I disagree with Voris’ in my eyes too extreme vision: Civilisation is practically at an end, abortion is not going to go away, the country is in the grasp of evil, & Co.
If you ask me, life is battle and there has never been an age where it wasn’t, and in a tragic way I feel privileged in being able to fight a fight many of my predecessors were spared from having to fight. God acts in mysterious ways.
Still, Voris is in my eyes spot on in saying that the 40-years long silence of the Church was certainly instrumental in what we are seeing today, and I think a process must be started now which might be very long in coming, but must be started anyway. The condemnation of the Guffawing Cardinal after 10:00 is certainly well-deserved, and the attitude epitomises everything that must be changed.
Catholic instruction and the support of sound priest must be the start of the answer, but in the long term the change can only come when the Pope starts appointing real men instead of frightened boys as Bishops.
I would have thought the possibly incoming persecution might wake them up, but I doubt it. Persecution will hit those faithful priests who have the gut to resist to the point of inviting persecution; the majority will bow to whatever attack, and find excuses for that.
I will write my thoughts on single aspects of the election by and by, as the matter is too complex to be tackled in one post.
I would like to remind anyone of the beautiful words a famous Italian prosecutor pronounced when he retired:
“Resistere, resistere, resistere!”
The petition is here.
I have just read it and I am shocked at the (how was the word? Oh yes) cowardice of Cardinal Dolan.
The best explanation of why you should sign the petition is in this Michael Voris Video.
Cardinal Dolan is called to lead the Church through very difficult times.
If he starts licking the plates of the enemy, there isn’t much hope.
With this video, Michael Voris reaches a new height of political incorrectness. What is more surprising, he quotes from the great, Venerable Fulton Sheen to explain his argument.
This video must be a consolation to all those among you who, when they talk about religious issues with friends or family, are called “hateful”. I personally always thank when people call me “intolerant”, but perhaps I should start thanking them when they call me “hateful”, too?
Be it as it may, of one thing I can bear testimony: those who react to every complaint about how our Christian values are going to the dogs with vague platitudes about the necessity to show how joyful we are, be understanding of every perversion, and inclusive of every scum, do not care two straws for the values they are supposed to protect.
A post – very recently published – about Padre Pio also brings this point home: this was a man unable to keep his calm – better: to refrain from explosions of anger – when either communism or homosexuality were touched.
But what a great saint he was.
Truly: if you love, you hate.
1. Protestantism is the exaltation of the individual
2. Consequently, Protestantism makes of the individual the one who decides about what is Truth.
3. As a result, sooner or later Protestant communities start to separate themselves from traditional theological truths; the first dramatic example was contraception.
4. This had to happen at some point, because when personal opinion becomes the final authority of scripture interpretatio the temptation to interpret Christianity as it is convenient is unavoidable; of course, after
6. a convenient rationalisation, with this or that scripture passage taken as excuse, or convenient passepartout like “love”, “tolerance” and “inclusiveness” used to re-write each and every rule. This in the end leas to
7. a completely self-centred system of ethics which, in the end, is nothing else than atheism.
Voris explains in just a few minutes the slippery slope leading from bibliolatry to error to atheism.
Enjoy the video.
Interesting reflections from Michael Voris, pointing out to the enemy within.
Personally, I would like to add a couple of observations:
1) As far as I know, the term “homophobia” was coined in decades past in the medical community to describe the hate homosexuals have for themselves. This might or might not be true, but it cannot be denied one of the plagues coming with this perversion is an extremely strong despise of self, which in itself leads to high numbers of suicides, psycho-somatic diseases, and the like. It also leads, if you ask me, to a desperate need of a stage providing them with public approval, which is why so many homosexuals end up in the entertainment industry, or in politics.
2) I am not entirely sure Voris does homosexuals a favour when he calls their affliction a “cross”. Yes, of course it is a cross in the same way as pedophile tendencies are “a cross”, but to me a “cross” is rather something one can’t do anything about, and must carry because it is the Lord’s will that he does. Say, a mother bears the cross of her son deceased in Afghanistan, or of a disease: there is no remedy to the evil, and the cross must be born as one can.
