Daily Archives: March 20, 2012
You would think US Catholics are rather spread in the traditional coastal regions of the North East and in the regions of newer emigration like California, whilst the “Bible Belt” is the unassailable fortress of the Evangelicals. Well, yes, and no.
It turns out Catholics are experiencing healthy growth in the region. So much so, that some dioceses like Charlotte expect to double the number of Catholics in the next 20 years, after healthy growth in the past.
In another rather impressive news, a future seminary and a community of cloistered nuns have united their wallets and bought a rather impressive plot of land of almost 500 acres (to you Europeans, that’s almost 200 hectares, or almost 2 square kilometres) in the same region.
It is rather notable to read that whilst historic seminaries are closed in Europe (because of corruption and homosexuality, like in Austria; or scandalous inefficiency like in Ireland) new ones are built where people still care, and Catholicism receives an infusion of new energy. Where people do not care – and the hierarchy with them – what we have is DVDs explaining to the faithful which churches will be closed (those with conservative, pro-Summorum Pontificum priests, rather), whilst the church leaders ceaselessly insist on how “nuanced” they are.
I rather have the impression the cloistered nuns are not very “nuanced”, and the seminarians destined to come out of the new erected structured might be not much less conservative, either.
Guess where Catholicism will thrive, and where it will languish.
the answer is here.
If you think this man was the, erm, Republican candidate only four years ago, you realise how much better the chances are this year; and, of course, how dangerous it would be if Romney were to win in Tampa.
Est modus in rebus, of course, and the candidate should be able to appeal to broad sections of the electorate. But with the likes of McCain the Republicans run the risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Reblog of the day
The Magisterium is the teaching authority, or the teaching office, of the Church; the way we use to express the fact that the Church has the right to teach us what is the Truth. It comes from the Latin Magister, “teacher”.
The Magisterium is divided into two:
1. Infallible Magisterium, called Sacred Magisterium and
2. Fallible Magisterium, called Ordinary Magisterium.
The Infallible Magisterium is, in turn, divided as follows:
1.1. extraordinary declarations of the Pope, speaking ex cathedra. This is the typical subject coming out when there is any discussion about “infallibility”. An example is the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
1.2.extraordinary conciliar decrees. This is when not a Pope, but an ecumenical council declares what the entire Church holds as true. An example is the declaration of papal infallibility made by the First Vatican Council.
1.3. ordinary and universal Magisterium…
View original post 1,217 more words
Interesting article from Instapundit.
It points out to the fact that in the same way as abortionists tend to, well, abort, environmentalist with their fanatical fear for the Earth tend to make fewer children too (egotism, of course; the eternal adolescence typical of the breed; the desire to be an anorak forever).
Meanwhile, conservative Catholics (and conservatives, in general) reproduce like it’s going out of fashion. Give it one or two generations, and the results will not be late in showing up.
I liked very much the reference that Gore in 2000 (not 2004, of course; in 2004 Bush run against Kerry) lost because of the children aborted in Florida. Tragic for the murdered children of course, but ruthlessly true; apart for the fact of course that if the Florida democrats had been less abortionists in some measure, they would have been, unavoidably, less Democratic in pretty much the same measure.
Incidentally, this reminds me of the pacifist nutcases in the Eighties’ Italy, seriously (or so it might seem) telling you that it didn’t make sense to make children in a world destined to be destroyed in a nuclear catastrophe. Whereas, apart from the obvious madness of the argument, no one ever explained to me why it would be better not to be born than to be born and die in a nuclear war.
One was reminded of the vegetarian’s mantra: I love cows so much, that I don’t want them to be born.
And in fact, the clear resurgence of pro-lifers in the United States – particularly evident in the new generations – might be the result of the refusal of the abortionists to generate little abortionists, preferring to murder them instead.
As the author of the article very funnily observes,
Childlessness is inherited. If your parents don’t have kids, you won’t either.