as a kind of messianic guru, as shown in this video. 

VI. Then there's Tariq Ramadan the world famous public intellectual. There's a large amount of evidence out there pointing to his connections with Islamic extremism. Note well that his grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood. He's quite the sly fellow in that he tailors his writings/talks, depending on the ideology of the group involved. And this tailoring specifically relates to his view of Mohammedism, of which there should be (he says) various kinds, e.g. "Western Islam" and so forth. Relatedly, there are shades of Gramsci's Trojan Horse methodology in Ramadan's idea of how Islam should be propagated around the globe. That is, "the interpenetrative criterion of molecular changes which in fact progressively modify the pre-existing composition of forces, and hence become the matrix of new changes".[5] Gramsci wrote that with Marxism in mind and, if one cares to review Ramadan's oeuvre, it wouldn't be a stretch to say he hopes the same for Islam. This smoke and mirrors routine has duped a fair number of people on the Left. Indeed, he's been called "the Muslim Martin Luther" by Salon magazine.[6] Although it downplays the controversy associated with Ramadan, still the New York Times admits that he has an "identity issue".[7] But the various identities of Ramadan were not lost to Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress. Not always correct but nevertheless reasonable at times, he spoke out when the Ramadan controversy erupted just prior to the conference. Making reference to another of the conference's resolutions, stating that "violating the sanctity of scripture of any religion, amounts to violating the sanctity of the scriptures of all religions"[8], Fatah responded thusly:
This is a sugar-coated attempt by Islamists to co-opt other religious leaders being asked to come here in good faith. This is another way of saying you can't criticize religion and that's a catastrophe. It's a very sad day when the Dalai Lama is co-opted into signing this. He's been duped or he's very naive.[9]
Well, Mr. Fatah, the D-Man was not duped nor is he naive. He knows very well what he's doing. Yes, the resolution is a way of saying you cannot criticize religion, but that's been the Left's stance for decades, particularly since when Trudeau and company plagued Canada with multiculturalist policies in the early 1970s. The exception to criticism is, of course, Christianity. Today, the criticism has morphed into harassment and intimidation approaching persecution. Two examples: sodomite infiltration into the Catholic school system and so-called Human Rights tribunals. 

VII. For the "Christian" contingent at the conference we had none other than our old friend Gregory Baum. This theological criminal has been at it for decades, most notably since his influential involvement with the issuance of the Winnipeg Statement (1968) when still a priest. Since that time he has written and lectured voluminously, promoting everything from women's ordination to liberation theology. Like Duracell batteries, Greg keeps on going and going and going. Sayeth Monsignor Vincent Foy: "Gregory Baum was a catalyst of dissent in Canada and elsewhere... [he] has done more to help destroy the Church in Canada than any other person".[10] Greg is also like a jack-in-the-box, popping up suddenly into the spotlight upon the eventuation of whatever cause célèbre, like the conference discussed herein. Recall that earlier this year he was a main signatory for the protest letter issued by Development and Peace as against the rejection of Fr. Luis Arriaga to speak at one of their events. Fr. Arriaga, an Armani suit-wearing Jesuit, is affiliated with the Mexican pro-abortion group PRODH. Like City TV, Greg is eeeevvvvrywhere... even at Novalis, Canada's heresy-disseminating "Catholic" publisher. Among the books it publishes is his fawning The Theology of Tariq Ramadan. You see, it appears that Greg has got a crush on Tariq. And the fact that Tariq Ramadan is a superstar to both the Left and Muslims illustrates that (unexpected) surreal alliance, between the de-Christianized liberal-relativist class and the backward theocratic worldview of radical Islamism, including the so-called "moderate" version (TH2 has a long article in draft form on Baum to be posted in future, though it requires more work). 

VIII. Now let's break it down: The speakers included a Marxist Buddhist (Gyatso), a hippy Buddhist (Thurman), a secularized Hindu gnostic (Chopra), a Hindu spiritual teacher (Saraswati), a stealth Islamic Jihadist (Ramadan) and a Marxist-inspired excommunicated priest (Baum). Jewish philosopher Steven Katz was also a speaker, though I don't much about him to comment adequately. So here we have the major religions supposedly represented. But do you notice the discrepancy? No speaker was there representing orthodox Christianity. Well, obviously. Why ruin the show? There's one fallacy of post-Vatican II ecumenism for you. Speaking of ecumenism, know that the Canadian Centre for Ecumenism was a "partner" of the conference. CCE is arm of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. No surprise there. How ya doin boys? I seeeeeee yoooouuuu. 

IX. The "Universal Declaration" has all kinds of goodies to bore you into a coma. You can read it here. There's nothing new in it that the international elite haven't already advocated in the past two decades or so. Every so often these grandiose globalist glitterati get together to tell us what they know about the world. But it's the same thing over and over and again and again. For example, there was "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic", brainchild of the now fossilizing heretic Hans Küng. It was presented in 1993 at the Parliament of the World's Religions. The goal was "to move the different faiths to reach a fundamental consensus on binding values, a moral foundation for a new global order".[11] There is also Mikhail Gorbachev's "State of the World Forum". One forum in 1995 was called "Toward a New Civilization: Launching a Global Initiative". In attendance were media mogul Ted Turner, atheist astronomer Carl Sagan, ex-priest/Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Jane Goodall of monkey worship fame. An "Earth Charter" was instituted, giving "a new ethical and legal basis and a new code of conduct for all nations".[12] "Universal Declaration", "fundamental consensus on binding values", "code of conduct for all nations" - it's all the same: dogmatic global secular humanism, regardless if the word "God" is invoked or not.  

X. Such charters or resolutions or declarations or whatever are reiterations of utopianism whose spirit is not that dissimilar from the Enlightenment philosophes. Now the endeavour to reach this idealistic state of affairs requires a unifying factor, something that will bring the world's peoples together, some all-encompassing philosophy, some worldview. To date no one culture, no one nation or empire, no one race, no one ethnicity, no proposed "system of the world", not the wonders of science, have been successful at this. If any of these gained prominence in the past, conditions were shortlasting, achieved only through power and might. What is actually needed to unify is that transcendent X, something singular and really transcendent, not a false transcendence that is actually a blissful "this world" immanence, of which the "Universal Declaration" is an epitome (see my post here for further commentary on this subject). Yet no matter how hard they try, no matter what these self-proclaimed "legatees of the religious heritage of humanity" say, they still have not a universal principle, so to speak, objective, absolute and really transcendent upon which to make an ultimate reference. This is one reason why the conference's Second Resolution reads: "violating the sanctity of scripture of any religion, amounts to violating the sanctity of the scriptures of all religions". Not only is this statement the rotten fruit of multiculturalism, it is expressive of a counterfeit attempt at unification of the world's religions. Specifically, it is code for Relativism. No one philosophy or worldview, no one religion can be true, they self-righteously declare... as a truth! Is not truth singular? Laughable is this persistent violation of the principle of non-contradiction. 

XI. Solely excluded from all these "delusions of grandeur" or "visions of splendor" (take your pick) is the Catholic Church. The reason is self-evident. Said Belloc: "She is unique and at issue with the world".[13] Despite Greg Baum the heretic, why was there not present an orthodox Catholic at the conference? Was it not due to the universal disdain for the universalizer that is Rome? Thus the Enlightenment-inspired broadside fired by T.H. Huxley: "Our great antagonist, the Roman Catholic Church, the one spiritual organization which is able to resist, and must as a matter of life and death resist, the progress of... civilization".[14] Correct on the "antagonist" aspect, incorrect on the resistance to progress. The preservation of cultural treasures (e.g. by the Medieval abbeys during the barbarian invasions), the experimental method in science, the concept of the distinction between Church and State (cf. Matthew 22:21), aiding the poor, hospitals, universities, classical music, the full realization of selflessness and freewill - where the hell did Huxley think these originated? From the metahistorical catastrophe inaugurated by Luther? Just like Huxley, the speakers at the Second Global Conference on World's Religions are adversarial to the Catholic Church, knowingly or not, innocently so or not. And this whole idea or spirit of a "Universal Declaration" in regard to the world's religions is nothing but a pale immanentized imitation of what has always been existent and workable within realm of the Catholic Church. Whatever one may think of Hans Urs von Balthasar's works, he was nevertheless prescient when he wrote: "The world-wide unity of religions is being hammered out on the anvil of Catholicism".[15] 

NOTES / REFERENCES 

1. "Resolutions" for the 2nd Conference on the World's Religions, September 7, 2011. 

2. Cf. T. Namgyal, "Dalai Lama: 'I Am a Marxist, But Not a Leninist'", Religion Dispatches, June 8, 2011. 

3. The Dalai Lama, "Long Trek to Exile for Tibet's Apostle", TIME, September 27, 1999. 

4. G. Steiner, Nostalgia for the Absolute (Toronto: CBC Enterprises, 1983), pp. 44-45. Originally published in 1974. 

5. A. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, ed./trans. Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), p. 109. Sidebar: there are reports that Gramsci had a deathbed conversion to Catholicism. 

6. See P. Donnelly, "Tariq Ramadan: The Muslim Martin Luther?", Salon, February 15, 2002.

7. I. Buruma, "Tariq Ramadan Has an Identity Issue", New York Times Magazine, February 4, 2007. 

8. Second Resolution. See note 1. 

9. Quoted in K. Seidman, "Conference on religions sparks split before it starts", Montreal Gazette, September 6, 2011. 

10. Cf. V. Foy, "Tragedy at Winnipeg", Challenge, vol. 14, 1988. 

11. See Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, USA, September 4, 1993, 15 pp. 

12. See M.J. Anderson, "Dissidents in the Global Village", Crisis, May 1997, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 26-28, 32-33. 

13. H. Belloc, Survivals and New Arrivals, The Old and New Enemies of the Catholic Church (Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1992), p. 93. Originally published in 1929. 

14. Quoted in F.J. Sheen, Philosophy of Religion, The Impact of Modern Knowledge on Religion (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Incorporated, 1948), p. 63. 

15. H.U. von Balthasar, "Anthropology and Religion" In: ed. A.R. Caponigri, Modern Catholic Thinkers: An Anthology (New York: Harper & Row Publishers Incorporated, 1960), p. 22.

Share/Bookmark