I this case, the use of the word “cross” might engender the (utterly wrong) impression that God makes people pervert, and they have to bear the cross because hey, there’ s no remedy to it, they’re born that way.
I think this is not the way Voris thinks, but wanted to point out to it because in the strange and disturbing times we live the step between being charitably concerned for one’s wrong tendencies and justifying one in his being homosexual is rather short.
Once again: God makes no one pervert. It might be that someone has acquired this perversion in early years, but this cannot have happened in an involuntary manner. One becomes homosexual in the way one becomes pedophiles: not listening to, and going against, the natural law God has planted within him as in everyone else.
I thought I was an unapologetic man, but this is truly good…
I was made aware, some time ago, of the televised debate between Cardinal Peel and that man Dawkins. I started to listen to it but I couldn’t go on once I realised it was the usual vulgar televised debate with the mob cheering and booing. I was, in fact, surprised a Prince of the Church (more importantly: one on the right side)would consent to such a circus instead of making clear the matter between faith and atheism is a) not subject to debate, and b) not subject to booing anyway.
It turned out, though, something worse than this happened. For reasons unknown to me – and frankly astonishing – Cardinal Pell seems – as you can see in detail from the description given in Michael Voris’ video above – to have express some kind of tolerance of understanding for homo-relationships.
Whilst he was cut and the listeners couldn’t hear his reasoning to the end – which alone tells you what kind of “debates” these are – more worrying is the fact the Cardinal didn’t feel the need to say what he meant afterwards.
Now, yours truly is a simple and stubborn person. If he knows some teaching belongs to the deposit of faith, and some debater of him points out the Pope has just said the contrary, I will just answer “than the Pope was wrong on this matter”, and that’s the end of it. But not everyone is so simple, or so stubborn, as your truly, and when a well-known conservative prelate like Cardinal Pell is taken in off-side they might well be confused.
Voris does, as almost always, an excellent job by reminding everyone that no matter how popular a conservative Cardinal you are, when you’re dead wrong you’re dead wrong; he gently suggest the Cardinal should say a word or three on the matter.
I think he’s absolutely right, and I think the Cardinal owes an explanation not only to the faithful Catholics all the world over, but to himself.
Interesting video from Michael Voris, and as it has been a while since I have commented this most worthy defender of Catholic orthodoxy, it might be useful to add to his words a couple of personal considerations.
1) Voris is surprised people outside of the United States are so interested in American matters; the fact is, many Americans do not perceive how keenly American matters are followed all over the world, just because they cannot have a direct perception of how people all over the world understand American matters have a direct reflection on their own country, and on their own life. In November, TV senders from all over Europe will report on the election live, all night, with the most prestigious journalists and commentators, and people from all European countries will spend either the entire night, or a part of it (some prefer to be early risers; others late sleepers) in front of the TV following the event. Very simply, what happens in the US affects us in Europe or elsewhere, whether it is cold war or “environmentalist” policy or the invasion of a Middle-Eastern country or a conflict with the local Church.
2) Voris seems not to make any secret of the fact that to him the American Generalissimo is not Dolan, but Burke. Actually, by explicitly praising Burke’s orthodoxy in pre-HHS mandate times he seems to stress the fact Dolan’s fighting spirit seems to be a rather recent event, his past being better known for the homo masses he still continues to allow in his own courtyard.
3) It is, though, not to be denied this confrontation is putting Dolan very much on the centre stage, providing him with a worldwide audience and a chance to write history, with all this implies when, well, the current Pope is 85… I do not want to say or hint this is part of Dolan’s calculation; I simply notice this as a matter of fact.
4) Voris mentions Cardinal Burke’s very strong intervention – and certainly very atypical in a man of the Curia – about which I have also written. At times I have the impression Burke & Co. not only want to strenghten Dolan’s shoulders, but also make it more difficult – or impossible – for him to try to reach some compromise the more conservative part of the Curia would not look at with favour. Burke’s insistence not only that a) there will be no compromises, but that b) in doing so Dolan & Co. are doing nothing more than their duty seems to me to at least open the door to this interpretation.
Yes, the next Pope might well be American; and in that case, there’s no doubt as to whom Voris would prefer.
I must say I share his feelings.
Dear reader, you may find the Michael Voris video above of interest to you.
There are several interesting point there: about the first (how many Americans still believe Obama a Muslim, or not a Christian) I notice after many years it can’t be said anymore such answers are in the main influenced by ignorance (= not knowing what Obama says on the matter), but largely on reflection (= not believing what Obama says on the matter). I can’t say Obama cares a lot for that, but I think it can fairly be said the nation listened, and drew its conclusions.
The second is that I envy a country where so many still have the guts of wondering whether their President is a Christian. The German have a Kanzler(in) who grew up in a communist country, from an idiot who had already completely confused belief in God and social justice; this woman has no problem whatever with open homosexuality, but she thought the best way to power was to call herself Christian, so the country at large doesn’t even wonder whether she is one (tip: they don’t do it because if they did, they should wonder how Christian they are themselves, a topic they’d rather set aside).
The third is (and I have touched this issue rather often) the progressive deterioration of the definition of “Christian” in the Western world and even – though in clearly lesser measure than in Europe – in the United States. Voris’ quotes of Obama about Jesus being such a wonderful teacher and “mediator” (a definition, by-the-by, with which every Muslim would enthusiastically agree) and at the same time not raising questions among two-thirds of the electorate.
Still, I am very thankful to the other third. I wish such a vast number existed in Europe. At least as far as Northern Europe is concerned, I can’t say this is the case.
We live in a world where a President of the United States (who is clearly far less intelligent than his supporters believe, but not a moron) expresses his “Christianity” is a view compatible with both Islam and the secular society, and two third of the population allow him to get away with it. And where, I must say with great sadness, many leaders of the Western world are not even requested to prove their Christian identity, or do anything at all to upheld Christian values.
Christianity by hearsay.
Among us Catholics, I blame Vatican II.
Absolutely spiffing commentary of Michael Voris on Adolf Hussein Obama’s notorious speech at Notre Dame.
The last part is the best.
Very intelligent and perceptive video from Michael Voris. He examines the difference between the Anglo-Saxon countries (I include the UK), where the Catholic hierarchy has been occupied for decades with appeasing the Protestants, and Continental Europe, where the Catholic hierarchy has been occupied for decades with appeasing everyone, that is: mainly Catholics. And in fact, a European landing in the US would immediately notice the strong religious feeling still present there, at least compared with the standards he knows. Similarly, a Continental European moving to the UK would clearly notice how protestantised Catholicism has become, when compared to what he sees in traditional Catholic countries.
Voris expresses some intelligent concepts:
a) Protestantism leads to atheism. This is particularly evident in Europe, where one and a half generation of Communism could only scratch the surface in the religious feeling of Catholics – whose religious faith is now coming back with a vengeance, see Poland, Hungary – but completely annihilated Protestantism, that has been wiped out as religious belief from, say, the former DDR and has become nothing more than an embarrassed talk about social justice by people in funny clothes.
I had wished to hear such words from Pope Benedict during his recent visit in Germany. Alas, we got a visit to Luther’s sanctuary in Erfurt instead. Mala tempora currunt.
b) Atheism doesn’t develop overnight. It is rather the result of a gradual process, where the failure to transmit the truths of the faith leads to a slippery slope gradually ending in the cessation of the faith in God. Once again, I’d say that the empirical evidence confirms this analysis, and the only ones who can’t see it are the priests of the V II generation.
c) The solution of the problem is to rediscover Catholicism. Which seems easy to say, but implies the rejection of that protestantised “do not judge”, “love and do what you like”, “heart in the right place”, “provided you believe in God you’ll be fine”- mentality that is the standard fare of so much of nowadays Catholicism in the UK; if not explicitly so, certainly in the message that it is desired the sheep take home with them.
As I have opined very often, the problems of Catholicism are largely self-made. They are the product of five decades of self sabotage planned and executed from the Catholic Clergy, in what might well be the most insidious – if not the most spectacular – attack moved by Satan to the Church of Christ in these last two thousand years. It is, in my eyes, pure folly to say that the diffuse secularism of the modern world is the fruit of its unprecedented wealth. The United Stated is the most powerful, and its citizen among the wealthiest on the planet, but the religious feelings there are still rather strong. Similarly, we all know people who are very rich and strongly religious, and people who are poor and atheist.
Faith is nothing to do with wealth, it is about being properly instructed.
Rediscover Catholicism. This is the only way.
Michael Voris will soon be in London again; and again, he will polarise and cause controversy with his, well, rather outspoken communication style.
This is not after many people’s taste, particularly in England. There are certainly many who consider him too outspoken, too explicit, too harsh in his criticism – directed at clergy as well as non-Catholics – and, basically, not nice. Therefore, they don’t like him.
The key to understanding Voris – and, I think, many of the more outspoken bloggers out there – is that not being English, they don’t give a damn about being liked. In times of scandalous corruption within and without the Church, you can’t say things in a halfway effective way and be liked. You’ll have to choose whether to be liked – and largely ineffective – or making an impact and being disliked by very many and called many names – “uncharitable” being my favourite, closely followed by “homophobic” -.
Voris gets it. He seems blessedly immune from this (very British, but rather Anglo-Saxon, too) idea that one must be “nice” in order to be taken seriously or, more importantly for some, being invited to afternoon tea, which is then called being “relevant”. His message is simple, straight, brutal. It gets actually – and fortunately – more brutal as the months go by, with the language getting more explicit (note how the word “gay” has been in the last months largely replaced by the vastly more correct “homos”).
In my eyes, Voris has laid bare the root of the diseases that has almost killed the Church in the last fifty or so years: niceness, and desire to be accepted. If you want to be nice you’ll have to accommodate to the whims and desires of the world, and you’ll end up bowing to its ideology whilst you pretend to want to reform it. I have pointed out to this very recently, speaking about the bishop who feels obliged to say that opposition to so-called same-sex marriage is “his opinion”.
His opinion, my aunt. truly, what has the world come to.
It might well be that in former times, when the Church had a stronger grip on society, one could – perhaps! – afford the luxury of being a bit softer, and still being listened to. But we can’t compare. In a society where most people consider abortion a given – and, make no mistake, most bishops too, may God have mercy on their souls, as well as on mine whilst he’s there – you’ll not make many inroads by gently whispering your – if you may say so, in your opinion, and present company excepted – polite disagreement with it. You must call abortion for what it is: genocide, and you must call those who stay silent accessory to a genocide.
The same argument goes for the rest of Christian life: I had written very recently that it is high time to start stigmatising divorced people again. I expected a load of insults of the British sort: “you can’t say this, because I am divorced”; “harsh”, “uncharitable” or the like.
Nothing happened. I blame the summer.
Yes, this attitude means having to spread adrenaline around instead of saccharine, but the saccharine is what almost killed the Church and so the adrenaline seems rather welcome.
How Voris reaches the heart of the problem is demonstrated by the vast number of personal attacks you can read against him on the Internet: from the alleged toupet to “the way he rotates his pen”, his detractors show a great attention for irrelevant details.
All this doesn’t mean to say that I always approve of what he says. I remember some questionable “vortex” videos about homosexuality, forms of government, or Father Corapi that in my eyes would have profited from a bit more of reflection and rephrasing. But no one can be always right, or approved by everyone.
Still, I think it is fair to say that Voris’ first sin in the eyes of most of his detractors consists in his basic policies of not giving a damn for being liked, and not giving a damn for being nice.
Oh for bishops and priests like him! Oh for bishops and priests speaking with half his directness!
It there had been more Vorises around in the past decades, particularly but not only among the clergy, we wouldn’t need this debate about Voris now.
He is around, because they weren’t.
With his usual refreshing language, Michael Voris examines in the video above the present situation of the Church in the United States.
What is clearly to be understood by his message – even if not explicitly said – is that in the same way as liberals must be thrown out from the position of power they hold in universities and the like, they must also be thrown out from…. around three-quarter of the US bishop’s thrones. Whilst he himself calls for a more decisive action from the – minority of – orthodox and sincere bishops, it is clear that a spring cleaning is not to be expected, and the biological exit the most likely outcome. In the meantime, the orthodox one must become more and more vocal, minimise the damage made the liberals, purge their own dioceses of liberal influence and create a climate more favourable to the appointment of orthodox bishops; which should go without saying, of course, but such are the times…
The Church of today reminds one of Tolkien’s Rohan: dramatically weakened, largely decayed and massively infiltrated by numerous Grima Wormtongues working at her destruction; but still mighty and able to properly wake up to duty and battle, when the spell of post V II liberalism and Neo-Modernism has been cast away.
This is the “Vortex” dedicated to the strange – though rather transparent in its intentions – initiative of the WYD organisers.
The video largely repeats what was already said in the message from Real Catholic Tv that has been the object of another post. Still, there are two new elements that are, in my eyes, extremely important:
1) it is the first time that something like this happens; and
2) the same need hasn’t been felt for other alleged “Catholic” groups planning the distribution of condoms or other activities in clear contrast with the Church’s teaching.
It seems, therefore, rather clear that what has happened here was a thinly disguised attempt to discredit Voris’ troops, whilst the usual “progressive” dissenters are left, as usual, largely undisturbed.
If they really want to damage true and sincere Catholics, I would suggest to the organisers of the World Youth Day that they try to do it in a less stupid way as it might be at least a bit entertaining. What they have done is, instead, simply pathetic.
This is the answer of Real Catholic TV to the “clarification” issued about their role in Madrid. Emphasis mine.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 26, 2011
REALCATHOLICTV.COM THANKS UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS FOR CLARIFICATION ON ROLE AT WORLD YOUTH DAY
SOUTH BEND, IN – The faithful who work at http://www.realcatholictv.com would like to thank the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for drawing attention to our existence and scheduled contributions to the upcoming World Youth Day events to be held in Madrid, Spain, as well as the launch of its new pilot program striving to address tough issues concerning sexuality and morals facing Catholic youth today, http://www.nobullinmadrid.com.
While we regret that some assistant to the Secretariat for Laity of the USCCB has not given us her approval “to participate in the cultural program”, we prefer to rely upon the higher authority of Our Lord Himself, and an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church as it does what it can to increase the authentic Faith and Morals of the Catholic Church:
“The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ’s Mystical Body through Baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord Himself.” Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, Apostolicam Actuositatem, 3.
For every press release that is issued mentioning our existence, more and more tangible interest in http://www.realcatholictv.com is generated on the part of ordinary Catholic faithful simply seeking straightforward information on just how to be really Catholic – not only in word, but more importantly in deed, which all too often is lacking on the part of some Dioceses in too many parishes to the grave detriment of souls. For the significant increased attention drawn to the exclusive on-line product found on http://www.realcatholictv.com, we are very grateful.
The faithful at http://www.realcatholictv.com are in full compliance with the universal norms of the Code of Canon Law, the universal legislation of the Roman Catholic Church, which in no canon muzzles ordinary Catholic faithful from using themselves on the web as genuine instruments of dissemination of Catholic principles. To the contrary, the Second Vatican Council calls upon every single Catholic to do his or her share to build up genuine observance of authentic Catholic Faith and Morals, which we only strive to achieve in a concrete and updated format resonating with the youth of today.
To learn more about us, check us out at http://www.realcatholictv.com, and http://www.nobullinmadrid.com. Press and other Media are invited to contact Ms. Susan Vance, Director of Communications, directly at 248-545-5716, or by e-mail at email@example.com
Very light-hearted, but spot on.
The organisers of the World Youth Day have issued a press release saying that Michael Voris, whose Real Catholic TV will organise an event in Madrid in the same days, is “not approved” by them.
This is rather strange as never has Real Catholic TV ever meant that it is. In fact, in order to talk about Catholicism whenever you please you don’t need to be “approved” at all.
The declaration has, therefore, the same content of truth and at the same time the same profound meaning as to say that “in Madrid, July can be pretty warm”.
In my eyes, only one of the two may have happened:
1) someone among the organisers of the WYD loves to state the obvious, or
2) someone at the WYD loves to try to put Voris in a bad light.
As it often happens in these cases, though – proving once again that the PR men of the Church aren’t among the most brilliant – the non requested and fully unnecessary operation of distancing themselves from Voris has only managed to give him more exposure. Curious about the event, I have googled a bit and have discovered that the initiative has its own website.
Now, I personally find the site adolescent to the point of being almost cretinous, and think that even modern teenagers can cope with more serious information, presented in a more serious way. Still, not only I find the initiative very good in itself, but I feel the moral obligation to advertise the site after the organisers of the World Youth Day have felt the moral obligation to tell us that it is not approved by them.
Perhaps some video will be made available after the event, which makes the site worth keeping an eye on.
A great deal of excitement about a Michael Voris’ video concerning the beautiful song, “Amazing Grace”.
It seems to me that Voris is being unjustly criticised.
If you listen carefully to the video, Voris is not objecting to the song being sung by a Catholic. What he objects to, is the song being sung in Catholic churches, during Mass. I do not think we can blame him for this. Irrespective of every theological discussion about what is Protestant and what is not, it is a matter of common sense that a song whose theological content is questionable is better not sung during Mass. With two thousand years of musical and liturgical tradition at our disposal, the need is just not there.
In this respect, “Catholic answers” has the following Q & A:
Q: I’ve heard that the Protestant hymn “Amazing Grace” has lyrics that may not be in keeping with Catholic teaching. Which lyrics are ambiguous, and how they can be understood incorrectly?
A: “Amazing Grace” was written by the eighteenth-century Anglican sea-captain John Newton (1725–1807) in response to his conversion by grace from his life as a slave trader. These lyrics express his moment of conversion: “How precious did that grace appear / the hour I first believed.”
While not directly contrary to Catholic teaching, this lyric stands in tension with it because it appears to envision entry into the state of grace following the advent of belief, with no mention of the sacraments (in other words, in a “faith alone” fashion).
This sentiment can be reconciled with Catholic teaching because the grace of conversion indeed can be given at certain hours, causing a person to repent of a previously sinful life and re-embrace faith in Jesus Christ.
So, “Amazing Grace”: a) it can be “reconciled”, but it stays “in tension”, and b) it is clearly inspired by Protestant thinking, but can be accepted – with a different interpretation – from a Catholic one.
Makes sense to me.
Of course, one might say that Voris is inflating the matter, and seeing “ecumenism” where there is possibly only appreciation for a beautiful song; one might also say that, at times, his laudable zeal leads him to be a bit over the top (“dress like Protestants”. What?). I must also say that “wretched sinner” is how I would define myself most days, and how I would most certainly feel if I were to kick the bucket in the next three seconds and to realise the extent of the offense my sins have created. But all in all, it seems to me that the excitement is not justified.
In the end, I’d say that Voris’ video has two messages, which are merely underpinned by the “amazing grace” argument which, as he says, is merely a symbol (or a symptom) of something else:
a) that the older generation of Catholics has been protestantised in greater measure than those coming from traditionally catholic Countries in central America, and a dangerous anti-Catholic theology has taken hold in the consciousness of many of them.
b) that the singing of “Amazing Grace” happens “under the banner of accommodation” to non-Catholics.
One can disagree with these points, but it seems to me that they are the real message of the video, and the example chosen by Voris just a concrete way of explaining the manifestation of the problem.
Michael Voris is a rather trenchant type (I like that); at times, I have the impression that he sets the accent on the wrong matters, or on matters that do not deserve such a heavy foot on the gas pedal; I can’t say that I always follow the logic of what he says (see above, in matters of dressing); but all in all, thank God for Michael Voris and Real Catholic TV.
Brilliant post of Michael Voris about a strange, but probably not so unusual experience in Ireland. In this once most Catholic of countries, a non-baptised non-believer starts to see the light and to have a vague idea that the Church might be right. But in his understandable desire to deepen the matter he is confronted with a solid wall of common places, rather meaningless truisms and desire not to offend anyone (in Italy we call it buonismo, “good-ism”). Even his Catholic friends can’t really help him, because whilst their intention are good, their instruction is bad and they are therefore unable to adequately articulate and explain their faith.
We have here so much of what is going on all over the West: a great desire of spirituality, to which the Church’s shepherds react with such a load of politically correct platitudes that this desire is, to all intents and purposes, negated.
I smile when I hear that the troubles of the Church are due to the fact that society has grown “materialistic”. This utterly ignores the army of people now looking at oriental religions, or at other strange spiritual movements. They do so because the kindergarten, “Dalai Lama-cum-Mandela” Christianity that has been imparted to them was of such self-defeating stupidity that they do not even imagine what beauty and greatness real Christianity has. When your local priest or vicar goes on all day saying the same shallow platitudes you simply lose faith in the ability of the shop to teach anything meaningful to you. When the only value a priest or vicar can impart is the one of “tolerance” and/or “niceness” it is obvious that this person has absolutely nothing to say, and the BBC can easily take his place.
The Church has filled her ranks with inept shepherds unable to transmit the message and meaning of Christianity and, in many cases, probably not even aware of them anymore themselves; the Anglicans and Methodists have done much worse and I doubt whether others, like some Episcopalians, can still be called Christians. As a result, the need for spirituality – which has always been there, and will always be there; even when not properly fostered – has lost itself in a myriad of small creeks rather than finding rest where the Truth lies.
For the last fifty years, the Catholic clergy have done everything possible to blabber the Church out of existence whilst they felt so “hip” and “with it”. The attempt has, predictably, failed, but not without leaving a huge trail of destruction. It is now time to start reconstructing what has been destroyed, and in my eyes the reconstruction must start whence the decadence started: the bishops.
P.s. on a lighter note: the clear attempt of the street cleaner to stop the advancement of Catholicism at 5:00 has been valiantly stopped…
The way language influences the political discourse is always a fascinating thing to behold.
I grew up in Italy, where the adjective fascista was considered the height of the offence if you were a leftist and, as a reaction, a statement of coolness for young people who were conservatively oriented. “Fascist, that new sweater of yours!” we would say to congratulate his or her owner; “Is this your new car? Fascist!” [the car]; “where do you go today, all beautifully fascist?” (“where are you going today, as you are so well-dressed and all trimmed?”). The same word was used, even if deprived of a political connotation – there was no implication whatsoever that the owner of the sweater was, politically, a Fascist – as an insult or a compliment.
The same happens, I think, with the word “gay”, used by a tiny minority of perverts and leftist to refer to homosexuals, and from a much larger percentage of the population – which, incidentally, tells you something about the lay of the land on the matter – as a synonymous of either disgraceful effeminacy, or outright dumbness and stupidity. As in Italy, the expression “did you really buy a Prius? Oh, this is so gay!” does certainly not imply that the unfortunate buyer of such a (say) crappy, useless, inefficient, PC vehicle is a troubled soul; but one gets the message anyway.
True battles are fought around the use of such words, because words are powerful weapons. The word “gay” was once a way homosexuals referred to each other, but has now become their flag. They want to decide whether the word “gay” was used in a way they approve; they refuse to be called in any other way that has not been officially approved by them (the one with the many initials is an example). They want to control the way they are called, because this in turn defines the way they are perceived. Therefore, not even homosexual is good enough nowadays; whilst perfectly correct, traditionally used words like “pervert”, “sexually deviant” and “sodomite” are clearly taboo.
The Conservatives have acquiesced to this for too long, and this subservience must stop.
It is time to admit that the liberals have been much better at playing the language game than the conservatives; that too much ground has been given away and it is now the time to take it back; that the use of words is an important battleground in the wars about social issues. That if you stop calling one what he is, you’ll allow him to cover the issue. Once again: would you call zoophiles “smart” because they insist on you doing so and claim to be oh so horribly, horribly hurt if you don’t? Nor would I….
A litmus test for this is Italy. Italy is a country blessed with a strong resistance to political correctness and language manipulation. As I have stated, the attempt of the left to demonise Fascism has been countered by applying the adjective to cool things and people; the word “gay” is used in an extremely ironic way; very few people (only the reddest around) shun from the use of very clear words to define sexual perverts, from the educated “invertito” and “omosessuale” to the fairly coarse “frocio” to the very common “checca” (a diminutive of Francesca, a female name) to the even more subtle “Marisa”; and attempts to change the reality of things (“non seer” instead of “blind”, “alternatively able” instead of “disabled”, and others) have been already abandoned, sunk by the loud laugh of the entire country. In short, the resistance of the Italians to language manipulation makes it more difficult to proceed to opinion manipulation, and vice versa.
It is high time that the Italian example is followed abroad. No more acquiescence to the homos’ language terrorism. No more calling them the way they want to be called, but rather calling them what they are. Language is powerful. You can almost completely sanitise the idea of abortion by calling it “planned parenthood”, or of contraception by calling it “family planning”. The very word euthanasia is un-Christian (actually, pre-Christian). If we let the perverts have their way, soon we’ll say “gender” as if it had nothing to do with one’s own sex!
Fortunately, things are slowly changing. The general population does tend to react to unnatural politically correct nuEnglish (the word “gay” used as a pejorative was certainly not planned by the homos, and was heavily fought by the BBC before having to admit defeat in the face of reality), and I even seem to sense a shift to a more aggressive language here and there, with for example Michael Voris now openly and assertively saying “homos” where he would once have said “gays” or “homosexuals”. But we must persevere on this. We must become more assertive. We must free the language from liberal distortions and go back to the proper use of words.
Chi parla male, pensa male. He who talks badly, thinks badly. (Nanni Moretti)
Is there one area, just one area of the faith that the modernist, hippie, liberal, progressive, watered-down-the-faith, bongo-pounding, liturgy-destroying, church-wreckovation modernist crowd has not destroyed?
This asks Michael Voris in this brilliant video and I’m afraid that – if we consider “destroyed” in a sociological rather than sacramental meaning – we know the answer.
This video is not about the travesty in drags proposed by our pervert community, but about the real thing. The dramatic drop in marriages is – as the Catholics in the United States clearly haven’t developed a sudden desire for collective bachelorhood – obviously linked to the downplaying of this sacrament by the liberal clergy . Voris actually puts it stronger than that, defining such shepherds as “liberal or gay* or modernist priests” and pointing out to an issue that should be discussed more often, that is: priests who are liberal because they’re homosexual.
Homosexual or not homosexual, many a priest has a very comfortable “let’s wait” attitude, which is in the best case similar to a “can’t be bothered” attitude, and in the worst to a “I agree with you” attitude. The idea is that, given time, everything adjusts itself and the prodigal (but oh so nice; and with the heart in the right place; and certainly environmentally friendly) sons and daughters will come back to marriage and sacramental life once they are settled.
“Are you mental!? No they do not come back!”,, is Voris’ emphatic answer. And in fact you must ask yourselves how would parents be considered who, seeing their children taking drugs and drifting toward alcoholism, reacts by saying “hey, no big deal; they’ll stop in due time”, and how many of those unfortunate teenagers would grow up to be responsible adults rather than, alas (can I say that without anyone being “hurt”?) junkies and drunkards. There’s a reason why a priest is called “father” instead of, say, “favourite, all-forgiving grand-grandmother”: his duty is to give guidance, to reproach when it is suitable, and to be able of showing some tough love when necessary.
The protestantisation of the liturgy has led us to this, because the protestantisation of the liturgy unavoidably leads to the protestantisation of the theology.
This unless even worse – like a homosexual priest pursuing his own diabolical agenda – is at play. Voris again refers to the problem when he invites his listeners to check that his priest is not a “less than ideal model of masculinity-priest” and he once again makes a connection with this and the “social justice”, “inclusiveness” mania.
The last remark is a rather general one, but valid nonetheless: in a very general sense, liberal priests are sawing off the branch they’re sitting on, as those “modern couples” who never came back are unlikely to fund their retirement.
A brilliant video, and one which in my eyes denotes Voris’ new, rather stronger stance about homosexuality both inside and outside the clergy.
* “gay” means here, strangely enough, “homosexual”.
Below, the links to some older Michael Voris videos that were the object of a blog post.
In some cases, you might have to copy and paste an old link, or register to Real Catholic TV. Not a bad idea anyway.
I have repaired the links or looked for new ones when necessary. I trust the links to the videos all work fine. It is surprising how short-lived a link can be.
Enjoy this Michael Voris wreath.