Blog Archives

Let The World Take Care Of Its Own

Fire them.

Fire them.


Very interesting article on The Catholic Thing, revolving about two main issues:

1) the cost of the formation and upkeep of Catholic personnel, with or without holy orders.

2) the fact that some of these people, like the “sister” whose Creed begins and ends with the words “I do not believe in doctrine, I believe in love”, abuse the system and scrounge an entire life at the expense of those who, actually, believe in doctrine, not in what she (erroneously) calls “love”.  

I invite you to read the article. 

I personally would suggest the following: 

a) to Fr Pokorsky, I would suggest a bigger assertiveness in proclaiming Catholic doctrine. “Sister” and her ilk should, if you ask me, have the ground taken from under their feet with an uncompromising, very vocal, very assertive stance on Catholic doctrine. In my experience (and I have an awful lot of these experiences) when truth is said whole, loud, and without regard for sensitivities the subversive either shut up directly (most of them) because they see that it’s not the right weather for their silliness, or they are smashed against the wall of their own faithlessness, thus losing credibility among honest Catholics. I do not know whether Father gave “sister” a good dressing down in front of the others and prefers not to mention it in his post, but I surely hope he did. 

We are Catholics. We are counter cultural. We seek conflict, because this is what Jesus did. 

b) In general, I can’t avoid thinking “sister” should be deprived of her (not donned) habit and smashed on the street irrespective of age, health condition, and any cat involved.

Let the world care for their own. If Sister has no loyalty to Christ, she should not live at the expense of Christians. No one dies of cold and hunger in the modern United States. The Taxpayer takes care of it. Or the Catholic organisations which give shelter and food to the very poor, to which “sister” would be most heartily invited, and you’re welcome.

The taxpayer is largely secular, and therefore it is the largely secular taxpayer that – the modern social security system being what it is; I am not advocating it, merely registering its existence – should bear the cost of keeping these useless people alive. No one has a right to become, or remain, a religious sister. Particularly a “sister” whose faith is not Christianity, but her own view of “love”, and who openly rejects Christian doctrine. 


The queue to the soup kitchen is there, ma’am. 

You see: I believe in both doctrine, and fairness. 


Hidden Motives

John Martin, “Sodom and Gomorrah”

I have often written on these pages that I regularly suspect all those “alternative” priests and bishops unable to accept Church teaching of having hidden motives for doing so; in other words, I have the persistent suspicion that at least in a great number of cases, a priest of bishop “dissenting” from Church teaching has a mistress, or is a homosexual, or a paedophile, or such like.

Infallible Church teaching is immutable and granitic, and traditional Church teaching like priest celibacy extremely well-rooted; to complain about it should be, besides being sinful in many cases, a bit like complaining for the existence of winter.

If, therefore – my thinking goes – a Christian is opposed to Christian Truths, his opposition must originate from a deep hatred inside of him for the rules he is supposed to follow. This must be even more true, if this Christian has in the past even decided to become a Catholic priest, with all this implies.

Consequently, if a priest suddenly expresses himself against Male Priesthood I can’t avoid thinking that he feels a female; if he opposes priest celibacy after having accepted it at his ordination I can’t avoid thinking he has a woman on the side and lives his celibacy as an “injustice” (or, perhaps, his mistress does…); if his teaching his obsessively based on the Church having to be more “open” and “accepting”, I can’t avoid thinking he has in his life “accepted” a lot he shouldn’t have, and is more “open” than is good for him.

And thinking of it: why should a normal priest, without perversions or mistresses or other grave failings, suddenly start to “dissent”? Is this not the life he chose? Is this not the institution he decided to belong to, with the rules he promised to obey? Why on earth should a priest or bishop suddenly become a “dissident”, unless it be because his inner dimension has put him in utter conflict with the Church?

More often, though, our “dissident” will not attack the direct source of his own conflict. Firstly, there is a clear issue of giving oneself away: start thundering against male priesthood and the pewsitters will start thinking very hard about why father always had a strangely pitched voice and weird mannerisms, or if he suddenly discovers a problem with male celibacy predictable questions will be – overtly or covertly – posed about why in all the years in seminary (and on the job afterwards) the problem didn’t seem so pressing. Cui prodest?

Secondly, by attacking the Church indirectly Father Lover Man (or Father Faggot, as the case may be) will appear modern and beautiful, daringly innovative and committed to “justice”; thus softening the blow if something should come up about Lara, or – even – Jim.

This is, I think, the reason why so many priests lean so much out of the window to criticise the – already shamelessly populistic – position of the Church on issues of “poverty”, “immigration”, “inclusion”, and all those conveniently popular words, and show themselves at the same time so “committed” to “social issues” rather than to the priesthood. Their aim is to attack the authority of the Church in a way that makes them popular without exposing them to direct suspicion, and to soften the blow if they are outed because they are oh so “engaged” in “social work”. Jimmy Savile did it with great success, apparently, and I am sure he wasn’t the only one.  We should ask the BBC about that, though. They must know a lot…

An example – admittedly, an extreme one; but it gives the idea – is the one of the former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland.

The former Archbishop was long known for his very advanced “social” ideas and theology; what was less known of him was his penchant for sodomy, a habit he could enjoy with impunity for long years of, erm, “social commitment”.  So loving of the poor was the Archbishop, that he came to the point of paying hundreds of thousands of dollar in hush-money to the poor lover “queen” who was threatening to expose him. Talk about commitment, solidarity,and “preferential option for the poor”. He was found out and, if unfortunately never officially prosecuted and jailed for embezzlement of pewsitters’ cash, at least kicked out of his position.
He still lives at the expense of the faithful, I am informed, instead of being defrocked and unceremoniously kicked out. This must be because the Church is lacking in charity.

If you think such an utter disgrace would at least have the decency to shut up, I must disappoint you.  Only a very few days ago he was making himself beautiful at the Church’s expenses again, softly lamenting Her lack of decisive action for the downtrodden etc.

In a twist that gives you truly the idea of how similar journalism has become to bad entertainment, the newspaper reporting the news merely mentions that “Weakland was archbishop of Milwaukee from 1977 to 2002”. That he had to go for being a homo who paid $450,000 of Diocesan funds to his male lover hasn’t been considered worth of a mention. Strange, this, because these liberal newspapers always have their keyboards full of the Church’s faults, when it suits them…

But then again, you see the mechanism: “social justice” is a very convenient way for those graving contravening to their wovs – or to natural justice – to a) make themselves beautiful, and b) make the Church look bad. The more discredited the Church is, the less discredited they will be.

Next time you read of some “dissenting” priest or bishop, remember Archbishop Weakland.


Why Dissenters Don’t Take A Hike

Old, but still teenagers.

On Insight Scoop, an interesting blog post dealing with the matter of “why dissenters remain in the Church”.  After all, Luther & Co. at least had the intelligence and logical thinking of drawing the consequences of their revolt.

The blog post article (in turn mentioning an essay) opines that in the end it is a matter of power: the power-obsessed liberals do not want to go away, they want to conquer and reign over nuChurch.  The same would be true, says the article, when the dissenters say that the Church “infantilise” them. Like a rebellious child, they are looking for….. power at the expense of the legitimate authority of the Church.

I found the theory very interesting and it is in my eyes unquestionable that the quest for power is an important part of liberal thinking. One is reminded of school and university, where the most vocal leftists were clearly looking for personal advantages and a political career and whenever you heard “we must this” and “we must that” you knew who was supposed to lead the “collective” effort.

Nevertheless, I would like to offer other three elements; of which two I would attribute largely to the female public (and please note that among “dissenters” women are clearly very well represented).

1) Ego or, if you wish, pleasure. Human beings as such tend to do what gives them pleasure, and to eschew what gives them pain. Dissenters act in a way that is not different: they please their ego by feeling “modern”, “progressive”, “inclusive” and “rebellious in a comfortable way”. But they mostly abstain from thinking this to the end, because to draw the consequences would be traumatic.To say “I have decided to leave the Church” would be very painful, because it would force them to really feel the gravity of what they are doing. As long as they don’t say that they want to go, they think themselves free to feel like “reformers” instead of what they are: heretics.

To make a parallelism with everyday life, think of the “wannabe rebel” adolescent who questions parental authority but continues to be fed and cared for by them. Were he to be kicked out of the parental home – or to decide to leave it and fend for himself – his rebellion wouldn’t be much fun anymore. Therefore he will choose to be rebellious from the comfort of the family. The well-fed, shirt-ironed, college-paid “rebels” are, and always will be, the vast majority.

2) Emotions. Some people (particularly women, but not only them) tend to put a huge premium on how they “feel”. In this perspective, thinking is merely an optional. Therefore, many dissenters (particularly women) will stay within the church (or thinking they do) because of the fuzzy feeling they get by calling themselves “Catholic” and still feel part of the oh so big family. This is the religion of their fathers and mothers, and they just don’t see as “fuzzy” to say to them (or to their tomb) that they have become Episcopalians, even if they are. “I have always felt comfortable in the Catholic Church”, they’ll say clearly revealing the inability to add 2+2 if it feels bad.

3) (Macho alert! Feminazis please look away now!!) Approval. The day a woman stops kidding herself (between seventeen and nineteen, mostly), she realises that women have in their genes a strong need for the approval of men. You see this happening anywhere, with women fighting for male approval in the office and dissing the female colleagues in their presence with an energy and passion men would never find (or care to find) to diss other men in front of women; or berating each other in what makes them cheap in the eyes of men (ever heard men calling each other “slutter”?). I could make much stronger examples, but the important thing for us is that the same mechanism is at work here.  These “emancipated” wannabe priestesses badly need to be approved by the same men they accuse of being oppressive to them. It’s…. dad all over again! They can’t do their own thing, leave the church, get a beer with their friends, go to a bar and never give a dime for what the people of the opposite sex in the church they have left think, as men would.  No. They must get men’s approval, and in their deluded minds they think that if they only nag men for long enough, they’ll get their way. Foolish but, I must say, very gender typical. Works rather well on an individual level, anyway.. 😉

And so there we are, with this singular mixture of ego trips (“the Church doesn’t satisfy my needs“),  emotional orgies (” I always feeeelt that I was born a priesteeeeess”) and starvation for men’s approval (“I’ll not be satisfied until men approve of women priest”) causing what we are seeing: the strange phenomenon of rebellion without severance, and seeking approval from those rebelled against.


%d bloggers like this: